Consumer Reports in past years has developed a strong antipathy to intensive livestock production, favoring environmentally beneficial alternatives. Uncharacteristically the publication recently commented adversely on the cost and attributes of alternatives to meat.
Thirty-two plant-based products were evaluated with Consumer Reports noting inferiority in organoleptic properties compared to real meat. Although some brands were almost similar in texture and taste there were perceptible differences among many of the alternatives that were markedly inferior inacceptable quality.
The nutritional equivalence compared to real meat products was questioned. Although crude protein values are only slightly lower than real meat, amino acid composition especially with respect to lysine and essential sulfa-containing amino acids is inferior. Salt content of some products may be unacceptably high. Ingredient lists for vegetable-based alternatives include a number of additives, although approved for food, detract from acceptance by consumers demanding “clean labels”