Editing Meat alternative (section)

===Health===

Meat alternatives have lower amounts of [[saturated fat]], [[Vitamin B12|vitamin B<sub>12</sub>]] and zinc than meat products but higher amounts of carbohydrates, [[dietary fibre]], sodium, iron and calcium.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Lindberg, Leona |author2=McCann, Rachel Reid |author3=Smyth, Beatrice |author4=Woodside, Jayne V. |author5=Nugent, Anne P.|year=2024|title=The environmental impact, ingredient composition, nutritional and health impact of meat alternatives: a systematic review|journal=Trends in Food Science & Technology|volume=149|issue=|pages=104483|doi=10.1016/j.tifs.2024.104483|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Surya Ulhas |first1=Rutwick |last2=Ravindran |first2=Rajeev |last3=Malaviya |first3=Alok |last4=Priyadarshini |first4=Anushree |last5=Tiwari |first5=Brijesh K. |last6=Rajauria |first6=Gaurav |title=A review of alternative proteins for vegan diets: Sources, physico-chemical properties, nutritional equivalency, and consumer acceptance |journal=[[Food Research International]] |date=2023 |volume=173 |issue=Pt 2 |pages=113479 |doi=10.1016/j.foodres.2023.113479 |doi-access=free|pmid=37803803 }}</ref> Meat alternatives are rated as [[ultra-processed food]]s under the [[Nova classification]], but when the UK nutritional profiling system is used, not all products classified as ultra-processed are rated as unhealthy.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Petersen T, Hirsch S.|year=2023|title=Comparing meat and meat alternatives: an analysis of nutrient quality in five European countries|journal=Public Health Nutrition|volume=26|issue=12|pages=3349–3358|doi=10.1017/S1368980023001945|pmid=37800339|pmc=10755401}}</ref>

In 2021, the [[American Heart Association]] stated that there is "limited evidence on the short- and long-term health effects" of plant-based meat alternatives.<ref name=aha>{{cite journal |vauthors=Lichtenstein AH, Appel LJ, Vadiveloo M, Hu FB, Kris-Etherton PM, Rebholz CM, Sacks FM, Thorndike AN, Van Horn L, Wylie-Rosett J |title=2021 Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association |journal=Circulation | volume=144 |issue=23 |pages=e472–e487 |date=December 2021 |pmid=34724806 |doi=10.1161/CIR.0000000000001031 |s2cid=240422142 |type=Review|display-authors=5|doi-access=free }}</ref> The same year, the [[World Health Organization]] stated that there are "significant knowledge gaps in the nutritional composition" of meat alternatives and more research is needed to investigate their health impacts.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/349086/WHO-EURO-2021-4007-43766-61591-eng.pdf |title="Plant-based diets and their impact on health, sustainability and the environment: A review of the evidence" |work=WHO European Office for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases |via=apps.who.int}}</ref> 

A 2023 review concluded that replacing red and highly-processed meat with a variety of meat alternatives improved [[quality-adjusted life year]]s, led to significant health system savings and reduced [[greenhouse gas]] emissions; replacement of meat with minimally-processed vegetarian alternatives, such as legumes had the greatest effect.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Reynolds |first1=Andrew N. |last2=Mhurchu |first2=Cliona Ni |last3=Kok |first3=Zi-Yi |last4=Cleghorn |first4=Christine |date=2023-02-01 |title=The neglected potential of red and processed meat replacement with alternative protein sources: simulation modelling and systematic review |journal=eClinicalMedicine |volume=56 |pages=101774 |doi=10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101774 |issn=2589-5370|pmid=36567793|doi-access=free |pmc=9772543 }}</ref> Another review found that meat alternatives are likely to be healthier than meat products and more environmentally friendly but are more expensive.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Coffey AA |author2=Lillywhite R. |author3=Oyebode O.|year=2023|title=Meat versus meat alternatives: which is better for the environment and health? A nutritional and environmental analysis of animal-based products compared with their plant-based alternatives|journal=Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics|volume=36|issue=6|pages=2147–2156|doi=10.1111/jhn.13219|pmid=37534713}}</ref>

A 2024 review found that plant-based meat alternatives have the potential to be healthier than [[animal source foods]] and have smaller environmental footprints.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Nájera Espinosa S. |author2=Hadida G. |author3=Jelmar Sietsma A. |author4=Alae-Carew C. |author5=Turner G. |author6=Green R. |author7=Pastorino S. |author8=Picetti R. |author9=Scheelbeek P.|year=2024|title=Mapping the evidence of novel plant-based foods: a systematic review of nutritional, health, and environmental impacts in high-income countries|journal=Nutrition Reviews|url=https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuae031/7656938|volume=|issue=|pages=nuae031|doi=10.1093/nutrit/nuae031|pmid=38657969|doi-access=free}}</ref>

A comprehensive study published in the journal [[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]] in 2024 shows that processed plant-based substitutes such as veggie burgers improve nutrition compared to animal products, but less than unprocessed plant-based foods; they offer significant health benefits over meat, but are not as nutritious and balanced as unprocessed alternatives.<ref>M. Springmann, A multicriteria analysis of meat and milk alternatives from nutritional, health, environmental, and cost perspectives, Proc. Natl. Acad. 121 (50) e2319010121, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2319010121 (2024).</ref>