A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Products Marketed as Plant-Based Across the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada Using Online Nutrition Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The food industry is responding to a rising demand for plant-based foods by developing and marketing an ever-wider range of vegan and vegetarian products under the banner of “plant-based.” Understanding the nutritional properties of these products is critical. To assess the number, meal type, and nutritional content of products marketed as plant-based (MaPB) from the perspective of the consumer across multiple sectors in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. An online search for products MaPB was performed across supermarkets, restaurants, food manufacturers, and plant-based meal delivery companies in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada using the terms: “vegan,” “vegetarian,” and “plant-based.” Online nutrition data were extracted, and whole meals that comprised >50% of ingredients such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and seeds were identified. The nutritional content of dishes MaPB in restaurants was also directly compared with meat-containing dishes. Further, 3488 unique products were identified, of which 962 were whole meals and 1137 were a replacement for the main protein component in a meal, including 771 meat alternatives. Across all sectors, 45% of whole meals had >15-g protein, 70% had <10% kcal from saturated fat; 29% had >10-g fiber per meal, and 86% had <1000 mg sodium. At restaurants, 1507 meat-containing dishes were identified and compared with 191 vegetarian and 81 vegan dishes. The meat-containing dishes were higher in protein [35.4 g (24.0–51.4)] compared with vegetarian [19.0 g (13.0–26.1)] and vegan [16.2 g (10.5–23.2) dishes (P < 0.001)]. The vegan dishes were low in saturated fat and sodium (SFA: 6.3 g ± 6.4, Sodium: 800 mg (545.0–1410.0) compared with both meat [SFA: 11.6 g ± 10.0; Sodium: 1280 mg (820.0–1952.0)] and vegetarian [SFA: 9.4 g ± 7.6; Sodium: 1011 mg (603.0–1560.0)] options (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Products MaPB tend to have lower concentrations of saturated fat and sodium than their meat-containing counterparts, but improvements are needed to optimize their nutritional composition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".