Plant-based is better for our health and the environment... or are they?

Plant-based foods offer all the necessary macronutrients, vitamins, and minerals for optimal health, and are often higher in fiber and phytonutrients than their animal-derived counterparts. However, eliminating meat does not automatically indicate more responsible consumption.

Photo by Steven Brown / Unsplash

Recent years have seen a rise in the popularity of plant-based diets, captivating people worldwide as more climate-friendly products become increasingly available on the market. The plant-based diet is a dietary pattern that emphasizes the consumption of plant-derived foods and the restriction of meats and animal-derived foods intake, sometimes including dairy and eggs. Reasons behind this dietary shift are diverse, ranging from concerns about personal health and animal welfare to environmental sustainability. As a result, the theory of practice of veganism, vegetarianism, or pescatarianism has transcended mere dietary preference to become a symbol of a broader societal shift towards more sustainable living practices.

Some historical context

In the last 50 years, our diets have shifted from homemade meals to more highly processed foods (and drinks) with higher added sugars, unhealthy fats, and sodium, as well as animal-sourced foods (ASF). While this ‘nutrition transition’ offers the fast, efficient, and convenient foodstuffs desirable in the modern world, their negative impacts on our health and the environment have become increasingly recognized since suboptimal diets and food-related environmental pollution contribute to 11 million premature deaths among adults in 2017 alone and 21-37% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE), respectively.

In the literature, diets high in plants (e.g. vegan and vegetarian) have been observed to produce fewer GHGEs and consume less water and energy compared to diets that incorporate high amounts of ASF. They also require less land than animal husbandry since meat production involves fodder production, which often involves the cultivation of monoculture crops.

Plant-based diets are also associated with many advantages for our health. Recent systematic reviews have found that plant-based diets (vegan and vegetarian, restricted and unrestricted) are good for weight status and type-2 diabetes (↑plants,↓obesity), and reduce the number of cholesterol, particularly for addressing overnutrition and cardiovascular risk.

With the rise in popularity of plant-based diets, more and more individuals are joining the movement. Transitioning to a less-meat lifestyle may be easier for those advocating for the ideologies behind plant-based dietary patterns or who have gastrointestinal disorder (i.e. lactose intolerance), but for meat-eaters who still find themselves longing for the taste and texture of ASF, this involves adaptation. Such an adaptation gives rise to innovative substitutes that are crafted entirely from plant sources but bear a striking resemblance to their animal-derived counterparts, including plant-based milk and meat products.

Plant-based milk

Plant-based milk analogs derived from soybean, oat, coconut, hemp seeds, cocoa, and multigrain are becoming a rising trend widely available in supermarkets and coffee shops worldwide, offered as an emerging segment of functional, more environmentally sustainable beverages, and a substitute for dairy milk.

From a nutritional perspective, dairy milk still provides higher protein content than its plant-based alternatives and contains complete essential micronutrients (B12, Ca, K, Mg, Na, and P) and bioactive compounds. To accommodate the absence of those nutrients, plant-based milk alternatives are usually fortified with those micronutrients.

Even fortified, a cross-sectional study of over 5,000 healthy children found that plant-based milk consumption is associated with lower childhood height, with a height difference of 1.5 cm. This height difference is impacted by the milk proteins found in dairy milk, casein, and whey, as well as the insulin-like growth factor IGF 1. Additionally, casein in dairy milk slows down our digestion so that our intestines can absorb the nutrients in milk better and satiate our hunger, making milk a classic development product to address hunger and improve food security. However, association does not equal causation. The causal relationship between the consumption of plant milk and height still requires further research, as height growth in humans is also influenced by other factors, namely genes, race, birth weight, hormones, and the environment.

Plant-based meat

Let’s take a look at another popular example: plant-based ‘meat’ products.

The Impossible Burger is one of many examples of innovative plant-based meat alternatives that have emerged in recent years, offering consumers a meat-like flavor profile without the environmental impact of traditional beef. These plant-based hamburger patties, crafted from a blend of plant proteins, such as soy, pea, potato, rice, wheat, and mycoprotein, closely resemble red meat in taste and texture. Many studies on the environmental benefits of plant-based diets show that opting for plant-based meat generally has a lower ‘foodprint’ compared to red meat and lowers chronic diseases.

But is it the same across the board?

Modeling studies show clear environmental benefits of consuming fewer animal-based products, particularly beef, lamb, mutton, prawns, and cheese (listed by order of emitted GHGE per kilogram of food product). However, much of the data used for these modeling were obtained from high-income countries, where industrial farming represents the status quo. Conventional industrial animal farming is a large-scale animal production system, where livestock is managed on densely populated land. It is often associated with two non-CO2 greenhouse gases, namely methane (CH4) from the ruminants’ digestive system and nitrous oxide (N2O) present in their urine and dung. These consequences are closely associated with types of rearing systems, feed production, and manure management practices.

But because food production contributes to the largest environmental impact compared to other elements in the food system (processing 4%, transport 6%, packaging 5%, retail 3%), determining more climate-friendly products requires us to consider the nuances of livestock practices and management systems.

For example, regenerative grazing practices, such as managed grazing, agroforestry, and silvopastoral practices, offer a more sustainable alternative as they promote the managing and adjusting of the number of animals through adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing.

This method is done by dividing the grazing area into several smaller sections for the herd based on the feed availability, followed by grazing for short periods, which leaves enough plant leftovers for regrowth and gives plants plenty of time to recover between grazing sessions. Production management systems such as this produce lower GHGE than plant-based meat, which implies that ‘better’ products are more about how they were produced and less about the commodity itself (animal- or plant-based).

The same holds true for its impacts on our health.

Production management systems influence commodities’ nutritional and health value. For example, grass-fed versus corn-fed ruminants produces different meat quality. Grass-fed cattle have a better ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) and saturated fatty acid (SFA) than cattle fed with corn, which plays a role in lowering serum cholesterol in humans.

Real food or processed plants?

In plant-based product alternatives, additional measures are often taken to enhance the micronutrient content and nutritional equivalence to regular meat. This includes the incorporation of micronutrients, such as zinc, iron, and B vitamins, as key ingredients of such products.

Here are some examples of the nutrition labeling of plant-based milk (top) and meat (bottom) alternatives. Taking a closer look at the top five ingredients listed, how can we be sure that this particular plant meat provides a healthier alternative?

Ingredients list of Silk Soy Milk (Original)

Ingredients list of The Impossible Burger

Soybeans (whole or concentrated) provide the main protein content of both products. While soybeans contain all essential amino acids required by the body for growth and repair and are comparable to animal protein, they also contain trypsin inhibitors and phytic acid, which may interfere with nutrient absorption and digestion in some people.

Oils are added as emulsifiers so the products resemble the viscosity of dairy milk and the juicy mouthfeel of regular meat. This addition requires careful attention, particularly when oils rich in omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (e.g. sunflower oil, soybean oil, corn oil) are selected, as excessive consumption is associated with heightened production of proinflammatory mediators that can potentially worsen conditions like cardiovascular disease and rheumatoid arthritis.

Compared to other ultra-processed foods (UPF) products, the sodium content of this particular plant-based meat patty seems normal. However, this number is much higher when compared with a frozen beef patty, which only has 74 grams of sodium. Given the common tendency to replace animal products with plant-based UPFs characterized by high energy density, as well as sodium, saturated fat, and free sugar content, it is recommended for plant-based eaters to be mindful of the healthy daily sodium intake threshold (2000 mg/day per 2000 kcal).

Choosing the ‘right’ products

So, what’s the verdict? How do we strike a balance between choosing what’s good for us and the planet?

1) Know your context.

Ultimately, the goal of food systems should center on providing food and nutrition security, so this context should be prioritized. Studies have shown that plant-based diets are mostly beneficial in reducing overnutrition and cardiovascular risk. In populations with a high prevalence of such diet-related diseases, promoting adherence to plant-based dietary patterns can help achieve food system outcomes based on the issue of concern.

This will look different among populations with high rates of undernutrition, such as stunting, wasting, and underweight, who will benefit from an increase in the intake of animal-derived products. For example, in rural India, where vegetarian diets are most preferred and the prevalence of anemia is still high, plant-based proteins may not provide sufficient iron levels as much of it is less easily absorbed than its animal-derived counterparts (2-10% of total iron consumed versus up to 35% of total iron consumed, respectively). This is particularly relevant in vulnerable groups, such as pregnant and lactating women and children, who would benefit more from consuming ASF to avoid anemia and stunting.

Accordingly, in places where undernutrition is high, such as in Indonesia, adherence to plant-based dietary patterns should be carefully promoted due to its suboptimal micronutrient contents.

2) Learn the labeling.

Educating ourselves by learning about nutrition facts empowers us as consumers to make more responsible choices for our diet. Assuming that nutrition labeling contains the right information, understanding its content means making informed decisions about what we consume. This knowledge allows us to choose the products that align with our health goals; whether reducing calorie intake, limiting salt, sugar, and fat consumption, increasing our intake of essential nutrients, complementing the absorption of other nutrients, or balancing our hormones.

3) Personalize your food.

If you were presented with imported plant-based milk from a distant factory and locally-produced dairy milk from a neighboring farm, which product would you choose? How about between lab-based rice with meat protein and tofu and tempeh from genetically modified seeds? Our decisions about food depend on a multitude of factors, such as taste, habit, culture, cost, time, preferences, health, availability, access, and appetite. Only with an understanding of the complex nature of food and its interlinkages with other systems can we find the products that best suit our circumstances.

References:

1. Gökçen, M., Aksoy, Y.Ç. and Ateş Özcan, B. (2019) ‘Vegan Beslenme Tarzına Genel Bakış’, Sağlık ve Yaşam Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(2), pp. 50–54. doi:10.33308/2687248x.201912152. 

2. Boland, T. (2016). What Are the Greenhouse-Gas-Emission Impacts Associated With Vegan, Vegetarian, and Meat Diets in the United States?

3. van Vliet, S., Kronberg, S.L. and Provenza, F.D. (2020) ‘Plant-based meats, human health, and climate change’, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.00128. 

4. Patterson, E. et al. (2012) ‘Health implications of high dietary omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids’, Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism, 2012, pp. 1–16. doi:10.1155/2012/539426. 

5. Geburt, K. et al. (2022) ‘A comparative analysis of plant-based Milk Alternatives Part 2: Environmental impacts’, Sustainability, 14(14), p. 8424. doi:10.3390/su14148424. 

6. Collard, K.M. and McCormick, D.P. (2021) ‘A nutritional comparison of cow’s milk and alternative milk products’, Academic Pediatrics, 21(6), pp. 1067–1069. doi:10.1016/j.acap.2020.12.007. 

7. Scarborough, P. et al. (2023) ‘Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show Discrepant Environmental impacts’, Nature Food, 4(7), pp. 565–574. doi:10.1038/s43016-023-00795-w. 

8. Müller, P. (2020) ‘Vegan diet in young children’, Global Landscape of Nutrition Challenges in Infants and Children, pp. 103–110. doi:10.1159/000503348. 

9. Bhatnagar, R.S. and Padilla-Zakour, O.I. (2021) ‘Plant-based dietary practices and socioeconomic factors that influence anemia in India’, Nutrients, 13(10), p. 3538. doi:10.3390/nu13103538. 

10. Kyriakopoulou, K., Keppler, J.K. and van der Goot, A.J. (2021) ‘Functionality of ingredients and additives in plant-based meat analogues’, Foods, 10(3), p. 600. doi:10.3390/foods10030600. 

11. Teague, R. and Kreuter, U. (2020) ‘Managing grazing to restore soil health, ecosystem function, and ecosystem services’, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.534187. 

12. Forabosco, F., Chitchyan, Zh. and Mantovani, R. (2017) ‘Methane, nitrous oxide emissions and mitigation strategies for livestock in developing countries: A Review’, South African Journal of Animal Science, 47(3), p. 268. doi:10.4314/sajas.v47i3.3. 

13. Paul, B.K. et al. (2020) ‘Sustainable Livestock Development in low- and middle-income countries: Shedding light on evidence-based solutions’, Environmental Research Letters, 16(1), p. 011001. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abc278. 

14. Moekti, G.R. (2020) ‘Industrial Livestock Production: A review on advantages and disadvantages’, IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 492(1), p. 012094. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/492/1/012094. 

15. GBD 2017 Diet Collaborators. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 393, 10184 (2019)

16. Rosenzweig, C. et al. (2020) ‘Climate change responses benefit from a Global Food System Approach’, Nature Food, 1(2), pp. 94–97. doi:10.1038/s43016-020-0031-z. 

17. Lynch, H., Johnston, C. and Wharton, C. (2018) ‘Plant-based diets: Considerations for environmental impact, protein quality, and exercise performance’, Nutrients, 10(12), p. 1841. doi:10.3390/nu10121841. 

18. Rampalli, K.K. et al. (2023) ‘Why Understanding Food Choice is crucial to transform food systems for human and planetary health’, BMJ Global Health, 8(5). doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2022-010876. 

19. Morgan, A.E. and Fanzo, J. (2020) ‘Nutrition transition and climate risks in Nigeria: Moving towards Food Systems Policy Coherence’, Current Environmental Health Reports, 7(4), pp. 392–403. doi:10.1007/s40572-020-00292-3. 

20. Hallström, E., Carlsson-Kanyama, A. and Börjesson, P. (2015) ‘Environmental impact of dietary change: A systematic review’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 91, pp. 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.008. 

21. Chai, B.C. et al. (2019) ‘Which Diet has the least environmental impact on our planet? A systematic review of vegan, vegetarian and omnivorous diets’, Sustainability, 11(15), p. 4110. doi:10.3390/su11154110. 

22. Medawar, E. et al. (2019) ‘The effects of plant-based diets on the body and the brain: A systematic review’, Translational Psychiatry, 9(1). doi:10.1038/s41398-019-0552-0. 

23. Neufingerl, N. and Eilander, A. (2021) ‘Nutrient intake and status in adults consuming plant-based diets compared to meat-eaters: A systematic review’, Nutrients, 14(1), p. 29. doi:10.3390/nu14010029. 

24. Paul, A.A. et al. (2019) ‘Milk Analog: Plant based alternatives to conventional milk, production, potential and health concerns’, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 60(18), pp. 3005–3023. doi:10.1080/10408398.2019.1674243. 

25. Sethi, S., Tyagi, S.K. and Anurag, R.K. (2016) ‘Plant-based milk alternatives an emerging segment of Functional Beverages: A Review’, Journal of Food Science and Technology, 53(9), pp. 3408–3423. doi:10.1007/s13197-016-2328-3. 

26. Morency, M.-E. et al. (2017) ‘Association between noncow milk beverage consumption and childhood height’, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 106(2), pp. 597–602. doi:10.3945/ajcn.117.156877. 

27. Astolfi, M.L. et al. (2020) ‘Comparative elemental analysis of Dairy Milk and plant-based milk alternatives’, Food Control, 116, p. 107327. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107327. 

28. Chalupa-Krebzdak, S., Long, C.J. and Bohrer, B.M. (2018) ‘Nutrient density and nutritional value of milk and plant-based milk alternatives’, International Dairy Journal, 87, pp. 84–92. doi:10.1016/j.idairyj.2018.07.018. 

29. McIntyre, L. (2003) Food security: More than a determinant of health, Policy Options Politiques. Available at: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/assets/po/bank-mergers/mcintyre.pdf (Accessed: 29 March 2024). 

30. Torres-León, C. et al. (2018) ‘Food waste and byproducts: An opportunity to minimize malnutrition and hunger in developing countries’, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 2. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2018.00052. 

31. Park, Y.W. (2021) ‘The impact of plant-based non-dairy alternative milk on the dairy                     industry’, Food Science of Animal Resources, 41(1), pp. 8–15. doi:10.5851/kosfa.2020.e82. 

32. Hu, F.B., Otis, B.O. and McCarthy, G. (2019) ‘Can plant-based meat alternatives be part of a healthy and sustainable diet?’, JAMA, 322(16), p. 1547. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.13187. 

33. Ritchie, H., Rosado, P. and Roser, M. (2022) Environmental impacts of food production, Our World in Data. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food (Accessed: 29 March 2024). 

34. Pimentel, D. and Pimentel, M. (2003) ‘Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment’, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78(3). doi:10.1093/ajcn/78.3.660s. 

35. Forabosco, F., Chitchyan, Zh. and Mantovani, R. (2017) ‘Methane, nitrous oxide emissions and mitigation strategies for livestock in developing countries: A Review’, South African Journal of Animal Science, 47(3), p. 268. doi:10.4314/sajas.v47i3.3. 

36. Monteny, G., Groenestein, C. & Hilhorst, M. (2001) ‘Interactions and coupling between emissions of methane and nitrous oxide from animal husbandry’, Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 60, 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012602911339

37. Broucek, J. (2014) ‘Production of methane emissions from Ruminant Husbandry: A Review’, Journal of Environmental Protection, 05(15), pp. 1482–1493. doi:10.4236/jep.2014.515141. 

38. Ritchie, H. and Roser, M. (2024) Food production is responsible for one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, Our World in Data. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions (Accessed: 29 March 2024). 

39. Teague, R. and Kreuter, U. (2020) ‘Managing grazing to restore soil health, ecosystem function, and ecosystem services’, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.534187. 

40. Scollan, N. et al. (2006) ‘Innovations in beef production systems that enhance the nutritional and health value of beef lipids and their relationship with Meat Quality’, Meat Science, 74(1), pp. 17–33. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.05.002. 

41. Enser, M. et al. (1998) ‘Fatty acid content and composition of UK beef and lamb muscle in relation to production system and implications for human nutrition’, Meat Science, 49(3), pp. 329–341. doi:10.1016/s0309-1740(97)00144-7. 

42. Dooley, C. and Ryan, A.S. (2019) ‘Role of dietary macronutrients and fatty acids in obesity and metabolic risk in older adults’, International Journal of Obesity and Nutritional Science, 1(1), pp. 6–10. doi:10.18689/ijons-1000102. 

43. Pieper, J.R. and Barrett, D.M. (2008) ‘Effects of organic and conventional production systems on quality and nutritional parameters of processing tomatoes’, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 89(2), pp. 177–194. doi:10.1002/jsfa.3437. 

44. Impossible foods - burgers - 1/4 lb. patties x 10 (no date) www.fakemeats.com. Available at: https://www.fakemeats.com/Impossible-Burgers-1-4lb-patties-x-10-p/imp-burgers-14.htm (Accessed: 29 March 2024). 

45. Messina, M. et al. (2018) ‘No difference between the effects of supplementing with soy protein versus animal protein on gains in muscle mass and strength in response to resistance exercise’, International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism, 28(6), pp. 674–685. doi:10.1123/ijsnem.2018-0071. 

46. Lönnerdal, B. (2010). Soybean ferritin: Implications for iron status of vegetarians. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92(5), 1005-1006. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.26736W.

47. Messina, M. (2014). Soybean isoflavone exposure does not have feminizing effects on men: A critical examination of the clinical evidence. Fertility and Sterility, 111(1), 36-42. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.03.002.

48. Kyriakopoulou, K., Keppler, J.K. and van der Goot, A.J. (2021) ‘Functionality of ingredients and additives in plant-based meat analogues’, Foods, 10(3), p. 600. doi:10.3390/foods10030600. 

49. Haddad, L. et al. (2016) ‘A new global research agenda for food’, Nature, 540(7631), pp. 30–32. doi:10.1038/540030a. 

50. Sari, K. and Sartika, R.A.D. (2023b) ‘The Impact of Iron Supplementation During Pregnancy and Change of Consumption among Stunting Children Aged 6‑24 Months During the COVID‑19 Pandemic in Indonesia’, International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(18). doi:10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_354_21. 

51. Fox, E.L. and Timmer, A. (2020) ‘Children’s and adolescents’ characteristics and interactions with the food system’, Global Food Security, 27, p. 100419. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100419. 

52. Daas, M.C. et al. (2023) ‘The role of ultra-processed foods in plant-based diets: Associations with human health and environmental sustainability’, The 14th European Nutrition Conference FENS 2023 [Preprint]. doi:10.3390/proceedings2023091009. 

53. Messina, M.J. et al. (2023) ‘Ultra-processed foods: A concept in need of revision to avoid targeting healthful and sustainable plant-based foods’, Public Health Nutrition, 26(7), pp. 1390–1391. doi:10.1017/s1368980023000617. 

54. Sodium intake of the U.S. population (2011) U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at: https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400530/pdf/DBrief/8_sodium_intakes_0708.pdf (Accessed: 29 March 2024). 

55. Facioni, M.S. et al. (2020) ‘Nutritional management of lactose intolerance: The importance of diet and food labelling’, Journal of Translational Medicine, 18(1). doi:10.1186/s12967-020-02429-2. 

56. Walther, B. et al. (2022) ‘Comparison of nutritional composition between plant-based drinks and cow’s milk’, Frontiers in Nutrition, 9. doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.988707. 

57. Lee, J.H. et al. (2018) ‘Factors affecting height velocity in normal prepubertal children’, Annals of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism, 23(3), pp. 148–153. doi:10.6065/apem.2018.23.3.148. 

58. Silk Soy Milk, Original, Dairy Free, Gluten Free, 64 FL OZ Half Gallon (no date) Walmart. Available at: https://www.walmart.com/ip/Silk-Soy-Milk-Original-Dairy-Free-Gluten-Free-64-FL-OZ-Half-Gallon/10295044 (Accessed: 31 March 2024).