ReviewThe Proceedings of the Nutrition Society2026
Plant-based analogues to meat and dairy for sustainable food systems.
Review in The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Various strategies across food systems are needed for a systemic change, with dietary shifts representing a meaningful pathway - particularly in high-income nations. Plant-based analogues (PBA) that mimic animal-based foods represent a promising strategy to facilitate such shifts because they require minimal behaviour adjustments. This review aims to synthesise nutritional, health and environmental evidence on PBA by examining their benefits, challenges and research gaps to inform and support evidence-based policy and practice. PBA generally have lower greenhouse gas emissions, land use and water use than their animal-based counterparts. Nutritionally, PBA are complex, varying across product brands, product types, processing techniques and primary ingredients. The limited health evidence shows that consumption of plant-based meat analogues tends to be associated with positive health outcomes, while consumption of some plant-based drinks can be linked to micronutrient deficiencies. Fortified PBA can contribute to daily recommended intakes and sometimes provide more micronutrients than their animal-based counterparts, while also providing more fibre and less energy and saturated fat. Despite these potential benefits, debates persist around processing classifications and their health implications. Given this complex landscape, assessing what kind of role PBA could play in our food systems will demand product-specific evaluation, targeted dietary recommendations and expanding the range of healthier PBA. To advance the field and accelerate dietary shifts without unintended consequences, critical considerations include strengthening the nutritional evidence base, classifying PBA further for dietary recommendations and informed regulatory approaches, understanding processing effects and use of additives, and standardising environmental outcomes and research beyond single ingredients.
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.