logo
Is Fake Meat Better for You Than Real Meat?

Is Fake Meat Better for You Than Real Meat?

New York Times17-02-2025

You've probably heard these two bits of nutrition advice: Eat more plants, and cut back on ultraprocessed foods.
So where does that leave fake-meat burgers, sausages, nuggets and other products sold by companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods? They are made from plants like soybeans and peas, but they are also highly processed.
If you ask the companies, they will tell you that their products are good for you. Nutrition experts say that there may be benefits, too. But while it's clear that eating red meat and processed meat is associated with health risks like heart disease, some types of cancer and earlier death, we really don't yet know how fake-meat alternatives might affect our health in the long term.
How do their nutrients compare?
The nutrient profiles of fake-meat products can vary widely, but two scientific reviews, both published in 2024, suggest a few patterns.
Compared with regular meat like ground beef, pork sausages and chicken, the plant-based versions typically have fewer saturated fats (a category of fats that have been linked to heart disease) and similar or slightly lower levels of protein.
A four-ounce burger made with 85 percent lean ground beef, for instance, contains 6.5 grams of saturated fat. An equivalent size Impossible Burger has a little less than that (six grams of saturated fat), and a Beyond Burger has a lot less (just two grams). On the other hand, a Gardein Ultimate Plant-Based Burger has nearly 40 percent more saturated fat (nine grams) when compared with ground beef.
When it comes to protein levels, the burgers are a lot more similar: The beef patty has 21 grams of protein, while the three plant-based versions have between 19 and 21 grams.
Plant-based meat products also typically contain some fiber — a nutrient associated with reduced risks of Type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer and heart disease. An Impossible Burger has five grams, a Beyond Burger has two grams, and a Gardein patty has one gram. Real meat lacks fiber entirely.
The main nutritional downside of plant-based meats is that they tend to contain far more sodium than uncooked and unprocessed meats like ground beef, pork chops and chicken breast, said Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Tufts University.
Of course, most people add at least some amount of salt to raw meat before they cook it, a spokeswoman for Beyond Meat said in a statement. The company's current burger and beef products contain less sodium than previous versions, she said, and they now use avocado oil instead of coconut oil, which has reduced saturated fat levels.
Fake-meat products generally have a better nutritional profile than red meat, said Dr. Frank B. Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
'The products are evolving very rapidly,' he said, adding that he hopes they keep getting better.
How might fake-meats affect health?
In two small studies that investigated the health effects of replacing real meat with plant-based alternatives like those from Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, Dr. Hu said, researchers reported mixed results.
One study, published in 2024, found that when 40 people in Singapore ate 2.5 servings of plant-based burgers, sausages or chicken per day for two months, they were no healthier than the 42 other participants who had similar amounts of real meat during the same time period. The researchers used fake meat products from Impossible Foods, Beyond Meat, OmniMeat (based in Hong Kong) and The Vegetarian Butcher (based in Britain). That study was funded by an agricultural research firm in Hong Kong that did not have a vested interest in the outcome, the study's lead author said.
In another study — this one funded by Beyond Meat and published in 2020 — researchers found some benefits associated with plant-based meats. Thirty-six healthy adults consumed about 2.5 servings of real meat per day for two months, and about 2.5 servings of plant-based products from Beyond Meat per day for another two months. At the end of the plant-based phase, the participants had lower cholesterol — and were a few pounds lighter — compared with the end of the real meat phase.
Christopher Gardner, a nutrition scientist and professor of medicine at Stanford University who led the 2020 study, acknowledged that people may be skeptical of its findings because it was funded by Beyond Meat. Industry-funded nutrition research tends to end up with results that are more favorable to the industry than research without industry funding. But with limited federal dollars for nutrition research, it's often the only way such studies are conducted, Dr. Gardner said.
He tried to minimize bias, such as by having outside statisticians analyze the data and by not allowing Beyond Meat to review the results of the study until it was accepted for publication.
The different findings from the two studies could have been related to differences in the participants, food products or study design, added Dr. Hu, who said the Stanford study was 'well designed and carefully executed.'
Regardless of these conflicting results, the data are 'promising,' Dr. Hu added. They suggest that the plant-based products may be beneficial for health — or at least not worse than meat. But, he said, 'we need much larger and longer-term studies' with independent funding sources to confirm that.
What about the processing?
One added complication is that fake-meat products typically fall into the ultraprocessed food category, which has generally been linked with greater risks of cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes and other health issues.
It's difficult to make products that replicate the tastes and textures of real meat without using highly processed ingredients, experts said. But it's not clear that all ultraprocessed foods are harmful, said Samuel Dicken, a research fellow at University College London who studies ultraprocessed foods.
We need more and better evidence to tease out how different ultraprocessed foods affect health. Given the available data, Dr. Dicken said plant-based meats were not the ultraprocessed foods he was most worried about. (Sugary drinks and processed meats were.)
The Bottom Line
If you enjoy the tastes and textures of meat but want to eat less of it, fake-meat products can be a helpful 'steppingstone to a more plant-forward diet,' Dr. Hu said. They may have some benefits for health, he said, and major benefits for the environment.
Even better, all of the experts agreed, is to shift your diet away from red meat and processed meat, and toward more whole food or less processed sources of plant protein like beans, lentils, tofu and tempeh. Swapping plant-based foods like legumes and whole grains for meat, for instance, has been clearly linked to reduced risks of heart disease and Type 2 diabetes. These foods are typically cheaper, too, Dr. Gardner said.
'Beans, peas and lentils, hands down, over the Beyond Burger,' Dr. Gardner said.
You can also try fish and chicken as healthier alternatives to red meat and processed meat, Dr. Mozaffarian said. Or, he added, use a portobello mushroom for your burger patty instead of ground beef. 'That's a real alternative,' Dr. Mozaffarian said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Unvaccinated students not allowed to attend Newton Public Schools starting this fall
Unvaccinated students not allowed to attend Newton Public Schools starting this fall

CBS News

timea day ago

  • CBS News

Unvaccinated students not allowed to attend Newton Public Schools starting this fall

Students who are not up to date on their vaccinations will not be allowed back inside of Newton classrooms this fall, according to Anna Nolin, the superintendent of public schools. In a memo sent to the Newton School Committee last week, Nolin says the district's decision to reinforce state vaccination requirements comes after a recent chickenpox outbreak in the district. 182 unvaccinated students A meeting with Newton Health and Human Services and the city's nursing division also revealed 182 students have been attending school without the proper immunizations since the COVID-19 pandemic. Officials say 42 of them are not fully vaccinated against measles, which raises concern for medical professionals like Dr. Shira Doron. The infectious disease physician at Tufts University is worried about the spread of measles amid a growing number of cases across the country. "You could have someone travel, you could have someone interact with a traveler who's been to an area of the country or of the world where measles is being actively transmitted bringing it back and causing an ongoing outbreak," she said. Her concern comes after a report earlier this month revealed that a tourist with measles visited Boston, potentially exposing people at the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, the Westin Boston Seaport District hotel, and Logan Airport. That's exactly why Corrie Howe, a resident of Newton agrees with the vaccine reinforcement. "Being a pediatric nurse, I feel vaccinations are really important especially for the overall community health," she said. Jennifer Miller echoed that sentiment saying, "I wouldn't want to have my children exposed to other children who aren't vaccinated," she said. However, Desiree Silva is a bit more hesitant when it comes to vaccines. She called the schools strict policy "absurd" saying, "I think it should be the parent's choice. I don't think anyone should be forced to get vaccinated." Exemptions allowed Massachusetts allows families to request an exemption from the state vaccination mandate if a doctor says it's not in the child's best interest or if it conflicts with religious beliefs.

Hold the Cream, Sugar — Black Coffee Is Good For Your Heart, Study Finds
Hold the Cream, Sugar — Black Coffee Is Good For Your Heart, Study Finds

Health Line

time2 days ago

  • Health Line

Hold the Cream, Sugar — Black Coffee Is Good For Your Heart, Study Finds

Researchers say daily coffee consumption can lower a person's overall mortality risk as well as their risk of death from cardiovascular disease. However, the benefits decline for those who add significant amounts of sugar and saturated fats, such as cream, to their coffee. If you don't enjoy the taste of coffee, experts say there are healthy alternatives that offer similar health benefits. Coffee might be good for your heart as well as your overall health, but you might want to order it black. That's the conclusion of a new observational study conducted by researchers from Tufts University and recently published in The Journal of Nutrition. In their findings, the researchers reported that people who drink one to three cups of caffeinated black coffee per day with little or no sugar or saturated fats added had a 14% lower overall mortality risk and a lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease compared to people who drink no coffee. They noted that drinking more than three cups a day was not associated with an additional risk reduction. The risk reduction was also not evident for people who add significant amounts of sugar or fats, such as cream, to their coffee. In addition, the researchers said they did not notice a lower cancer mortality risk among regular coffee drinkers. Zhaoping Li, MD, a professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, said this study adds to prior research on coffee's health benefits. Li wasn't involved in the study. 'What the study found is consistent with what we know,' she told Healthline. Maya Vadiveloo, PhD, RD, an associate professor in the Department of Nutrition at the University of Rhode Island and chair of the American Heart Association (AHA) Nutrition Committee, agreed. 'It's an interesting analysis in a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults that is largely consistent with existing studies finding the benefits of moderate coffee intake,' Vadiveloo, who wasn't involved in the study, told Healthline. Kristin Kirkpatrick, RD, the president of KAK Consulting and a dietitian at the Cleveland Clinic Department of Wellness & Preventive Medicine in Ohio, echoed these remarks. Kirkpatrick likewise wasn't involved in the study. 'The study is in line with previous studies showing mortality benefits to coffee consumption,' she told Healthline. 'I also think that highlighting the fact that what we put in our coffee is often the culprit for a less healthy drink is a critical point for consumers.' Black coffee may help you live longer In the new study, the researchers reached their conclusions by analyzing data from nine consecutive cycles of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1998 and 2018. Those cycles included a representative sample of 46,000 adults ages 20 and older who completed valid first-day 24-hour dietary recalls. They then linked that information with National Death Index mortality data on outcomes involving all causes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Li noted that the study used an older database that utilized information that was self-reported by participants. David Cutler, MD, a family medicine physician at Providence Saint John's Health Center in Santa Monica, California, emphasizes that the study only reports an association between lower mortality risks and coffee consumption. Cutler wasn't involved in the study. He said there are factors that could influence those results. One such factor could be the fact that people who drink coffee are generally healthier than those who don't. 'You shouldn't think that if you drink black coffee that it's going to extend your life,' Cutler told Healthline. 'That's not what the study says.' How adding sugar, cream to coffee impacts health A data trends report conducted earlier this year on behalf of the National Coffee Association reports that about two-thirds of people in the United States drink coffee each day. That trend has held steady over the past five years. However, the percentage of people who drink specialty coffees has increased by 18% during that same time period. Experts say what type of coffee people drink is important when it comes to health benefits. Li said that how a person 'dresses up' their coffee can make a big difference. Sugar and cream can add as many as 800 extra calories, and a pastry eaten with the beverage bumps that up even more. 'There's an overall calorie load as well as a sugar load and a fat load,' she said. 'I do think it's important to emphasize that it matters how coffee is prepared,' added Vadiveloo. 'A lot of coffee beverages, especially prepared beverages, are very high in added sugars and saturated fats, and those are not cardioprotective.' Kanwar Kelley, MD, a specialist in otolaryngology head and neck surgery, obesity medicine, and lifestyle medicine, and the co-founder and chief executive officer of Side Health, says there can be other downsides. 'Coffee is a stimulant and changes to the amount drunk daily could lead to some withdrawal symptoms like headache, tiredness, and fatigue,' Kelley, who wasn't involved in the study, told Healthline. 'Large amounts of caffeine can lead to jitteriness, palpitations, and anxiety.' Coffee has numerous health benefits Over the years, studies have reported that coffee can produce a number of health benefits. Among the advantages are a lower risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D), better brain health, protection against liver conditions, and a decreased risk of heart disease. Coffee also reportedly can help with athletic performance and weight management. Scientists aren't exactly sure why coffee seems to produce a number of health benefits, but there are some theories. 'Coffee has a number of beneficial compounds (caffeine, polyphenols), which reduce oxidation in the body, reduce inflammation, and can improve insulin sensitivity,' explained Vadiveloo. 'Coffee offers additional benefits beyond energy and focus,' added Kelley. 'Coffee contains chemicals that can act as probiotics for gut health and improve gut motility.' Li noted that some people may metabolize coffee quickly, while others metabolize it more slowly, which may cause problems for some people, including those with heart conditions. 'Some people may need to slow down and dial back [their intake],' Li said. Your DNA may play a role, too. 'Genetics may offer some insight into how much, or how little, coffee may be tolerable in an individual,' Kirkpatrick explained. 'Variations in a gene called CYP1A2 show that some genotypes are slow metabolizers of caffeine, meaning they should limit total caffeine intake to reduce cardiac risk.' 'Other genes, such as the ADORA2A gene, show variations in anxiety with caffeine consumption,' she added. Li added that coffee is not a healthy choice to combine with alcohol because you are ingesting both a stimulant and a sedative. For those who want or need to cut back on their coffee consumption, Li suggested green tea, which has about one-third of the caffeine of coffee but provides similar health benefits. She also recommended drinking filtered water, especially if you add fruits such as mangos or strawberries. Shaking up that combination in a water bottle is an option. 'It's tasty and it's healthy,' Li said.

The Case Against Using SNAP to Subsidize Soda
The Case Against Using SNAP to Subsidize Soda

Time​ Magazine

time3 days ago

  • Time​ Magazine

The Case Against Using SNAP to Subsidize Soda

On May 19th, Nebraska was granted the first waiver allowing a state to prohibit purchases of soda and energy drinks through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or food stamps. A few days later, waivers were approved for Indiana and Iowa to be able to exclude soda and candy, and soon after, waivers were granted for Arkansas, Idaho, and Utah. Waiver requests from several other states are waiting for approval. Through the years, the idea of not using SNAP to subsidize soda and candy has had bipartisan support. And the recent efforts to use SNAP to incentivize healthier eating are the latest sign of a rapid culture shift to get at the root causes of the epidemic of chronic diseases, which in large part is fueled by what we eat and drink. We're now approaching a tipping point that puts actual systemic changes in reach — changes that would improve the lives of millions of people. Momentum is picking up, and it's time to recognize that healthy eating, the desire for good health — for ourselves and for our children — is not a partisan issue. A study by Tufts University found that diet-related diseases cost the U.S. $1.1 trillion each year, and that 85% of all healthcare is connected to managing diet-related chronic also equal to the entire economic output of the food system—in other words, for every $1 we spend on food, we lose $1 in health costs. The toll in human terms from our diet is even worse, estimated to cause 500,000 deaths per year. Let's look at how we got here. SNAP is administered by the states but managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. States wanting to make changes in SNAP benefits need to seek a waiver from the federal government. The program serves over 42 million people nationwide each month, so changes in the program can have a huge health impact. When the program was enacted in 1964, there was a proposal in the House to prohibit sugary beverages, or SSBs. But some senators opposed it because it was thought that SNAP recipients were not likely to spend much of their benefits on things like soda. They were wrong. According to a 2016 study from the USDA, approximately 20% of SNAP's yearly $113 billion in spending — $23 billion — is used to buy unhealthy beverages and foods. This means taxpayers are paying twice — once to subsidize the purchase of the products and a second time to pay for treatment of their hugely costly health consequences. And a 2022 study found that children on SNAP consumed more sugary beverages and processed meats than children who were income eligible for the program but not participating. The government is not a neutral player — it can put its thumb on the scale toward sickness or toward health. A 2018 study in the journal PLOS Medicine found that offering a 30% financial incentive for fruit and vegetable purchases could prevent over 300,000 cardiovascular events and save over $6 billion in healthcare costs. Coupling that with a restriction on sugary beverage purchases prevents an estimated 797,000 cardiovascular events and saves $39 billion in healthcare costs. 'SNAP has looked essentially the same for over 60 years, despite scientific consensus that sugary drinks are harming our health,' wrote Christina Roberto and Alyssa Moran from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. 'By subsidizing sugary drinks with SNAP, we are rewarding an industry that limits choices for lower-income families, ensuring the lowest-quality food is the most available and affordable option.' Read More: What Is SNAP and What Challenges Is It Facing Under the Trump Administration? In 2004, Minnesota, under Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty, became the first state to request a waiver to prohibit the purchase of candy and soda with SNAP benefits. The request was rejected, with USDA Regional Administrator Ollice Holden responding that it would 'stigmatize food stamp recipients' and cause 'confusion and embarrassment' at checkout. 'Implementation of this waiver would perpetuate the myth that participants do not make wise food purchasing decisions,' wrote Holden. In the following two decades, this idea — that not subsidizing unhealthy foods would 'stigmatize' SNAP recipients — was used by many opponents of the waivers. But the epidemic of diabetes and obesity is a systemic problem exacerbated by the unhealthy choices people are being guided into and indeedswimming in. It's not a coincidence that diabetes and obesity rates soared as ultraprocessed foods and sugary beverages saturated the market. There is nothing 'stigmatizing' about taxpayers not paying for food and beverages that make you sick. In 2010, New York Governor David Paterson, a Democrat, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent at the time, requested permission to restrict soda from SNAP not for a permanent waiver but just for a two-year pilot program. A day later, Bloomberg got letters from the CEOs of Pepsi and Coca-Cola opposing the plan. As Murray Carpenter, author of Sweet and Deadly: How Coca-Cola Spreads Disinformation and Makes Us Sick, notes, in 2011 alone, the 'taxpayer-funded windfall' for Coca-Cola, Pepsi and other beverage makers was $3.7 billion.' Now that number is up to $10 billion a year. At the time, New York City officials estimated that each year $75 to $135 million in SNAP benefits was being spent on sugary beverages in the city. As Mayor Bloomberg noted, 'This initiative will give New York families more money to spend on foods and drinks that provide real nourishment.' The appeal landed during the Obama administration that had pledged to 'to solve the problem of childhood obesity within a generation.' That same year, First Lady Michelle Obama launched Let's Move!, her healthy eating and exercise initiative, which urged people to 'drink less soda or sugar-sweetened drinks.' It was attacked by Republicans, including Rep. Michele Bachmann, as being an example of 'the nanny state.' Though, in a rare show of bipartisanship, Obama was actually defended by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who said 'I do not think that she's out there advocating that the government take over our dinner plates.' Huckabee's daughter, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, is now one of the governors leading the charge to change SNAP benefits. The Big Soda lobby kicked into high gear to block New York's request and was joined by its strange bedfellows alliance of anti-hunger groups and their advocates in Washington. Eighteen members of the Congressional Black Caucus came out against the proposal. The New York Times explained that Coca-Cola and Pepsi were among the largest donors to the nonpartisan Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. As Marion Nestle, the renowned nutrition and public health advocate, put it, 'Soda companies have worked hard to create an environment in which drinking sugary beverages all day is normal… Soft drink companies have had a free ride for decades. I hope the USDA will approve New York's proposed ban.' New York's request was rejected. As New York City Commissioner of Health Thomas Farley put it at the time, this decision 'really calls into question how serious the U.S.D.A. is about addressing the nation's most serious nutritional problem.' Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack countered that 'incentive-based solutions… are better-suited for the working families, elderly and other low-income individuals' than restrictions are. He then added: 'We are confident that we can solve the problem of obesity and promote good nutrition and health for all Americans and stand ready to work with New York City to achieve these goals.' Turns out, his confidence was deeply misplaced. During the Obama administration, obesity rates went from 33.7% to 39.6%. Vilsack was right about one thing — that incentives do work. From 2014 to 2018, the USDA sponsored the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Program, which funded projects that incentivized the purchase of fruits and vegetables through SNAP. One such pilot in Massachusetts was found to have increased fruit and vegetable purchases by 11% and consumption by one-quarter cup per day. So, yes, incentives work, but given the scale of the crisis, why not use every tool at our disposal — including ending the ability for states to use taxpayer dollars toward soda and candy? Read More: What Experts Really Think About Diet Soda In December 2024, Colorado's Democratic Governor Jared Polis, who asked for a waiver in this latest round of requests, posted on X : 'Giving states the opportunity to focus on having healthier foods in SNAP should be our priority. Prioritizing healthy, fresh foods over junk food and soda will reduce the risk of having future health issues such as diabetes and cavities…Removing candy and soda and prioritizing fresh food will in turn lead to more healthy and fresh food on the shelves of stores in underserved areas.' In Kansas, Democratic Governor Laura Kelly asked for a waiver in April, with the request noting that Kansas has seen a rise in obesity, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease, which are 'linked to the consumption of soft drinks and candy.' Two days later, Kelly vetoed the Kansas legislature bill asking for a waiver, suddenly claiming 'it would make it more difficult for Kansans to access the food they need to feed their families,' and would 'harm Kansas businesses.' She considered that 'Kansans should eat healthier' but argued that 'changes to the SNAP food assistance program should be made at the federal level, not on a patchwork, state-by-state basis.' And yet it was the health of her own state's constituents that she had wanted to protect just a few days before. As Mark Joslyn, professor of political science at the University of Kansas, wrote, 'In a rational world, Kelly backs the bill. Kansas's troubling health outcomes should not be ignored.' But 'tribal politics' prevailed, Joslyn concluded, and 'Kelly — fair or not — comes across as a champion for Coca-Cola and Mars bars.' In April, Arizona's Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill requesting a waiver, saying that it would 'unnecessarily deprive' SNAP recipients of their purchasing power and 'relegates them to a new underclass of grocery shoppers.' Currently, the Healthy Snap Act of 2025, which would make the prohibition on purchasing soda and unhealthy ultraprocessed foods national, is pending in the Houseand Senate. But the fact of the matter is: it's possible to both argue against cuts in benefits and changes to those benefits that help people improve their health. If anything, ending the massive subsidies to soda and ultraprocessed food companies could increase public support for SNAP. We know that SNAP restrictions work, and we know that incentives to buy healthier foods also work. We now have momentum for fundamental change that could improve the health of millions of people. We need to do everything we can to keep the momentum going.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store