The range and nutrient profile of alternative protein products sold in Australian supermarkets between 2014 and 2021

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate changes in the range and nutrient profile of processed alternative protein “convenience” products available in Australia from 2014 to 2021. Product data were extracted from FoodTrack™, an established database of packaged supermarket products. Eligible products were grouped into subcategories: (i) tofu products; (ii) legume products; and (iii) plant-based meats. Nutrient composition was assessed from the products’ nutrition information panel. The number of alternative protein products in supermarkets more than doubled between 2014 and 2021 (+130%). On average, products were available for 2.2 years (range 1–7 years). Generally, tofu products had the highest contents of saturated fat and sodium, legume products had the highest contents of carbohydrates, sugar and fibre, and plant-based meats had the highest contents of protein and total fat (per 100 g). This study found large variation in the nutrient composition of these products, highlighting the importance of reformulation and consumer education in the future.

Keywords:

• Traditional meat alternatives
• plant-based meats
• vegetarian
• nutrition
• reformulation

Introduction

In recent years, there has been a rise, particularly in Western countries, in the number of individuals adopting a plant-based dietary pattern (Hargreaves et al. 2021). Consumer research insights suggest that one in three Australians are consciously limiting their meat consumption (CSIRO Futures 2022); in 2019, 10% considered themselves vegetarian or vegan, 12% meat reducers and 20% flexitarians (King and Weber 2019). Similar patterns have been reported in the UK and USA (Stahler 2019; Mintel 2020; Alessandrini et al. 2021; Stewart 2021; Tso and Forde 2021). The primary motivations for shifting towards a more plant-based diet (aside from religious reasons) are improved nutrition and health, and concerns over environmental and animal welfare (De Backer and Hudders 2014; Vainio et al. 2016; Rosenfeld 2018; Fresán et al. 2020; Hopwood et al. 2020; Ismail, Senaratne-Lenagala, et al. 2020; Ismail, Hwang, et al. 2020; Estell et al. 2021).

Traditional plant-based dietary patterns have a greater emphasis on minimally processed foods derived from plants, such as fruits and vegetables, wholegrains, legumes, nuts, seeds and oils (Ostfeld 2017). The recent EAT Lancet Commission highlighted the health and planetary benefits of consuming more plant-based foods, with flexitarian dietary patterns as an example of this eating style (Willett et al. 2019). Traditional plant-based foods, such as tofu and textured soy protein, have existed in the Western world since at least the 1960s (He et al. 2020; Elzerman et al. 2021), and are included in the Australian Dietary Guidelines within the meat and alternatives food group, along with legumes and pulses, nuts and seeds (National Health and Medical Research Council 2013). Despite their well-documented health benefits, legume consumption in most Western countries is low (Imamura et al. 2015; Australian Bureau of Statistics 2016; Gilham et al. 2018; Semba et al. 2021). Barriers to increasing legume consumption include lack of knowledge or cooking skills, time constraints, and taste and/or texture (Schösler et al. 2012; Figueira et al. 2019).

Designed to aid in the transition to a plant-based dietary pattern, alternative protein sources are being explored as possible substitute or complementary sources of protein to conventional animal-based protein sources. Rather than increasing intake of minimally processed plant-based foods, supplementing conventional meat and dairy products with alternative protein products is becoming more common (Wickramasinghe et al. 2021). Alternative protein products encompass a variety of meat-free products, some of which mimic the taste and texture of meat. They are usually derived from soy or other plant-based protein-rich foods, such as legumes, and are sold in various forms, including burger patties, sausages, stir fry cubes, mince and as formed meat-style products (e.g. chicken-style nuggets, or deli-meat alternatives) (Apostolidis and McLeay 2016). Plant-based meat products may offer a convenient and acceptable alternative for consumers to conventional meats, and may contribute to an individual’s vegetable/legume intake (Gilham et al. 2018; Tso and Forde 2021). However, the emergence and increased popularity of these products is concerning some public health and nutrition professionals. It has been suggested that a “health halo” exists around these products, where the health benefits of traditional vegetarian diets are assumed for new plant-based meat products, along with sustainability messaging, ultimately influencing consumer opinions (Oussalah et al. 2020; Tso et al. 2021). Some studies have assessed the nutritional adequacy and healthfulness of plant-based meat and dairy alternatives (Curtain and Grafenauer 2019; Angelino et al. 2020; Bianchi et al. 2021; Craig and Brothers 2021; Craig and Fresán 2021; Craig et al. 2021; Fresán and Rippin 2021; van Vliet et al. 2021); however, they are limited (Santo et al. 2020). In recognition of the limited evidence and significant knowledge gaps in the nutrient composition of alternative protein products, the World Health Organisation has called for more studies on the healthfulness of these plant-based products (Wickramasinghe et al. 2021).

In their audit of Australian supermarkets, Curtain and Grafenauer (2019) compared the nutrient composition of plant-based meats available in 2015 and 2019 to animal products of comparable culinary use (such as burgers, sausages and mince) from the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Food Composition Database. Plant-based meats tended to be lower in energy, fat and saturated fat (per 100 g) compared with conventional meat equivalents, and there was no difference in iron content. Sodium in plant-based mince was higher than the sodium of meat mince. In contrast, meat sausages contained more sodium than the plant-based sausages. These findings are similar to those reported in 2019 by Food Frontier in a cross-sectional analysis of red meat- and white meat-style plant-based meats compared to conventional red and white meat equivalents in 2019 (Food Frontier 2021), and those of Cutroneo et al. (2022) in their survey of 269 commercial meat analogues available in Italy. It is worth noting the methodological approach of these studies limited their comparisons to plant-based products that are specifically designed to mimic meat, and compared these to conventional meats, excluding other plant-based alternative products such as falafel and veggie burgers. To make recommendations regarding consumption of these products, an understanding of the entire product offering is needed.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to describe how the range and nutrient composition of plant-based alternative products, including tofu-based and legume-based “convenience” products, and plant-based meats, sold in Australian supermarkets has changed between 2014 and 2021. The nutrient composition of products available across the category each year were examined, as well as the products available over multiple years of data collection to investigate whether there is evidence of product reformulation within this category over time.

Materials and methods

Data for alternative protein products available in Australian supermarkets were obtained from the FoodTrack™ database; an Australian database for packaged food and beverages developed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the National Heart Foundation of Australia in 2014. It is updated on an annual cycle using information from supermarkets in metropolitan Victoria. With permission from local or national store managers, trained data collectors visited Woolworths (since 2014), Coles (since 2014), ALDI (since 2016) and IGA (since 2017) supermarkets, and used a customised App with barcode recognition software to collect product information and images of products for sale (The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) 2020). To allow for a comprehensive assessment of products available, each supermarket is visited twice (i.e. eight stores are visited in total). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, data collection for FoodTrack™ was suspended in 2020. Therefore, this study presents data for the years 2014–2019 and 2021.

For ease of collection, food and beverages are sorted into ∼80 categories in FoodTrack™, and where appropriate, sub-categories. For this study, products collected under the “Vegetarian-processed” grocery category were analysed. This category includes alternative protein products that are positioned as alternatives to processed meat products, including those which are designed to be included as part of a meal (e.g. more traditional meat alternatives, such as tofu blocks and textured vegetable protein requiring reconstitution) and products suited for convenience (e.g. products designed more as a direct substitute to conventional processed meat, such as burgers, sausages, falafel, schnitzels and deli slices). Vegetarian ready-made meals, such as vegetarian lasagne, along with canned and dried legumes, and products with pastry, such as vegetarian pies and pastries, are not collected under the vegetarian-processed grocery category in FoodTrack™.

Products collected in this category were grouped into four subcategories, based on their primary source of protein according to study definitions: (i) tofu; (ii) processed legumes; (iii) meat analogues; and (iv) other. To address the study aims, products were further divided into the following subcategories, based on the products’ form: tofu – blocks and pieces; tofu-based products; legume-based products; textured vegetable protein; plant-based meat products; and nil (Table 1). The purpose of this study was to examine the range of convenience products positioned as a direct replacement for conventional meat. Therefore, products designed to be included as an ingredient as part of a meal (i.e. tofu – block and pieces, and textured vegetable protein) were excluded (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Overview of the vegetarian-processed grocery category and subcategory of products included in the analysis. Counts are of products collected over all years of data collection.

Table 1. Description of the subcategories for products collected in the vegetarian-processed grocery category.

Subcategory	Definition
Tofu
Tofu blocks or pieces^a	All soybean/bean curd products including both plain (silken, firm, organic) and flavoured tofu/tempeh (sweet chilli, teriyaki)
Tofu products	Soybean-/tofu-based products made into different formats (e.g. tofu sausages)
Processed legumes
Legume products	Legume-based products (whole ingredient combinations, or kibbled/flour) including lentil burgers, falafel mixes/ready-made falafel
Meat analogues
Textured vegetable protein^a	Textured vegetable protein – plain or flavoured with spices, requiring reconstitution
Plant-based meats	Plant-based alternatives to processed meat products typically prepared as sausages, mince, strips, nuggets, burgers, hot dogs, slices, meatballs, fillets, bacon, pepperoni, luncheon meat, schnitzels, patties, nutmeat and other vegetarian processed meat and smallgoods equivalents. Products are often made from textured (or hydrolysed) vegetable protein, soy, pea protein, mycoprotein, wheat gluten.
Other
Nil^a	Products which do not contain tofu/soybean, legumes or plant protein (e.g. vegetable patties, canned jackfruit)

Products were grouped into their respective subcategory based on their primary source as per their ingredient listing: Tofu, tofu/soybean; traditional meat alternatives, legumes (whole, kibbled or as flour); or meat analogues, vegetable protein/wheat gluten. Products which did not contain any of the forementioned ingredients were considered “Nil”.

^a Products which were excluded from analysis.

Information, including product name, barcode, nutrients from the nutrition information panel (NIP) and serving size, for all alternative protein products in the FoodTrack™ database were exported to Microsoft Excel^® (version 2018) (Redmond, WA). Any energy values displayed in kilocalories were converted to kilojoules, using a factor of 4.2 (Hargrove 2007). Products with data displayed on the NIP as “per serving” was standardised to per 100 g (n = 3). Nutrient values which were recorded on packaging as “<1” were converted to a value of 0.01 and those recorded with a value of “<10” converted to 1. Outliers were identified using minimum and maximum values and by viewing boxplots. These values were then verified by reviewing the original photographs, and corrected if necessary. Products which did not display values for voluntary nutrients (dietary fibre and iron) were recorded as missing values.

Products which required reconstitution and presented data on the NIP as the products “dry” form only (i.e. not for the made up (“as consumed”) product; n = 10) were excluded from nutrition analyses. Products in the FoodTrack™ database were individually inspected, and identified as “unique” or “duplicate”, using the product name and/or barcode. Duplicate products were those marketed under the same name and barcode, or may have carried a different barcode between collection years (such as, due to the addition of a front of pack label, nutrient claim or different serving size) (GS1 2022). To investigate whether products had been reformulated over time, the nutrient composition of products identified as duplicates were examined over time. A cross-sectional analysis of products collected in 2021 was also conducted to compare if “new” products (i.e. products collected for the first time in 2021) had a different nutrient composition to products which had been collected in previous years (“retained” products). Products available in multiple pack sizes were treated as unique products.

Statistics

Data were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26 (IBM, Armonk, NY). Data were checked for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test and visual inspection of histograms. Most data were not normally distributed; results were presented as medians and 25th and 75th percentiles. The availability of alternative protein products was described using counts and percentages. To test for differences in products’ nutrient composition between subcategories, and changes within subcategories over time, Kruskal–Wallis tests with Bonferroni’s post hoc comparisons were used. To investigate if the nutrient content of products available across many years had changed (“reformulated”) over time, products collected in both the first (2014) and final (2021) years of collection were compared, and the change for each nutrient was calculated, expressed as percent change from 2014. To test for differences in the nutrient composition of new vs. existing products (“retained”) from previous years, those collected for the first time in 2021 were compared to those collected in earlier years using Mann–Whitney’s U tests for independent samples were used. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

Data from 862 alternative protein products were collected in the FoodTrack™ database between 2014 and 2021. This study focussed on the range of convenience products, as such, 590 products were eligible for inclusion in the analysis (Figure 1).

Product availability

The total number of alternative protein products in supermarkets more than doubled between 2014 and 2021 (130% increase). Similar increases were observed in the number of products within the subcategories of plant-based meats (150% increase) and legume products (129% increase), but the number of tofu products decreased over time (Table 2).

Table 2. The number of alternative protein products collected between 2014 and 2021, and the percentage contribution of each subcategory per year.

	Collection year
	2014	2015	2016^a	2017^a	2018	2019	2021	Δ 2014–2021 (%)
Tofu products	5 (8)	4 (5)	3 (4)	3 (4)	2 (3)	3 (4)	4 (3)	–20
Legume products	21 (32)	27 (33)	27 (37)	31 (42)	20 (30)	34 (44)	48 (32)	+129
Plant-based meats	40 (61)	50 (62)	43 (59)	40 (54)	44 (67)	41 (53)	100 (66)	+150
Total	66	81	73	74	66	78	152	+130

No data were collected in 2020 due to Covid-19-related restrictions.

^a ALDI products introduced in 2016 and IGA products introduced in 2017. Data presented as n (%). Data may not add to 100% due to rounding.

As proportion of total products, plant-based meats have had a greater share of the category in each year, accounting for about two thirds (66%) of the products available in this category in 2021 vs. 32% for legume products and 3% for tofu products.

Within this category, 266 of the 590 products (45%) were considered unique. Some products were available in one year of collection only (n = 155 of 266, 58%) and others (n = 111 of 266, 42%) were available for multiple years. On average, alternative protein products were available for collection for 2.2 years (range 1–7 years).

Figure 2 illustrates the number of years products were included in data collection. There was a greater proportion of plant-based meats collected in only one year (62%) than other subcategories of products (tofu products, 55%; legume products, 52%). Approximately, one-fifth (18%) of tofu products were collected in 6 out of the 7 years of data collection. As such, tofu products had the lowest rate of product turnover (26% over the seven years) compared with legume products and plant-based meats (both 34%, data not shown).

Figure 2. Number of years alternative protein products were included in data collection, expressed as percent of total unique products.

Nutrient composition

Ten legume products presented data on the NIP as the products “dry” form only, and thus, were excluded from further analyses. Therefore, 580 products were included in the nutrient composition analysis.

Between subcategories

Between subcategories, there were significant differences in the energy and nutrient contents (Table 3). Per 100 g, tofu products were lowest in energy, and significantly lower than plant-based meats. The protein, total fat, saturated fat and sodium contents of legume products were the lowest among the subcategories, and significantly lower than tofu products and plant-based meats for protein, saturated fat and sodium, and lower than plant-based meats for total fat. Legume products were significantly higher in carbohydrates than plant-based meats, and higher in sugar and fibre than plant-based meats and tofu products. Plant-based meats were significantly higher in protein and total fat than other subcategories, but tofu products higher in saturated fat and sodium than other subcategories.

Table 3. Nutrient composition (/100 g) of alternative protein products collected over the study period.

Subcategory	2014		2015		2016^†		2017^†		2018		2019		2021		p Value
Energy (kJ)															0.027
Tofu products^a	662	(575–791)	668	(651–932)	674	(639–1190)	630	(554–639)	635	(630–639)	630	(554–639)	673	(635–699)	0.242
Legume products	635	(528–805)	678	(605–862)	819	(620–927)	816	(640–922)	814	(659–917)	747	(527–906)	781	(620–946)	0.152
Plant-based meats^a	737	(558–862)	754	(606–874)	791	(606–900)	810	(716–923)	835	(617–935)	808	(733–982)	832	(701–942)	0.075
Protein (g)															<0.001
Tofu products^a,b	14.2	(9.5–16.3)	12.5	(10.0–13.9)	11.5	(8.4–13.5)	13.8	(8.4–14.2)	11.1	(8.4–13.8)	13.8	(8.4–14.2)	6.3	(6.0–9.6)	0.301
Legume products^a,c	5.9	(5.1–6.5)	5.9	(5.3–6.4)	6.0	(5.48–6.6)	6.1	(5.6–7.8)	6.0	(5.6–7.05)	6.3	(5.4–8.65)	6.1	(4.8–7.3)	0.707
Plant-based meats^b,c	14.8	(12–17.6)	14.9	(12–16.4)	14.9	(12–16.9)	16.4	(14.8–19)	15.3	(11.9–18.1)	15.9	(12.9–19.1)	15.1	(12.1–18.4)	0.298
Total fat (g)															0.006
Tofu products	7.5	(6.2–11.9)	7.5	(7.4–12.3)	7.4	(7.4–17.1)	6.1	(4.9–7.4)	6.8	(6.1–7.4)	6.1	(4.9–7.4)	9.9	(7.7–10.2)	0.278
Legume products^a	6.7	(1.3–9.2)	6.2	(1.8–9.2)	8.1	(2.3–11.9)	7.7	(1.3–11.9)	8.1	(2.7–13.9)	4.2	(1.4–10.1)	7.0	(1.8–12.0)	0.677
Plant-based meats^a	7.3^a	(2.6–9.65)	8.3	(5.5–10.8)	8.4	(4.0–10.4)	8.8	(5.8–10.4)	8.2	(4.0–11.4)	8.0	(5.4–12.0)	9.4^a	(6.5–13.0)	0.016
Saturated fat (g)															<0.001
Tofu products^a,b	1.6	(1.3–4.5)	5.4	(3.2–5.4)	5.3	(1.1–5.4)	4.2	(2.2–5.4)	4.8	(4.2–5.4)	4.2	(2.2–5.4)	1.2	(0.9–2.5)	0.393
Legume products^a,c	0.6^a	(0.3–0.8)	0.5^b	(0.3–1)	0.7	(0.37–1.1)	0.9	(0.5–1.2)	1.0	(0.7–1.3)	0.8	(0.3–1.1)	1.0^a,b	(0.8–1.7)	0.014
Plant-based meats^b,c	0.8	(0.5–1.3)	0.9	(0.6–1.2)	0.9	(0.6–1.1)	0.9	(0.8–1.2)	1.0	(0.7–1.4)	1.0	(0.5–2.2)	1.2	(0.6–3.1)	0.065
Total carbohydrate (g)															<0.001
Tofu products^a	10.4	(6.2–11.3)	11.3	(7.8–15.8)	13.1	(9.4–18.4)	7.8	(5.8–13.1)	10.5	(7.8–13.1)	7.8	(5.8–13.1)	9.2	(8.6–10.6)	0.630
Legume products^a,b	19.6	(14.3–24.8)	19.6	(14.3–23.7)	18.2	(12.6–23.6)	20.0	(12.6–26.6)	17.7	(12.6–28.6)	20.0	(13.7–26.6)	19.9	(15.3–24.7)	0.998
Plant-based meats^b	11.1	(7.65–15)	10.0	(7–14)	10.2	(6.4–14.7)	11.0	(6.8–13.4)	10.0	(6.6–15.6)	10.9	(6.2–15.8)	8.5	(4.8–13.4)	0.250
Sugar (g)															<0.001
Tofu products^a	2.5	(2.2–2.7)	2.3	(2.0–2.5)	2.1	(1.8–2.5)	1.7	(1.4–1.8)	1.8	(1.7–1.8)	1.7	(1.4–1.8)	2.9	(2.3–3.9)	0.013
Legume products^b	3.7	(2.3–6.6)	3.0	(1.9–5.6)	2.8	(1.7–5.6)	3.2	(1.9–5.6)	2.4	(1.6–5.7)	2.9	(1.7–5.4)	2.5	(1.8–5.3)	0.749
Plant-based meats^a,b	1.6	(0.6–2.1)	1.6	(0.7–2.7)	1.6	(0.8–2.6)	1.9^a	(1.1–3.0)	2.3^b	(1.4–2.8)	1.6	(0.5–3.0)	1.2^a,b	(0.5–1.7)	0.007
Sodium (mg)															<0.001
Tofu products^a,b	595	(530–640)	650	(608–755)	680	(620–830)	580	(330–680)	605	(580–630)	580	(330–630)	847	(703–893)	0.215
Legume products^a,c	422	(316–506)	330	(316–470)	330	(307–485)	331	(280–460)	367	(314–529)	392	(312–493)	420	(310–530)	0.812
Plant-based meats^b,c	530	(395–621)	553	(390–685)	488	(375–590)	503	(390–630)	492	(381–626)	480	(370–600)	488	(364–590)	0.598
Fibre (g)*															<0.001
Tofu products^a	4.1	(2.5–5.1)	5.1	(5.1–5.1)	4.3	(4.3–4.3)	4.3	(4.1–5.7)	5.0	(4.3–5.7)	4.3	(4.1–5.7)	5.3	(5.1–6.1)	0.523
Legume products^a,b	5.9	(5.1–8.3)	5.1	(4.7–6.5)	6.0	(5.1–6.5)	6.0	(5.4–8.4)	6.0	(5.4–8.4)	6.4	(5.7–8.4)	5.8	(4.9–7.6)	0.260
Plant-based meats^b	3.9	(2.0–4.9)	3.9	(2.0–6.4)	4.0	(2.4–6.45)	4.8	(2.3–6.4)	4.4	(2.4–6.0)	3.8	(3.0–6.0)	3.9	(2.7–6.0)	0.752
Iron (mg)*															0.028
Tofu products^a,b	2.9	(n/a)	2.9	(n/a)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	1.000
Legume products^a	3.5	(n/a)	3.5	(3.5–3.5)	3.5	(3.5–3.5)	3.5	(3.3–3.5)	3.5	(3.5–3.5)	3.5	(2.9–3.5)	3.8	(3.5–4.2)	0.197
Plant-based meats^b	3.5	(3.5–3.5)	3.5	(3.5–3.5)	3.5	(3.5–3.5)	3.5	(3.5–3.5)	3.5	(3.5–3.5)	3.5	(3.2–3.5)	3.5	(3.5–3.5)	0.960

Data are presented as median (25th to 75th percentile) for products with nutrition information presented on pack “as consumed” (n = 556); p values presented at the nutrient level (shaded grey) represent results of Kruskal–Wallis tests for differences between categories for each nutrient, and subcategories of products with like superscript letters represent statistically significant differences after Bonferroni’s correction for multiple tests (adjusted p < 0.05); p values presented at the subcategory level (unshaded) represent results of Kruskal–Wallis tests for differences within each subcategory over time and values for years within a row with like superscript letters represent significantly different after Bonferroni’s correction for multiple tests (adjusted p < 0.05). No data were collected in 2020 due to Covid-19-related restrictions. Bold values denote statistical significance at the p < 0.05 level.

^† ALDI products introduced in 2016 and IGA products introduced in 2017.

* The nutrition information panel does not need to include fibre or iron unless a nutrition claim is made on the label. Data were available for 25–100% of products across the years for fibre, and 5–53% for iron.

Over time

Figure 3 displays the nutrient composition of alternative protein products collected each year. There was a significant decrease in the median sugar content (/100 g) of tofu products over time (p = 0.013; Table 3), with the greatest difference between 2014 and 2019 (2.5–1.7 g, 32% reduction). However, after adjusting for multiple comparisons, post hoc tests were no longer significant. There was a significant increase in saturated fat in legume products between 2014 and 2021 (0.6–1.0 g, 67% increase, p = 0.040) and between 2015 and 2021 (0.5–1 g, 100% increase, p = 0.044). The total fat content of plant-based meats increased significantly from 2014 to 2021 (7.3–9.4 g, 29% increase, p = 0.009) and the median sugar content decreased between 2017 and 2021 (1.9–1.2, 37% decrease, p = 0.032) and between 2018 and 2021 (2.3–1.2 g, 48% decrease, p = 0.016).

Figure 3. Nutrient composition of alternative protein products collected over the study period. (A) Energy (kJ/100 g); (B) protein (g/100 g); (C) sodium (mg/100 g); (D) saturated fat (g/100 g). No data were collected in 2020 due to Covid-19-related restrictions; ALDI products introduced in 2016 and IGA products introduced in 2017.

Product reformulation

Reformulation over time

To investigate whether and how products’ nutrient composition changed over time, products which were available in both the first (2014) and final (2021) years of data collection were examined (n = 5 legume products; n = 22 plant-based meats). There were no tofu products available in both 2014 and 2021 (Supplementary Table S1). Instead, one tofu product was available in 2014 and 2019, and one was available in 2015 and 2021 which were included for analysis.

Figure 4 shows the change in the nutrient composition of these products from 2014 to 2021 (or 2015 for one and 2019 for the other tofu product). For tofu products, the overall change in energy per 100 g was negligible, however at the product level, one product had increased in energy by 10% and the other decreased by 11%. This was similar for protein, total and saturated fat, and total carbohydrate where the same product that increased in energy also increased in protein, fat and carbohydrate. The reverse was true for sugar, where the product which had increased in energy had decreased in sugar, and vice versa for the product which decreased in energy (Supplementary Table S2). Both tofu products decreased in sodium content per 100 g over the years they were collected.

Figure 4. Percent change in the nutrient composition of alternative protein products and the subcategory mean from 2014 to 2021. (A) Energy; (B) protein; (C) sodium; (D) saturated fat. Changes in the nutritional composition of tofu products are from 2014 to 2019 (P1) and 2015 to 2021 (P2). Saturated fat data are presented on a different scale (x-axis) to other nutrients. P: product.

There were five legume products that had been available over the seven data collection years. The nutrient composition of one product was unchanged over the timeframe examined. The other four legume products increased in energy (average increase of 34%) and sodium contents (35% increase). Three had increased in protein, total fat, saturated fat and total carbohydrate contents. In contrast, three legume products had decreased sugar (10% decrease).

There were 22 plant-based meats available over the seven data collection years with large variation in the changes in nutrient composition observed in this subcategory. About half the plant-based meats had increased and half decreased in their nutrient content over the timeframe examined. The energy content of this subcategory increased by an average of 8%; however, four products had increased by 25–42% and two had decreased by 20–24%. The protein content increased by 2% and sodium by 7%, and total carbohydrate content decreased by 10% overall. The greatest changes were observed for total and saturated fat (60% increase for both), and sugar (79% increase), with some products increasing by >250% in these nutrients (up to 800% in one product for saturated fat).

Cross-sectional analysis of products collected in 2021

To investigate whether “new” products that were available in 2021 for the first time, were different to existing (“retained”) products, a cross-sectional analysis of products collected in 2021 was performed.

About six out of 10 products (62%) collected in 2021 had not been collected before (considered “new”; Table 4). Legume products available for the first time in 2021 contained less energy (median of 686 vs. 833 kJ/100 g, p = 0.015) compared with products collected in previous years, but all other nutrients were not significantly different. For plant-based meats, the saturated fat content was higher in products available for the first time in 2021 compared to products collected in previous years (1.9 g vs. 0.9 g/100 g, p = 0.002). There were no other differences in the nutrient composition of these products.

Table 4. The nutrient composition (/100 g) of products collected in 2021 (new versus retained).

	Tofu products			Legume products			Plant-based meats
	New (n = 3)	Retained (n = 1)	p Value	New (n = 24)	Retained (n = 18)	p Value	New (n = 64)	Retained (n = 36)	p Value
Energy (kJ)	677 (668–720)	602	0.500	686 (557–872)	833 (648–1005)	0.015	845 (701–952)	809 (711–918)	0.375
Protein (g)	6.1 (5.8–6.5)	12.7	0.500	5.8 (3.8–7.0)	6.6 (5.3–7.4)	0.058	14.6 (12.0–18.5)	16.1 (12.5–18.4)	0.730
Total fat (g)	10.0 (9.8–10.3)	5.6	0.500	6.4 (1.5–8.9)	10.2 (3.9–18.2)	0.110	9.9 (6.8–14.1)	9.2 (6.1–11.8)	0.226
Saturated fat (g)	1.2 (0.6–1.2)	3.8	0.500	1.0 (0.7–1.1)	1.1 (1.0–1.9)	0.054	1.9 (0.9–3.9)	0.9 (0.5–1.7)	0.002
Total carbohydrate (g)	9.3 (9.0–11.8)	8.1	0.500	19.9 (17.7–22.6)	17.7 (11.9–24.5)	0.130	7.7 (3.9–13.2)	9.6 (7.2–14.4)	0.192
Sugar (g)	3.4 (2.2–4.3)	2.4	1.000	3.0 (2.0–5.6)	2.4 (1.6–5.2)	0.164	1.0 (0.5–1.6)	1.5 (0.3–2.0)	0.200
Sodium (mg)	868 (9825–917)	580	0.500	450 (330–530)	351 (280–507)	0.422	469 (351–569)	492 (381–604)	0.244
Fibre (g)^a	5.5 (5.1–6.6)	5.1	0.500	5.5 (4.2–7.2)	6.3 (5.4–9.0)	0.134	4.2 (3.0–6.0)	3.7 (2.4–5.3)	0.375
Iron (mg)^a	–	–	–	4.2 (4.0–4.3)	3.5 (3.5–3.5)	0.333	3.5 (3.5–3.5)	3.5 (3.5–3.5)	0.979

Data presented as median (25th to 75th quartile). Only unique products with nutrition information presented on pack “as consumed” presented. p Values represent result of Mann–Whitney’s U tests for differences between new versus retained products within each subcategory; Bold values denote statistical significance at the p < 0.05 level.

^a The nutrition information panel does not need to include fibre or iron unless a nutrition claim is made on the label.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to describe how the range and nutrient composition of alternative protein products available in Australian supermarkets has changed between 2014 and 2021. Australia is considered the third-fastest growing vegan market worldwide (behind the United Arab Emirates and China) (Wan 2018). Alongside the increased popularity of plant-based dietary patterns, the range of processed vegetarian products sold in Australian supermarkets has grown. There is an increased demand for convenience generally and in the food market, and pre-prepared foods and meals are now commonplace in supermarkets (Wooldridge et al. 2021). Both the plant-based meats and processed legume products more than doubled in the number products available in supermarkets from 2014 to 2021. The legume products were made from combinations of whole foods, mostly vegetables or legumes, and included lentil burgers and falafel, whereas plant-based meats were made from vegetable protein or wheat gluten and were more often imitation meat products such as crumbed fillets and meaty burgers. There is growing consumer demand for meat alternatives. Schösler et al. (2012) examined consumer attitudes towards various meat substitution options. Of the nine options presented, “instant meat substitutes”, that is, plant protein substitutes that resemble the texture and taste of meat but derived from plant-based ingredients, were ranked fourth in their order of preference, behind fish, egg and cheese. Lentils/beans and nuts followed, and tofu was ranked last. The processed tofu products collected in the current study were more akin to plant-based meats (than legume products) in the way they were prepared and marketed; however, these products had the smallest market share, and their availability decreased over time.

The nutrient profile of alternative protein products is topical, and some researchers have classified alternative protein products as ultra-processed foods, due to their heavy reliance on processing and inclusion of a range of artificial additives (Bohrer 2019; Wickramasinghe et al. 2021), inferring they are “unhealthy”. Understanding healthfulness from a processing perspective was not the purpose of this study, rather the purpose was to examine nutrient content of products and examine the relative healthfulness, from a nutrient perspective, between products within this category. Perceptions and attitudes towards plant protein, including plant-based meats, were examined in a recent sample of Australian consumers (n = 432) and nutrition professionals (n = 228) (Estell et al. 2021). Of those who had previously tried plant-based meats (n = 472, 49%), most were driven by curiosity. Other reasons were environmental concerns (n = 193, 42%) and health (n = 133, 29%). Compared with nutrition professionals, consumers were more likely to agree or strongly agree that plant-based meats are more nutritious than conventional meat products. Some studies have evaluated the nutritional equivalence of alternative protein products with conventional meat products (Bohrer 2019; Curtain and Grafenauer 2019; Rosewarne and Clare Farrand 2019; Food Frontier 2021; Tso and Forde 2021; van Vliet et al. 2021). Most conclude that alternative protein products can offer roughly the same nutrient composition as conventional meat products, but also suggest there is room for improvement to make these products healthier and more sustainable, emphasising the importance of nutrition guidelines for their further development.

The nutrient content of products examined in this study varied substantially, and there were some differences between the three subcategories. Legume products were higher in carbohydrates and fibre, perhaps unsurprising given the vegetable-based nature of these products. Plant-based meats were highest in protein, and tofu products were highest in sodium and saturated fat. Possible reasons for the differences in nutrient composition between the subcategories include reasons related to food processing technologies, sensory appeal and consumer demand. Fat and salt are an appealing sensory combination in food (Bolhuis et al. 2016). Lipids play an important role in sensory perception, particularly mouthfeel, and in taste perception, particularly saltiness (Suzuki et al. 2014). Some manufacturers of plant-based meats have specifically targeted a range of sensory properties to make consumers feel as if they are eating conventional meat (Fiorentini et al. 2020). For example, whipping a mixture of oils into small globules of fat to mimic the marbled appearance seen in conventional sausages and burgers, and infusing plant-based meats with beet juice or powder to give the impression the product “bleeds” (Bohrer 2019; He et al. 2020; Sucapane et al. 2021).

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2020–2021, the sales of the meat and dairy substitutes category from Australian supermarkets have increased by about 30% since 2018–2019 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2022), and this trend is projected to continue. Gordon et al. expect the global market for plant-based meat will reach $85 billion (USD) by 2030, up from $4.6 billion in 2018 (Gordon et al. 2019). Innovation in production technologies for alternative proteins has improved, such that these products are increasingly accepted by consumers as an alternative choice to conventional meat products (Lemken et al. 2019; Fiorentini et al. 2020), and can be produced and offered at competitive prices (Ismail, Senaratne-Lenagala, et al. 2020; Santo et al. 2020). However, it remains to be seen if this innovation is also improving the nutrient composition of these products. There was some evidence of reformulation across this product category over multiple years in this study. However, these changes were not consistent between products, and not always indicative of improved healthfulness. If the nutrient profile of products had improved, the expected change would have been a decrease in saturated fat and sodium and increase in fibre content. Whereas approximately half the products had increased in saturated fat and sodium (ranges −100% to +800% and −58% to +128%, respectively) and approximately 40% decreased in fibre (range −43% to +220%). When new products collected in 2021 were compared with products which were previously available, there was little difference in their nutrient composition. New legume products were about 20% lower in energy than retained products, and new plant-based meats were about 40% higher in saturated fat than retained products. The wide range of nutrient contents and variability in the change in composition over time suggests innovation technologies may be more focussed on consumer acceptability (in terms of price and taste), rather than improved nutrition, highlighting an area for improvement.

The Australian Government established the Healthy Food Partnership Reformulation Program initiative in 2015 (Australian Government Department of Health 2021). The aim of this voluntary initiative is to reduce the saturated fat, sugar and sodium contents in processed foods sold in Australia, by setting reformulation targets for categories of products. Major retailers in Australia are interested in working with suppliers to improve the nutritional quality of their alternative protein product offering, through reformulation and innovation (Woolworths Group 2022). However, there are currently no proposed reformulation targets for this category of foods in Australia. In contrast, the UK have sodium targets for: (i) “plain meat alternatives”, such as plain tofu and meat-free mince (<250 mg/100 g); (ii) “meat free products”, such as sausages, burgers (including “bean/veggie burgers”), falafel, deli slices and fillets (<475 mg/100 g); and (iii) “meat-free bacon” (<710 mg/100 g) to achieve by 2024. Rosewarne and Clare Farrand compared the sodium content of 320 meat alternatives available in Australia in 2019 to the UK sodium targets (for 2020) and found approximately two-thirds of products met the targets (Rosewarne and Clare Farrand 2019). There is evidence from other food categories which highlights that product reformulation is possible, without affecting consumer appeal (Williams et al. 2003; Suzuki et al. 2014). However, without established benchmarks, the incentive for food industry may not be enough to drive change.

A strength of this study was the use of the FoodTrack™ database, enabling a comprehensive and longitudinal comparison of products collected from Australian supermarkets over seven collection years. The supermarket and grocery industry in Australia is highly concentrated, with more than 80% of revenue shared between four companies – Woolworths 37.4%, Coles 28.4%, ALDI 10.5% and Metcash (owns IGA) 7% (Youl 2022). However, prior to 2016, products from ALDI were not included in the database, and prior to 2017, IGA products were not included. The total number of products available from 2016 is likely to have been influenced by the addition of the two stores. In addition, data collection in 2020 was disrupted due to Covid-19, thus it is unknown what happened in between 2019 and 2021. All data were collected from stores located in metropolitan Victoria. Although Australian supermarkets have national distribution networks and these supermarket chains represent more than 80% of total market share (Morgan 2022), local products, and those available exclusively from online retailers were not included. The range and nutrient composition of these products remains unknown. Another strength of this study is the clear definition of alternative protein products and their subcategories, which was easy to operationalise. However, there is no standardised definition of meat and non-meat protein replacements (Eckl et al. 2021); therefore, the categorisation used herein may not be comparable to other studies. Unlike other research (Curtain and Grafenauer 2019; Alessandrini et al. 2021; Harnack et al. 2021; Boukid et al. 2022; Pointke and Pawelzik 2022), this study included more traditional products such as falafel, and processed legume products which allowed for a more comprehensive comparison of the alternative protein product market.

Conclusions

Individuals are shifting towards more plant-based dietary patterns. Consequently, demand for alternative protein products is growing globally. These products may offer a convenient and acceptable alternative for consumers wishing to reduce their meat intake or increase the variety of their protein sources. This study has highlighted the variability in the nutrient composition of these products, both between and within the subcategories of tofu, legume products and plant-based meats. Although traditional meat alternatives such as tofu, tempeh and legumes are featured in the Australian Dietary Guidelines, the market for alternative protein products is evolving rapidly and there is ambiguity regarding where they are best placed within the guidelines. Consumers choose, and companies market, these products as alternatives to meat, but some are made entirely from vegetables yet their nutrient profile is not reflective of the natural form intended of the vegetable food group. A well-planned vegetarian diet has benefits to human health, however, health professionals are concerned a “health halo” exists, where the health benefits of traditional vegetarian diets are assumed for new alternative protein products. This research provides an important step in improving our understanding of the range of products and choices available to consumers. Future research should consider how these alternative protein products are consumed in the context of an individual’s whole diet, including the frequency and portion of their consumption, and their dietary accompaniments, so health professionals can better understand the role these products play in supporting individuals to meet their nutritional needs. Future research should also consider the barriers for food manufacturers in creating products with improved nutritional profiles, including incorporating larger quantities of under-consumed wholefoods, such as vegetables and legumes.

Author contributions

PB and GH developed the study design. PB and KA prepared the data for analysis. PB and GH analysed the data. PB was responsible for drafting the manuscript, with contribution from GH. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the results, and reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Permission to use the FoodTrack™ database, generated in a partnership between the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the National Heart Foundation of Australia, is gratefully acknowledged.

Disclosure statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported by the CSIRO's Future Protein Mission.