Plant-based diets are on the rise and there are more options than ever before. But with many of these alternatives considered to be ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and by association, bad for our health, how is this affecting the plant-based movement?
Ultra-processed foods make up a significant proportion of diets in European countries—up to 40% of the average diet in Sweden and nearly 60% in the UK. However, it can be challenging to identify which foods are classified as UPFs.1 According to the NOVA classification system, UPFs include snacks, drinks, ready meals and many other product types formulated with ingredients that you don’t find in your kitchen cupboard.
Why the ‘ultra-processed’ label matters
Plant-based meats are typically made from ingredients like soy, pea or whey protein, often combined with added fats like refined coconut oil, and thickening agents such as gums. Other common ingredients include salt, methylcellulose and modified starch, additives, preservatives and vitamins.2 Plant-based dairy alternatives can have even more complex ingredient lists, with cheese alternatives often containing soy, nuts, vegetable oils, additives and preservatives, with some derived from agar, tapioca, peas, or arrowroot. Even milk alternatives are generally made from a primary ingredient like soy, oat, almond or coconut, but often include added sugars, gum, artificial flavours and are fortified with vitamins such as B12 and calcium.
While it might be tempting to assume that all plant-based meat and dairy alternatives are UPFs, this isn’t necessarily true. A 2023 study found that 37-41% of plant-based alternatives on the Spanish market at that time were classified as ultra-processed. This means that up to 59% of these products are not considered ultra-processed.3,4 Despite this, many plant-based alternatives continue to be viewed as ultra-processed and are therefore tied to the widespread—though not definitively proven—belief that UPFs are harmful to human health.5, 25 But how has this perception and the rise of UPFs impacted the momentum of the plant-based movement?
How did we get here?
The changing understanding of UPFs has significantly impacted the perception of plant-based meat and dairy alternatives. Once viewed as convenient and potentially healthy options, these products are now often seen as indicators of an unhealthy diet. Many vegan UPFs have been on the market for decades - such as Quorn, which was first sold in 1985 - and they weren’t perceived as being particularly unhealthy, largely due to limited public discourse on the health risks associated with UPFs. However, with the conversation around UPFs gaining momentum, particularly due to media coverage and books like "Ultra-Processed People", the public perception has changed.6
For example, individuals who don’t eat plant-based substitutes are more likely to perceive them as ultra-processed foods, and around half of Europeans do not eat plant-based meat and dairy alternatives because they want to avoid UPFs. Higher trust of plant-based alternatives was found to be tied to consumers who doubted whether UPFs are definitively unhealthy. This suggests that it is the UPF label rather than the plant-based label that affects whether consumers purchase and eat the product.7 The changing understanding around UPFs has therefore affected the perception of plant-based meat and dairy alternatives.
Boom to bust: Where did it all go wrong?
Meat alternatives have been around from as early as 965 C.E., when Tofu was mentioned in a Chinese text. The first Western meat alternative - a vegetable sausage made from beetroot and turnip - was invented around 1852 and just over 40 years later a commercial fake meat was made in the US using peanut butter and wheat gluten in response to shortages caused by World War 2. Meat alternatives have proliferated since then with the invention of Quorn in 1985 through to the first lab-grown meat in 2013.
The popularity of meat and dairy alternatives exploded during the pandemic as people who were stuck at home started worrying about their health and the planet. But as quickly as the boom came, it disappeared. By late 2022, media outlets were describing plant-based meat as “just another fad” and trying to explain why the industry’s “sizzle fizzled”.8,9 What happened was that people began to notice that many plant-based alternatives contain unfamiliar ingredients and are highly processed.10
Consumers were guided to this information by newspaper and TV adverts that branded plant-based alternatives “ultra-processed imitations”.11 For instance, a Clean Food Facts advert broadcast during the 2020 Super Bowl (an American football game) featured a spelling bee where children were asked to spell “methylcellulose”. In the commercial it is defined as “a chemical laxative also used in synthetic meat”. The tagline was: “if you can’t spell it or pronounce it, maybe you shouldn’t be eating it”.12 Another Clean Food Facts ad in the New York Post in May 2022 showed what appeared to be a bucket of fried chicken, warning: “Synthetic plant-based ‘chicken’ looks natural. But fake chicken is a laboratory creation. It has chemicals and ultra-processed ingredients you can’t easily pronounce”.13
Clean Food Facts does not disclose its donor list, though the organisation claims to be supported by “restaurants, food companies and thousands of individual consumers” and receives funding from the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). According to Bloomberg, the CCF is “a front group that represents tobacco, alcohol and meat companies”.8
In the end, it’s all about marketing. The rise of processed meat and dairy alternatives have led industry-funded organisations, like Clean Food Facts, to find ways to undermine the plant-based movement - sometimes with significant success. It’s undeniable that today consumers are more aware than ever of the ingredients in their processed foods - and the belief that if you can’t pronounce it you shouldn’t eat it remains pervasive.
If you can’t beat it, ban it
Last year, Italy banned lab-grown meat following a petition from Coldiretti, one of the country’s largest farming associations, and the broader meat industry lobby.14,15,16 At the time, Italy’s Minister for Agriculture and Food Sovereignty, Francesco Lollobrigida, said the ban aimed to “protect our culture and our tradition, including food and wine”. He argued: “Laboratory products, in our opinion, do not guarantee quality, wellbeing and the protection of our culture, our tradition”.17 In October 2023, Italy withdrew the bill from the EU scrutiny procedure, intended to prevent the formation of trade barriers within the bloc, but in December that year MPs in Rome voted to ban the production, sale or import of cultivated meat.14 Scientists have warned that this type of regulation could stifle the growth of meat alternatives striving to develop healthier, more sustainable alternatives.18
Breeders and farmers from Coldiretti demonstrate their support for the law approved by the Italian Parliament, which introduces a ban on the production and marketing of cell-based foods for food use or animal feed, 2023. Photo via Getty.
Pierdomenico Perata, a professor of plant biology at Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna in Pisa, compared Italy’s attempted ban with the EU’s ban on the cultivation of genetically modified organisms (GMO) over 20 years ago. Before the lab-grown meat ban was repealed, Perata explained that “research on GMOs doesn’t exist anymore in Italy” and warned it could have a similar effect on the alternative meat and dairy industry. “We are abandoning not only innovation, but also the possibility of having the tools to make decisions [on these products] when the time comes”.18 Dr Simona Vallone, a food systems scientist and program manager at Sustainable San Mateo County, told FoodUnfolded that governments have “largely ignored the mitigation potential of niche technologies that provide viable alternatives” and cautioned that the lack of policies focused on reducing reliance on animal products is damaging the plant-based alternative companies trying to compete.19
Read more: How Did GMOs Become So Controversial?
The labelling debate
When Italy announced plans to ban lab-grown meat, it also proposed regulations on the use of meat-related terms such as “salami” or “steak” to describe plant-based alternatives. Labelling can significantly influence consumer behaviour, making it central to the debate on how the demonisation of UPFs affects the consumption of plant-based alternatives.
Research shows that labelling a product as “plant-based” rather than “vegetarian” or “vegan” increases its appeal to meat and dairy eaters and makes it appear more flavourful.20,21
Restrictions on the use of meat-related terms already exist across the EU as a result of industry lobbying. For example, since 2017, dairy alternatives cannot be labelled as “milk” or “cheese” due to meat and dairy industry lobbying. Two years later, an amendment was proposed to restrict terms like “steak” or “burger” exclusively to animal products. Although the amendment was withdrawn in 2020, debates around these issues continue. At one point, there was even a suggestion—later rejected—that plant-based sausages should be labelled as "vegetarian cylindrical food items.”19
Proponents of restricting terms like “sausage” argue that using traditional meat descriptors for vegan or vegetarian products confuses consumers, but plant-based advocates counter that banning these terms would hold the plant-based food industry back. The Vegan Society told the BBC in 2019 that using familiar terms for plant-based products allows vegans to choose foods “in line with their beliefs easily” and communicates important aspects like shape, flavour and cooking methods—more so than just the ingredients.22
This public debate has raised the profile of vegan products, but it has also provided fertile ground for the foods to be demonised as ultra-processed, “synthetic”, and bad for human health, most likely dissuading consumers from buying them.
Where does this leave us?
While the rise of processed meat and dairy alternatives has brought challenges to the plant-based movement, there are undeniable positives. The availability of both ultra-processed and minimally processed plant-based alternatives has made it easier for people to reduce their meat and dairy consumption. This opens the door for more people to explore veganism, eat plant-based meals a few times a week, or lower their environmental impact through their food choices.23,24
Having said this, the broader effect of UPFs on the plant based movement appears to have, so far, been negative. Increased awareness around food processing and unknown ingredients has resulted in plant-based meat and dairy alternatives being demonised on TV and in newspapers as UPFs that are bad for human health - which, as we have seen, isn’t necessarily the case. At the same time, government policies that attempt to ban lab-grown meat have been accused of damaging companies that produce plant-based alternatives, hindering innovation and preventing the development of sustainable foods. Meanwhile, the debate around labelling of plant-based foods has cemented the idea of meat and dairy alternatives as synthetic and unhealthy products, likely affecting consumer habits.
However, with greater understanding of UPFs—and the recognition that many meat and dairy products, such as sausages, ham, and chicken nuggets, are also considered ultra-processed—these negative effects on the plant-based movement can be overcome.
Still curious about ultra-processed foods? Dive deeper on all things ultra-processed in our special Editorial package Ultra-Processed Foods (Unfolded).
