We’re hearing a lot about ultra-processed foods and the health effects of eating too many. And we know plant-based foods are popular for health or other reasons.
So it’s not surprising new research including the health effects of ultra-processed, plant-based foods is going to attract global attention.
And the headlines can be scary if that research and the publicity surrounding it suggests eating these foods increases your risk of heart disease, stroke or dying early.
Here’s how some media outlets interpreted the research. The Daily Mail ran with: "Vegan fake meats are linked to increase in heart deaths, study suggests: Experts say plant-based diets can boost health – but NOT if they are ultra-processed"
The New York Post’s headline was: "Vegan fake meats linked to heart disease, early death: study"
But when we look at the study itself, it seems the media coverage has focused on a tiny aspect of the research, and is misleading.
So does eating supermarket plant-based burgers and other plant-based, ultra-processed foods really put you at greater risk of heart disease, stroke and premature death?
Here’s what prompted the research and what the study actually found.
Remind me, what are ultra-processed foods?
Ultra-processed foods undergo processing and reformulation with additives to enhance flavor, shelf-life and appeal. These include everything from packet macaroni cheese and pork sausages, to supermarket pastries and plant-based mince.
There is now strong and extensive evidence showing ultra-processed foods are linked with an increased risk of many physical and mental chronic health conditions.
Although researchers question which foods should be counted as ultra-processed, or if all of them are linked to poorer health, the consensus is that, generally, we should be eating less of them.
We also know plant-based diets are popular. These are linked with a reduced risk of chronic health conditions such as heart disease and stroke, cancer and diabetes. And supermarkets are stocking more plant-based, ultra-processed food options.
How about the new study?
The study looked for any health differences between eating plant-based, ultra-processed foods compared to eating non-plant based, ultra-processed foods. The researchers focused on the risk of cardiovascular disease (such as heart disease and stroke) and deaths from it.
Plant-based, ultra-processed foods in this study included mass-produced packaged bread, pastries, buns, cakes, biscuits, cereals and meat alternatives (fake meats). Ultra-processed foods that were not plant-based included milk-based drinks and desserts, sausages, nuggets and other reconstituted meat products.
The researchers used data from the UK Biobank. This is a large biomedical database that contains de-identified genetic, lifestyle (diet and exercise) and health information and biological samples from half a million UK participants. This databank allows researchers to determine links between this data and a wide range of diseases, including heart disease and stroke.
They used data from nearly 127,000 people who provided details of their diet between 2009 and 2012. The researchers linked this to their hospital records and death records. On average, the researchers followed each participant’s diet and health for nine years.
What did the study find?
With every 10% increase of total energy from plant-sourced, ultra-processed foods there was an associated 5% increased risk of cardiovascular disease (such as heart disease or stroke) and a 12% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.
But for every 10% increase in plant-sourced, non-ultra-processed foods consumed there was an associated 7% lower risk of cardiovascular disease and a 13% lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.
The researchers found no evidence for an association between all plant-sourced foods (whether or not they were ultra-processed) and either an increased or decreased risk of cardiovascular disease or dying from it.
This was an observational study, where people recalled their diet using questionnaires. When coupled with other data, this can only tell us if someone’s diet is associated with a particular risk of a health outcome. So we cannot say that, in this case, the ultra-processed foods caused the heart disease and deaths from it.
Why has media coverage focused on fake meats?
Much of the media coverage has focused on the apparent health risks associated with eating fake meats, such as sausages, burgers, nuggets and even steaks.
These are considered ultra-processed foods. They are made by deconstructing whole plant foods such as pea, soy, wheat protein, nuts and mushrooms, and extracting the protein. They are then reformulated with additives to make the products look, taste and feel like traditional red and white meats.
However this was only one type of plant-based, ultra-processed food analyzed in this study. This only accounted for an average 0.2% of the dietary energy intake of all the participants.
Compare this to bread, pastries, buns, cakes and biscuits, which are other types of plant-based, ultra-processed foods. These accounted for 20.7% of total energy intake in the study.
It’s hard to say why the media focused on fake meat. But there is one clue in the media release issued to promote the research.
Although the media release did not mention the words “fake meat”, an image of plant-based burgers, sausages and meat balls or rissoles featured prominently.
The introduction of the study itself also mentions plant-sourced, ultra-processed foods, such as sausages, nuggets and burgers.
So it’s no wonder people can be confused.
Does this mean fake meats are fine?
Not necessarily. This study analyzed the total intake of plant-based, ultra-processed foods, which included fake meats, albeit a very small proportion of people’s diets.
From this study alone we cannot tell if there would be a different outcome if someone ate large amounts of fake meats.
In fact, a recent review of fake meats found there was not enough evidence to determine their impact on health.
We also need more recent data to reflect current eating patterns of fake meats. This study used dietary data collected from 2009 to 2012, and fake meats have become more popular since.
What if I really like fake meat?
We have known for a while that ultra-processed foods can harm our health. This study tells us that regardless if an ultra-processed food is plant-based or not, it may still be harmful.
We know fake meat can contain large amounts of saturated fats (from coconut or palm oil), salt and sugar.
So like other ultra-processed foods, they should be eaten infrequently. Dietary guidelines currently recommend people should only consume foods like this sometimes and in small amounts.
Are some fake meats healthier than others?
Check the labels and nutrition information panels. Look for those lowest in fat and salt. Burgers and sausages that are a “pressed cake” of minced ingredients such as nuts, beans and vegetables will be preferable to reformulated products that look identical to meat.
You can also eat whole plant-based protein foods such as legumes. These include beans, lentils, chickpeas and soy beans. As well as being high in protein and fibre, they also provide essential nutrients such as iron and zinc. Using spices and mushrooms alongside these in your recipes can replicate some of the umami taste associated with meat.
Evangeline Mantzioris is program director of Nutrition and Food Sciences and an accredited practicing dietitian, University of South Australia, Adelaide.
The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.
© The Conversation
34 Comments
Moonraker
Of all the crappy, ultra-processed food we eat, including copious meat-based or meat-adulterated ones, it's kinda suspicious that fake meat has suddenly gained such a high and unhealthy profile these days. Now, I wonder which well-funded industry would have an interest in promoting that line. Fake meat is certainly healthier for cattle, pigs and chickens.
virusrex
As the previous article about distrust in the media explained. When outlets found out about the report they had a choice, either make true but boring articles that said something everybody knew (eating too many cakes and pastries is bad for your health) or make misleading articles blaming fake meats so they would get a much higher profit from telling people something new and unexpected (specially something that the people would want to believe).
The choice of the media is terribly obvious.
Wick's pencil
If you care about your health, eat real meat. The fake ones are loaded with stuff that should be avoided.
virusrex
"Real meat" is a well described risk factor for heart problems, the recommendation is to avoid eating all kinds of meat and instead increase plant based food in your diet, obviously less processed food is better even when it is plant based (and a salad better than cakes) but there is zero evidence fake meat comes with more risk than real meat.
Bad Haircut
These comments get funnier by the day.
Moonraker
What is the psychological connection between advocacy of meat and climate change denial? Is it an abhorrence of life? A severe conservatism? I am genuinely curious.
Bad Haircut
If you don't like meat, don't eat it and mind your own business. There does seem to be a strong link between cc alarmists and penchant for authoritarianism under the misguided claim of the "greater good".
Jimizo
It’s what they have been told.
I’ve never seen such discipline and conformity in a group of people on different matters - diet, climate, medical matters, politics etc.
Maybe it’s just a matter of convenience. A bit like booking a package holiday.
They must be really boring in conversations though.
“So, what do you think on...Oh, I already know. Fancy another cup of tea?”
wallace
People can make their non-meat burgers from various beans like soy, adzuki, and chickpeas. With chopped onions and spices. There is no need for chemical additives. There are many online recipes.
Bad Haircut
Ah, the shallowness of someone who think's he's the smartest guy in the room. But nothing other than a case study of the Dunning Krueger effect. You must be a lot of fun at parties. And that sneer of yours says more about you than it does your targets.
Toblerone
They must be really boring in conversations though.
“So, what do you think on...Oh, I already know. Fancy another cup of tea?”
You could easily be talking about yourself and your cohorts on JT.
Toblerone
You didn’t realize that?
Jimizo
I’m just observing the conformity. It’s incredible. I thought getting ‘free thinkers’ to agree would be like herding cats, but they are more choreographed than a Korean boy band.
I can’t think of another group so in lockstep.
You do see this conformity, don’t you?
Bad Haircut
You need to sharpen your powers of observation, son. You take snapshots in your mind of a few comments and think you have it all figured out. Do try harder.
Bad Haircut
Then you're not thinking very hard, but that's to be expected.
Toblerone
Come on Jimzo, you can do better than that, surely?
Toblerone
Jimzo, what are you talking about with your “lockstep” and “conformity” nonsense? There are hardly any comments under this article and most of them are from your lot!
Toblerone
You need to sharpen your powers of observation, son. You take snapshots in your mind of a few comments and think you have it all figured out. Do try harder.
Nailed it.
Jimizo
I don’t see it to the same degree.
Predictable in some ways, but the ‘alternative media’ types are at another level.
Absolute perfection. Incredible level of discipline.
Moonraker
Clever avoidance anyway. As if minding one's own business is the business of anyone on this site. And telling someone to mind their own business sounds suspiciouly like authoritarianism to me under the misguided claim of everyone to their own (or everyone do as you are told). So, maybe too much machismo then.
Bad Haircut
LOL. But I do admire the mental gymnastics of conflating telling someone to mind their own business as authoritarianism.
Bad Haircut
Seems that your tunnel vision prevents you from seeing the wider alternative media. You're aware that alternative media covers the entire spectrum, right? Alternative media is just basically whatever isn't government or corporate controlled. But it's hardly surprising you lack the insight to recognise that.
Moonraker
And, of course, curiosity is verboten. Those who hold the views don't want to look too deeply into the emotions that drive them. It always seems easy to upset them.
Jimizo
You get machismo.
You hear ‘soyboy’ and ‘cuck’ from the teenage members of the ‘alternative media’ crowd - getting ‘jacked’ and ‘liberal tears’.
Driving SUVs is a popular one but they are probably lying - too young to drive.
The older members do it less.
Jimizo
True.
Are you the poster who said he watched ‘Louder with Crowder’?
If not, you sound very similar to one who did.
Moonraker
Yes, Jimizo, I think it is some kind of insecure machismo behind it (maybe too much working out at the gym) but I would be happy to have a good conversation with someone not so emotionally driven and be proven wrong.
Raw Beer
That is indeed the narrative that is being pushed, mainly from questionnaires where participants are asked what they eat; and they include things like hotdogs, lasagna with meat sauce .... as eating meats. But there is no legit evidence against eating real meat (e.g. steaks). The same can't be said about the ingredients of these fake meats.
Jimizo
It’s a pity.
I enjoy conversations with reasonable conservatives and read conservative outlets .
This lot do the conservative cause a real disservice.
Teenage machismo, conspiracy theories, watching grifters and failed entertainers on YouTube etc.
As I said, a pity.
Jimizo
A lot of teenage dishonesty too. Haven’t grown up on a moral sense.
You find a lot of them spam social media with multiple handles.
Really sad.
Raw Beer
Indeed, I also observed the same conformity. Those who believe in fake meats being healthy also believe the shots are safe and effective, IVM is a veterinary medicine, Trump is literally Hitler, Biden is sharp as a tack, government and other officials are qualified and honest,...
Jimizo
So the moon landing was faked and people who follow a carnivore diet never fart?
Moving along…
virusrex
And yet you still have zero arguments against them, just making unsuccessful personal attacks when the consensus of science is different from what you want to believe.
The problem is that this in no way refutes the criticism about being in denial about the evidence of the negative effects of meat on health. Is like replying to someone telling you that smoking is bad by saying people that don't want to smoke should not repeat how bad is smoking. It makes no sense.
That would apply much more to people that think personal attacks are arguments, when they obviously are not. Specially when those personal attacks are even against the rules of the site you promised to obey in order to participate.
There is no problem when the demand is against people simply repeating something that can be scientifically proved. You are demanding people not to tell something you are not capable of accepting even if true, definitely representative of authoritarianism. For example you could simply say you are fine with being demonstrated wrong, but not by demanding people not to demonstrate you are wrong.
Toblerone
So very Jimzo. You do like to straddle the fence. I can just see you “enjoying conversations with reasonable conservatives.” Sure!
virusrex
This is the consensus of medical science, what evidence do you have every respected institution working in nutrition, metabolic diseases, endocrinology, etc. are wrong when they say eating meat is negative? none? that would still mean they are much more likely to be correct than nameless people on the internet that are unable to present evidence or arguments to support their personal beliefs.
What is the consensus is that there is no evidence about fake meat being specially risky, specially when compared with the kind of food they replace. The same applies to vaccines, which have been proved safe and effective worldwide. What you mischaracterize as conformity is just being scientifically literate and understanding things that have evidence behind them are much more likely to be correct than antiscientific propaganda based on disproved claims.