Alternative Products for Meat and Dairy: Better for Health and the Environment?
Photo: Gabriela Brändle,
Agroscope
In recent years, plant-based foods have come on the market as alternatives to products of animal origin. Their aim: to positively influence sustainability and health. However, do they really do this? A study conducted by Agroscope and the University of Bern examined the issue.
Products of animal origin demonstrably have a greater adverse impact on the environment than plant-based products. In addition, a high consumption of red meat and processed meat is associated with health risks. It is also important to consider animal welfare.
Switching to a plant-based diet helps to meet these challenges, but requires extensive dietary adjustments. Plant-based milk and meat alternatives are therefore becoming more and more popular, as they are meant to allow a direct substitution of the original products. Examples of these replacements are traditional products such as tofu and falafel, as well as novel products such as soya schnitzel and vegan cheese. However, the question arises as to whether they fulfil their promise of being healthy, environmentally friendly foods.
Comprehensive nutritional modelling
To answer this question, Agroscope experts first of all determined the nutritional values and environmental impacts of over a hundred foods whilst taking into account their origin. The composition of two different dietary patterns – the current average diet and the recommended diet – was then determined. The meat and dairy products in both of these diets were then replaced by various alternative products, and the nutritional values and environmental impacts of these alternative diets were quantified.
Nutritional and environmental implications
The results show a high potential for reducing environmental impacts, especially with the replacement of meat. The substitution of dairy products also leads to a reduction of environmental impacts in most cases, although water consumption increases for some of the ingredients in the plant-based substitutes. Whilst certain nutrients are better represented in the alternative products, there are shortfalls of other nutrients. The supply of iodine, calcium and vitamin B12 is particularly critical here, since the requirement for these nutrients is at present largely covered by products of animal origin, and can thus only be compensated by artificial supplementation in the plant-based alternatives.
Consumer views
The perceived healthiness and sustainability of the products shows a positive correlation with the willingness to consume, with other characteristics such as price and taste also playing a role. However, it would appear that consumers interviewed during the study were ill equipped to assess the actual nutritional values and environmental impacts of the alternative products. Just under half of consumers wish for the alternative product to closely resemble the ‘original’.
The ethical and legal perspectives
From an ethical viewpoint, alternative products offer various advantages, eliminating the issue of animal welfare and reducing the environmental impact. However, the alternative products should be more than just imitations of meat and dairy products – they should stand on their own merits, thereby increasingly earning themselves a permanent place in traditional cuisine. The legal framework conditions for plant-based alternative products in Switzerland are clearly established, and there is little need for their modification. There is, however, potential for reducing obstacles to innovation by expediting approval processes.
Conclusions
- Plant-based meat alternatives have a lower environmental impact than meat. For dairy alternatives the issue is more nuanced, particularly due to the sometimes-high water consumption of the plant-based alternatives.
- From a nutritional viewpoint, plant-based meat alternatives can in general be recommended, provided that the shortfall of certain micronutrients is compensated for.
- Plant-based alternatives to dairy products should be viewed as supplements rather than replacements in the diet, since their nutritional content is often not equivalent to the ‘original’ product’s.
- Greater transparency in terms of nutritional value and environmental impact along the value chain would favour more-targeted decisions, both at the production and consumption stages.
- Focusing purely on imitating the original does not produce the desired results, since only a minority of consumers wish for this approach.
Bibliographical reference
Fleisch- und Milchersatzprodukte – besser für Gesundheit und Umwelt?.