Meat versus meat alternatives: which is better for the environment and health? A nutritional and environmental analysis of animal-based products compared with their plant-based alternatives

Background: Poor diets lead to negative health outcomes, including increased risk of noncommunicable diseases. Food systems, most notably agriculture, contribute to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) that lead to climate change. Meat consumption plays a role in both health and environmental burden. Consumption of meat alternatives may reduce these harms. The aim was to compare meat products and their plant-based alternatives on nutritional parameters, GHGE and price to examine if it is feasible and beneficial for policymakers and health professionals to recommend meat alternatives. Methods: Data on nutritional information and cost for 99 selected products were collected from five UK supermarkets. Estimates for GHGEs for 97 of these products were found through secondary articles. Median values for nutritional value, GHGE (kgCO₂e) and price per 100 g were calculated to allow comparisons between meat products and their alternatives. Mann–Whitney U tests were used to look for significant differences for each nutrient, emissions and price. Results: Meat alternatives contained significantly more fibre and sugar and were significantly higher in price compared to the equivalent meat products. Meat alternatives had a significantly lower number of calories, saturated fat, protein and kgCO₂e than meat products. There was no significant difference in the amount of salt between meat and meat alternatives. Conclusions: Overall, this paper found that meat alternatives are likely to be better for health according to most parameters, while also being more environmentally friendly, with lower GHGEs. However, the higher price of these products may be a barrier to switching to meat alternatives for the poorest in society.