Harnack · Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 2021 · cross-sectional food composition database analysis · n=37

Nutrient Composition of a Selection of Plant-Based Ground Beef Alternative Products Available in the United States.

Cited 107 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Cross-sectional food composition database analysis (rated by design analogy)

PubMed 34090837 · doi:10.1016/j.jand.2021.05.002 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

The authors evaluated the nutrient composition of 37 plant-based ground beef alternative products available in the United States in 2019 using the 2020 University of Minnesota Nutrition Coordinating Center Food and Nutrient Database. Content of energy, macronutrients, fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, and other components was determined as percent Daily Value (%DV) per 3-ounce cooked portion, reporting median, interquartile range (IQR), minimum, and maximum values by vegan and nonvegan classification compared with ground beef.

What was found

The median saturated fat content of the alternatives was 4% DV (IQR 2%). Nutrients with median %DV of 10% or higher included folate (10%, IQR 10%), niacin (21%, IQR 7%), iron (10%, IQR 5%), phosphorous (10%, IQR 4%), sodium (18%, IQR 7%), manganese (20%, IQR 20%), and copper (24%, IQR 10%). Median dietary fiber content was 15% DV (IQR 6%). Most products contained less protein, zinc, and vitamin B12 than ground beef.

Why it matters

This evaluation profiles the nutrient trade-offs of plant-based beef alternatives, showing they supply dietary fiber and low saturated fat but typically lack the protein, zinc, and vitamin B12 levels of ground beef.

Limits

The sample was restricted to 37 ground beef alternative products available in 2019 from a single database, without direct laboratory chemical assays or measurement of nutrient bioavailability. Other meat alternatives (e.g., chicken or pork substitutes) were not evaluated.

Cited by