ReviewNutrients2025
Nutrient Equivalence of Plant-Based and Cultured Meat: Gaps, Bioavailability, and Health Perspectives.
Review in Nutrients, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nutritional and Functional Fortification of Cultivated Meat: A Scoping Review.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Valorization of By-Products for Functional Ingredients in Meat and Meat Replacers: A Circular Bioeconomy Approach.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Modern Trends in Alternative Proteins and Processing Technologies for Sustainable Food Systems with Antioxidant Implications.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Sustainable proteins for future food systems: nutritional quality, environmental trade-offs, and consumer acceptance.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Meat provides high-quality protein and essential micronutrients such as vitamin B12, heme iron, zinc, and selenium, along with conditionally essential compounds including creatine, carnitine, and taurine. Growing concerns over environmental sustainability, animal welfare, and potential health risks associated with excessive meat consumption have spurred the development of plant-based and cultured alternatives intended to replicate the nutritional and sensory attributes of meat. This review critically examines the extent to which these emerging products achieve nutrient equivalence with conventional meat, focusing on essential and conditionally essential nutrients, their bioavailability, and implications for human health. After outlining the physiological importance of nutrients characteristically supplied by meat, the review compares the composition of plant-based meat analogs (PBMAs) and cultured meat prototypes. Differences in fortification strategies, ingredient formulation, and the presence of anti-nutritional factors are discussed in relation to nutrient absorption and utilization. Current PBMAs can approximate protein content but generally provide lower levels and reduced bioavailability of vitamin B12, heme iron, creatine, taurine, and long-chain omega-3 fatty acids unless fortified. Cultured meat offers theoretical potential for compositional optimization through cellular engineering but remains limited by scarce empirical data. Achieving nutrient equivalence with conventional meat thus represents a major scientific, technological, and regulatory challenge. Future progress will depend on integrating nutritional design into product development, validating bioavailability in human studies, and implementing transparent labeling to ensure that next-generation meat alternatives meet both health and sustainability goals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.