Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Sep 21;14(19):3903.
doi: 10.3390/nu14193903.

Nutritional Composition and Estimated Iron and Zinc Bioavailability of Meat Substitutes Available on the Swedish Market

Inger-Cecilia Mayer Labba  1 , Hannah Steinhausen  1 , Linnéa Almius  1 , Knud Erik Bach Knudsen  2 , Ann-Sofie Sandberg  1
Affiliations

Nutritional Composition and Estimated Iron and Zinc Bioavailability of Meat Substitutes Available on the Swedish Market

Inger-Cecilia Mayer Labba et al. Nutrients. .

Abstract

Transition towards plant-based diets is advocated to reduce the climate footprint. Health implications of a diet composed of meat substitutes are currently unknown, and there are knowledge gaps in their nutritional composition and quality. Samples of available meat substitutes were bought in two convenience stores in the city of Gothenburg, Sweden, and were included in the study. Meat substitutes (n = 44) were analyzed for their contents of dietary fiber, fat, iron, zinc, phytate, salt, total phenolics and protein, as well as for their amino acid and fatty acid composition. Bioavailability of iron and zinc was estimated based on the phytate:mineral molar ratio. We found large variations in the nutritional composition of the analyzed meat substitutes. Amino acid profiles seemed to be affected by processing methods. Mycoprotein products were rich in zinc, with a median content of 6.7 mg/100 g, and had very low content of phytate, which suggests mycoprotein as a good source of zinc. Degradability of fungal cell walls might, however, pose as a potential aggravating factor. None of the products could be regarded as a good source of iron due to very high content of phytate (9 to 1151 mg/100 g) and/or low content of iron (0.4 to 4.7 mg/100 g). Phytate:iron molar ratios in products with iron contents >2.1 mg/100 g ranged from 2.5 to 45. Tempeh stood out as a protein source with large potential due to low phytate content (24 mg/100 g) and an iron content (2 mg/100 g) close to the level of a nutrition claim. Producers of the products analyzed in this study appear to use nutritional claims regarding iron that appear not in line with European regulations, since the iron is in a form not available by the body. Meat substitutes analyzed in this study do not contribute to absorbed iron in a relevant manner. Individuals following mainly plant-based diets have to meet their iron needs through other sources. Salt and saturated fat were high in certain products, while other products were more in line with nutritional recommendations. Further investigation of the nutritional and health effects of protein extraction and extrusion is needed. We conclude that nutritional knowledge needs to be implemented in product development of meat substitutes.

Keywords: bioavailability; iron; meat analogues; meat substitutes; phy:Fe molar ratio; phy:Zn molar ratio; phytate; plant protein; plant-based; protein shift; sustainable nutrition; zinc.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Boxplot of iron content in analyzed meat substitutes, sorted and analyzed according to main source of protein. Line inside the box shows the median value, top of each box is the 75th percentile, and bottom of each box is 25th percentile. Whiskers are maximum and minimum values; small circles are outliers. A p-value < 0.05 is illustrated with * and a p-value < 0.01 with **.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Boxplot of zinc content in meat substitutes, sorted and analyzed according to main source of protein. Line inside the box shows the median value, top of each box is the 75th percentile, and bottom of each box is 25th percentile. Whiskers are maximum and minimum values. A p-value < 0.05 is illustrated with * and a p-value < 0.01 with **.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Boxplot of phytate content. Line inside the box shows the median value, top of each box is the 75th percentile, and bottom of each box is 25th percentile. Whiskers are maximum and minimum values. A p-value < 0.05 is illustrated with * and a p-value < 0.01 with **.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Molar ratio of phytate:iron in meat substitutes with an iron content ≥2.1 mg/100 g. The horizontal lines correspond to a phytate:iron molar ratio of 1 and 6 respectively: * product had a nutrition claim of iron.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Boxplot of the saturated fatty acid content, sorted and analyzed in meat substitutes based on added fat, as stated on the package. Abbreviations: C, coconut oil; S, shea butter; P, palm oil; SF, sunflower oil. Line inside the box shows the median value, top of each box is the 75th percentile, and bottom of each box is 25th percentile. Whiskers are maximum and minimum values.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Boxplot of the omega-3 (n-3) fatty acid content, sorted and analyzed in meat substitutes based on added fat, as stated on the package. The only n-3 fatty acid present in the meat substitutes was alpha-linolenic acid (ALA). Abbreviations: C, coconut oil; S, shea butter; P, palm oil; SF, sunflower oil. Line inside the box shows the median value, top of each box is the 75th percentile, and bottom of each box is 25th percentile. Whiskers are maximum and minimum values.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Clark M.A., Springmann M., Hill J., Tilman D. Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2019;116:23357–23362. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1906908116. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Springmann M., Godfray H.C.J., Rayner M., Scarborough P. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2016;113:4146–4151. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1523119113. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Poore J., Nemecek T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science. 2018;360:987–992. doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0216. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sanchez-Sabate R., Sabaté J. Consumer attitudes towards environmental concerns of meat consumption: A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019;16:1220. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16071220. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. De Koning W., Dean D., Vriesekoop F., Aguiar L.K., Anderson M., Mongondry P., Oppong-Gyamfi M., Urbano B., Luciano C.A.G., Jiang B., et al. Drivers and Inhibitors in the Acceptance of Meat Alternatives: The Case of Plant and Insect-Based Proteins. Foods. 2020;9:1292. doi: 10.3390/foods9091292. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources