4.6 Article

Perspective: Soy-based Meat and Dairy Alternatives, Despite Classification as Ultra-processed Foods, Deliver High-quality Nutrition on Par with Unprocessed or Minimally Processed Animal-based Counterparts

期刊

ADVANCES IN NUTRITION
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 726-738

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1093/advances/nmac026

关键词

NOVA; soymilk; soy-based meat alternative; ultra-processed foods; glycemic index; satiety; hyper-palatability; sustainable

向作者/读者索取更多资源

NOVA classifies soymilk and soy-based meat alternatives as ultra-processed foods, but the criticisms of UPFs do not apply to these foods when compared with their animal-based counterparts. Admonitions based on their NOVA classification may discourage the consumption of foods that offer health and environmental benefits.
Statement of Significance: NOVA classifies soymilk and soy-based meat alternatives as ultra-processed foods (UPFs). However, criticisms of UPFs are not applicable to these foods when they are compared with their animal-based counterparts, which are classified as unprocessed or minimally processed foods. Admonitions against soymilk and soy-based meat alternatives based on their NOVA classification may dissuade consumers from consuming foods that offer health and environmental benefits. In many non-Asian countries, soy is consumed via soy-based meat and dairy alternatives, in addition to the traditional Asian soyfoods, such as tofu and miso. Meat alternatives are typically made using concentrated sources of soy protein, such as soy protein isolate (SPI) and soy protein concentrate (SPC). Therefore, these products are classified as ultra-processed foods (UPFs; group 4) according to NOVA, an increasingly widely used food-classification system that classifies all foods into 1 of 4 groups according to the processing they undergo. Furthermore, most soymilks, even those made from whole soybeans, are also classified as UPFs because of the addition of sugars and emulsifiers. Increasingly, recommendations are being made to restrict the consumption of UPFs because their intake is associated with a variety of adverse health outcomes. Critics of UPFs argue these foods are unhealthful for a wide assortment of reasons. Explanations for the proposed adverse effects of UPFs include their high energy density, high glycemic index (GI), hyper-palatability, and low satiety potential. Claims have also been made that UPFs are not sustainably produced. However, this perspective argues that none of the criticisms of UPFs apply to soy-based meat and dairy alternatives when compared with their animal-based counterparts, beef and cow milk, which are classified as unprocessed or minimally processed foods (group 1). Classifying soy-based meat and dairy alternatives as UPFs may hinder their public acceptance, which could detrimentally affect personal and planetary health. In conclusion, the NOVA classification system is simplistic and does not adequately evaluate the nutritional attributes of meat and dairy alternatives based on soy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据