Health and environmental impacts of shifting to plant-based analogues: a risk-benefit assessment

Abstract

PurposePlant-based analogues (PBAs) simulate animal-based foods' attributes and can facilitate adherence to flexitarian and vegetarian dietary patterns, which have been associated with health benefits. However, possibly classifying PBAs as ultra-processed (UPF) and excluding healthy animal-based foods (e.g., fish) can result in unintended health risks. This study aims to quantify the health and environmental impact of replacing animal-based foods with PBAs.MethodsUsing data from the Portuguese National Dietary Survey (n = 3852 adults; 2015-2016), three substitution scenarios of animal-based foods with PBAs were modelled: vegan (replacing all animal-based foods with PBAs), ovolactovegetarian (replacing meat and fish with PBA), and pescatarian (replacing meat with PBA). Varying degrees of substitution (33%, 50%, 67%, 100%) and two classification approaches for PBAs were explored: UPF or non-UPF. The overall health impact was estimated considering several health outcomes (cancer, cardiovascular diseases and metabolic outcomes) combined through Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs). The environmental impact was measured through greenhouse gas emissions and land use.ResultsEnvironmental benefits were evident, especially for the vegan scenario. Regarding health impact, the 100% substitution of all animal-based foods (vegan scenario) might represent a risk if PBAs are classified as UPF (triangle DALY average = 72,109 years). The highest overall benefit was found for 100% substitution of meat only (pescatarian scenario) independently of considering PBAs as UPF or not (UPF: triangle DALY average = - 40,202 years; non-UPF: triangle DALY average = - 88,827 years).ConclusionPBAs can be considered feasible alternatives to animal-based foods, and the results emphasise meat substitution as a crucial factor for health and environmental benefits.