HANS ZEVENBERGEN*, JAN DE VRIES, HENK HENDRIKS
*Corresponding author
Nutrition Consultants Cooperative, The Netherlands

Abstract

The Nutri-Score has been introduced in a few countries in the EU to help consumers choose healthier foods. Meat replacers in the Netherlands score well, often better than their meat counterparts. This is mainly due to a lower saturated fat content and higher fibre content; salt levels are comparable in flavoured meats and meat replacers. Almost all are a good source of protein as is meat. Nutri-Score seems to give a first insight in relevant aspects of nutritional quality of meatreplacers. Despite generally good Nutri-Scores, only a handful of the investigated meat replacers would qualify as suitable for daily consumption according to the Dutch food based dietary guidelines.

INTRODUCTION
The Dutch Government has committed to introducing the Nutri-Score this year, provided adaptations are made to make it more in line with the Dutch food based dietary guidelines. As meat replacers are being marketed as better for the planet but often also better for health, we analysed how meat replacers in the Dutch market fare with the Nutri-Score. We investigated the nutritional characteristics of 65 meat replacers (international brands or retailers’ own brand) and 13 comparable meat products, all sold by a big retailer in August this year in The Netherlands.

MEAT REPLACERS SCORE WELL WITH THE NUTRI-SCORE!
Three quarters of meat replacers score Nutri-Score A or B: the healthiest scores. And only 5% score D or E: the worst scores. Only half of the products investigated carried the Nutri-Score logo on the pack.

For meat products the picture is different: less than a third of those products score an A or B and almost half of them D or E. So, most meat products score worse than their replacers, except for chicken and lean minced beef. Chicken meat usually scores an A, hence ...