Comparing Nutrient Profiles of Meat and Fish with Plant-Based Alternatives: Analysis of Nutrients, Ingredients, and Fortification Patterns

Nutrient quality of plant-based meat and fish alternative (MFA) products has been reported as variable. The present objective was to compare the nutrient density of raw meat and fish with MFA products and to examine MFA ingredients and fortification patterns. Nutrient composition data for raw beef, pork, and chicken (<i>n</i> = 450) came from the USDA Standard Reference Legacy Reselase (SR28) nutrient composition database (<i>n</i> = 450). Data for plant-based meat alternatives (<i>n</i> = 118) came from the USDA Branded Food Products Database (BFPDB). Data for fish and seafood (<i>n</i> = 68) and alternatives (<i>n</i> = 12) came from the Danish Frida Database and Mintel (<i>n</i> = 503). Analyses compared macronutrient content and selected micronutrients per 100 g and percentage of US Daily Values. Nutrient density scores were based on the NRF5.3 algorithm. NRF5.3 scores were significantly lower for MFA products as compared to meat or fish. Saturated fat content was lower, but the mean MFA sodium content was 660 mg/100 g compared to 60 mg/100 g for beef. Mean protein content (17 g) was lower than for beef and pork (20 g). A search of ingredient lists found that fortification with most nutrients associated with animal source proteins (such as B vitamins, vitamin D, iodine, zinc, and omega-3 EPA and DHA) was minimal. Plant-based MFA products would benefit from nutrient standards and fortification guidelines to ensure that these products are not nutritionally inferior to the originals.