Short Oral Presentation Nutrition Society of Australia 50th Annual Scientific Meeting 2026

Comparison of nutrient composition, product labelling and processing classification of plant-based and animal-based counterparts sold in Australian supermarkets (146896)

Madhumali Sethunga Mudalige Dona 1 , Erum Fatima 2 , Elizabeth Barber 2 3
  1. School of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Monash University, Clayton Campus, Victoria 3800, Australia
  2. Department of Nutrition, Dietetics & Food, Monash University, BASE Facility, Notting Hill, Victoria, Australia
  3. Victorian Heart Institute, Monash University, Victorian Heart Hospital, Victoria, Australia

To address the Sustainable Development Goals, there is a significant global dietary shift towards plant-based meat alternatives (PBMA) to improve health and address ethical considerations(1). Most recently, a variety of PBMAs have been developed by the food industry in response to demand, yet their nutritional characteristics relative to animal-based meat counterparts (ABMC) have not been reported. Therefore, it is essential to determine whether the current PBMAs available in local supermarkets are nutritionally adequate to meet individuals’ dietary requirements(2). This project aims to compare the nutrient composition, health star ratings (HSR), nutrition scores, and processing classification between PBMA and ABMC in Australian supermarkets. The nutrition information panels, ingredient list, front-of-pack labelling, and NOVA classification data were collected in July 2026 using the Coles and Woolworths supermarket websites for 52 PBMA food products available as burger patties, kyivs, meatballs, mince, nuggets, pieces, plain meat, roast, slices, sausages, schnitzel, strips, tenders. Products were compared with 31 ABMC to enable adequate nutritional comparison, where unpaired t-tests with Welch’s correction (p < 0.05) were used to determine statistical differences. PBMA and ABMC contain similar energy (809 kJ/100 g vs 887 kJ/100 g; p = 0.098), protein (15.0 g/100 g vs 15.3 g/100 g; p = 0.21), carbohydrates (10.2 g/100 g vs 7.8 g/100 g; p = 0.15), sugar (1.2 g/100 g vs 1.3 g/100 g; p = 0.63) and sodium (495 mg/100 g vs 428 mg/100 g; p = 0.28) with similar prices (p = 0.15). In contrast, lower total fat (9.5 (4.8) g/100 g vs 13.2 (5.7) g/100 g; p = 0.004) and saturated fat (2.3 (2.1) g/100 g vs 4.6 (3.3)  g/100 g; p = 0.002) were observed in PBMA than in ABMC, while fibre content was higher in PBMA (4.5 (1.8) g/100 g vs 1.0 (0.7) g/100 g; p < 0.0001). Nearly half (48%) of the PBMA reported additional micronutrient content. All PBMA were classified as NOVA Group 4 (ultra-processed) despite higher HSR ratings (3.5-4.5), whereas only 38% of ABMC were in Group 4, with 16% in Group 1 (unprocessed) and varied HSR ratings (0.5-4). PBMA received a higher Nutri-Score (63% as A-B, none as E), whereas 70% of ABMC were in lower C–E categories. Lower fat and higher fibre content of PBMA improved its HSR ratings and Nutri-Score. The additional processing steps and food additives present in PBMA raised its NOVA classification to Group 4, suggesting inconsistencies in the nutritional scoring system and in the product quality used in food production. Although PBMA mimics several aspects of ABMC in terms of potential nutritional adequacy, improved nutritional scoring systems and consumer sensory acceptance will further support their production and, in turn, population health.

  1. Xavier JR, S SH, Vats D, Chauhan OP (2025) Future Foods 11, 100551
  2. De Bie TH, Eilander A, Wanders AJ (2025) J Food Comp and Analysis 146, 107841.