Eating a variety of nutritious foods is fundamental to good nutrition. However, this principle is challenged when recommendations seeking to improve the environmental sustainability of diets call for avoidance of foods considered to have a higher environmental footprint, such as animal-sourced foods. Our objective was to assess the implications for nutritional adequacy of protein choice across Australian adult diets preselected as having higher quality and lower environmental impact scores.

Each individual diet was assessed for variety of food choice within the ‘Fresh meat and alternatives’ food group defined in the Australian Dietary Guidelines, which includes protein-rich foods such as eggs, nuts, tofu and legumes in addition to animal meats. Diets were grouped according to variety score and whether they included only animal meats, only alternatives or a variety of meat and alternatives. Nutrient content was assessed relative to estimated average requirements (EAR).

Australia.

1700 adults participating in the Australian Health Survey

For diets with higher diet quality and lower environmental impact, the likelihood of achieving nutrient EAR significantly increased as variety of food choice in the ‘Fresh meat and alternatives’ food group increased (P < 0·001). Variety score and number of serves were also correlated (r = 0·52, P < 0·001) which is relevant since most diets did not meet the recommended minimum number of serves for this food group.

Greater variety within the ‘Fresh meat and alternatives’ food group is beneficial to meeting EAR and lower environmental impact diets can include three or more selections including foods of animal origin.

To explore how some of the largest food companies involved in producing alternative proteins (AP) use health and nutrition claims to market their products.

We identified the largest food manufacturers, meat processors and AP companies selling plant-based AP products in the USA. Using publicly available data, we analysed the voluntary health and nutrition claims made on front-of-pack labels (FOPL) and company webpages. We also analysed company websites for further nutrition and health-related statements about their products or AP more generally. Claim classification was guided by the INFORMAS (International Network for Food and Obesity/Non-Communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring, and Action Support) taxonomy for health-related food labelling.

USA.

Not applicable.

1394 health and nutrition-related FOPL claims were identified on 216 products, including 685 nutrition claims and 709 ‘other health-related’ claims. No FOPL health claims were identified. Most nutrient claims were for nutrients associated with meat, with 94 % of products carrying a protein claim and 30 % carrying a cholesterol claim. 74 % of products carried a GMO-free claim, and 63 % carried a plant-based claim. On their websites, some companies expanded on these claims or discussed the health benefits of specific ingredients.

Companies involved in this category appear to be using nutritional marketing primarily to position their products in relation to meat. There is a focus on nutrient and ingredient claims, with discussion of processing largely avoided. The findings highlight the challenges companies face in positioning AP products as healthy against the backdrop of debates about ultra-processed foods.