RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the fatty acid profiles and relevant vitamin and mineral compositions of margarine/margarine-like products and butter blend products available in the US marketplace and to compare with butter. DESIGN: Analysis of the food and nutrient composition information available for margarine/margarine-like products, butter blend products and butter in the 2021 version of the University of Minnesota Nutrition Coordinating Center (NCC) Food and Nutrient Database. SETTING: The US retail food marketplace in 2020. PARTICIPANTS: A selection of eighty-three margarine/margarine-like or butter blend products available in the USA in 2020 and regular and whipped butter (both salted and unsalted). RESULTS: All products contained no or negligible amounts of trans fat. Mean daily values (DV) for SFA per 1 tablespoon ranged from 11 % for margarine/margarine-like tub and squeeze products to 18 % for margarine/margarine-like stick products and butter blend products. In contrast, one tablespoon butter provides 36 % of the DV for SFA. Results from ANOVA comparing the percent of total fat from SFA, PUFA and MUFA by product type indicated significant differences for SFA (P < 0·01) and PUFA (P < 0·01), but not MUFA (P = 0·07). CONCLUSIONS: Leading brands of margarine/margarine-like and butter blend products examined in this study were found to be in greater alignment with current dietary recommendations for fatty acids and cholesterol than butter. Margarine/margarine-like tub and squeeze products were found to be optimal over margarine/margarine-like stick products and butter blend products. Future research should include an examination of private label products.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Sales of plant-based foods intended as direct replacements for animal products have been growing in the United States. Little is known about the nutritional quality of these products. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the nutritional quality of a selection of plant-based ground beef alternative products available in the US marketplace and compare it with the nutrient content of ground beef. DESIGN: We conducted an analysis of the food and nutrient composition information available for plant-based ground beef alternative products in the 2020 version of the University of Minnesota Nutrition Coordinating Center Food and Nutrient Database. PARTICIPANT/SETTING: We analyzed a selection of 37 plant-based ground beef alternative products available in the United States in 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Food product content of energy, macronutrients, fatty acids, vitamins, minerals and selected additional food components was measured. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The percent Daily Value (DV) per 3-ounce cooked portion of each product was determined for nutrients with a DV. The median, interquartile range (IQR), minimum, and maximum nutrient values were calculated for all products by classification as vegan and nonvegan. RESULTS: The median saturated fat content of the plant-based ground beef alternatives products as a %DV was 4% (IQR 2%). Vitamin and minerals for which median %DV values for plant-based ground beef alternative products were 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%). The median dietary fiber content of the plant-based ground beef alternative products was 15% of the DV (IQR 6%). Most of the products contained less protein, zinc, and vitamin B12 than ground beef. CONCLUSIONS: The major brands of plant-based ground beef alternative products examined in this study have nutritional strengths as well as some shortcomings. Additional research to examine a broader set of plant-based meat alternative products, such as those designed as substitutes for chicken and pork, is warranted.