The researchers drew on two of the most extensive food databases available in Europe: Euromonitor’s Passport, which tracks commercial market data, and EuroFIR’s FoodEXplorer, which aggregates compositional food data from national food composition tables across the continent. By combining these sources, the team was able to chart market volumes from 2009 to 2024 and, in parallel, analyse the macronutrient profiles of the products on sale. Nutritional quality was scored using two complementary front-of-pack labelling schemes, the Nutri-Score and the Multiple Traffic Light system, and the researchers additionally assessed which products would be legally eligible to carry nutrition claims under EU Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. Differences between plant-based analogues and their animal-derived counterparts were tested statistically using the Mann–Whitney U test, a non-parametric method suited to the skewed distributions typical of food composition data.

The headline market finding is unambiguous: plant-based analogues are no longer a niche. Between 2009 and 2024, the market volume of dairy analogues more than tripled, while the market for meat and seafood analogues grew approximately sevenfold. That trajectory reflects a convergence of forces, including rising consumer interest in flexitarian diets, environmental concerns about livestock production, and sustained investment by food manufacturers in improving the taste and texture of products designed to mimic burgers, sausages, milk, and yoghurt. Yet the study’s authors caution that rapid growth has not been accompanied by consistent product quality, and that the term plant-based covers an enormously heterogeneous set of foods.

That heterogeneity is most striking in the macronutrient analysis. Protein content varied widely within every category examined, but the variability was particularly pronounced among analogues to curded dairy products, the plant-based equivalents of cheese. Many of these products provided little to no protein at all, a finding that undercuts a common consumer assumption that a plant-based cheese alternative is nutritionally comparable to the dairy product it replaces. Dairy cheese is a significant protein source in European diets, and the analysis suggests that consumers relying on analogues to fill that role may, depending on the product chosen, receive almost nothing in return. The researchers attribute this variability to formulation: some products are built on protein-rich bases such as pea, soy, or almond concentrates, while others rely heavily on starches, oils, and flavourings.

The Nutri-Score results, which grade foods from A, the healthiest, to E, the least healthy, based on levels of energy, sugars, saturated fat, sodium, protein, fibre, and fruit or vegetable content, revealed consistent but category-dependent patterns. Approximately half of the meat and seafood analogues analysed achieved an A or B rating, placing them among the better-scoring packaged foods. Dairy drink analogues, by contrast, displayed much greater variability, with scores spread across the scale depending on added sugars and fat content. The most troubling result concerned analogues to curded dairy products: every single one scored D or E, the two worst grades. The researchers traced these poor scores to three drivers: high total fat, high saturated fat, and elevated salt levels, a combination that mirrors some of the less healthy characteristics of the cheeses these products imitate.

The Multiple Traffic Light system, which colour-codes fat, saturated fat, sugars, and salt per portion, reinforced the same picture. It also highlighted salt as a recurring concern across several analogue categories. While plant-based products are often perceived as inherently healthier, the processing required to make legumes, grains, and vegetable oils resemble animal products can involve substantial amounts of added sodium, thickeners, and flavour enhancers. The study’s findings suggest that the health halo surrounding plant-based labelling is not always earned by the nutritional composition of the food inside the package.

There were genuine positives, however. More than 60 percent of the meat and seafood analogues qualified for legally defined claims of high protein and low saturated fat, indicating that a majority of products in this fast-growing category do deliver on at least two of the nutritional attributes consumers most often seek. Across the board, the comparison with animal products showed a consistent pattern: plant-based analogues contained more dietary fibre and less total and saturated fat than the animal foods they replace. Fibre is essentially absent from meat, dairy, and seafood, so any product built from plants carries an automatic advantage on that front, and the lower saturated fat content aligns with long-standing dietary guidance linking saturated fat intake to cardiovascular disease risk.

The less favourable side of the ledger concerned protein and the more variable nutrients. Overall, the analogues contained less protein than their animal counterparts, and their sugar and salt levels were inconsistent, sometimes higher and sometimes lower depending on the product and category. This matters because protein, salt, and added sugars are precisely the nutrients around which public health advice in Europe is most actively framed. A consumer who replaces a portion of meat with a low-protein, high-salt analogue may be making a trade that is beneficial for fibre and saturated fat but detrimental elsewhere in their diet. The authors emphasise that the nutritional contribution of any analogue depends heavily on product formulation and on the dietary context in which it is consumed, rather than on the plant-based label itself.

For the researchers, the policy implications are clear. The plant-based analogue market is expanding and is likely to continue doing so as Europe pursues more sustainable food systems, but the sector’s contribution to healthy diets is not guaranteed by growth alone. The study concludes that reformulation could substantially enhance the role these products play, particularly by raising protein content in underperforming categories such as cheese analogues and by reducing salt, saturated fat, and total fat where front-of-pack scores are poor. Because the analysis shows that quality is formulation-dependent rather than intrinsic to the category, targeted reformulation is technically feasible, and the eligibility of many products for nutrition claims suggests manufacturers already have the tools to differentiate better products on shelf.

The study also fills an important evidence gap. Although plant-based analogues have attracted considerable attention in national surveys and single-market studies, EU-wide data on their market evolution and nutritional quality had remained limited. By systematically combining commercial market intelligence with compositional data and validated front-of-pack scoring systems, the Joint Research Centre team has produced the kind of baseline that regulators, public health authorities, and manufacturers can use to monitor the sector as it matures. As the authors note, plant-based analogues are rising in market share, but whether they become a reliable pillar of healthy and sustainable diets will depend on the choices made now about what goes into them.

Subject of Research: Market trends and nutritional quality of plant-based packaged food analogues to animal products in the European Union

Article Title: Plant-based packaged foods as analogues to animal products: market trends and nutritional quality analysis

Article References: Kokkorou, M., Hoffzimmer, A., Dias, J., Grammatikaki, E., Wollgast, J., & Maragkoudakis, P. (2026). Plant-based packaged foods as analogues to animal products: market trends and nutritional quality analysis. BMC Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-026-05207-x

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12916-026-05207-x

Keywords: plant-based analogues, packaged foods, nutritional quality, Nutri-Score, EU market, market trends, dairy analogues, meat analogues, protein content, sustainable diets, food reformulation, BMC Medicine

The review, conducted by Margarida Bica, Jessica Renzella, Asha Kaur and Mike Rayner of the University of Oxford, drew on both peer-reviewed literature and the often-overlooked grey literature of government regulations, technical manuals and policy documents. The researchers systematically searched for nutrient profile models specifically developed or applied to front-of-pack nutrition labelling systems, characterising each model according to the type of labelling scheme it supported, the nutrients and food components it restricted or encouraged, and the evidence of its scientific validation. The scope matters, the authors argue, because the sheer proliferation of NPMs now poses a practical challenge for policymakers: with dozens of options available, choosing an appropriate model for a national labelling policy has become a non-trivial scientific and political decision.

The taxonomy that emerged from the analysis mirrors the main families of front-of-pack labelling in use today. Fifteen of the 42 identified models were developed for warning-label schemes, the approach pioneered in Chile and now dominant across much of Latin America, in which products exceeding thresholds for nutrients of concern carry prominent black octagons declaring them high in sugar, sodium or saturated fat. Eleven models underpinned nutrient-specific systems, including the traffic-light labelling familiar to British shoppers, which displays colour-coded indicators for individual nutrients. Another 11 models supported health endorsement schemes, such as the Nordic Keyhole or Singapore’s Healthier Choice Symbol, which positively certify foods deemed healthier choices. Four models drove summary scores, exemplified by France’s Nutri-Score and Australia’s Health Star Rating, which condense a food’s overall nutritional quality into a single graded mark. One model served other system types.

Beneath this structural variety, the review found striking common ground on which nutrients matter most. Every one of the 42 models limited the content of sugar, reflecting the strength of the scientific evidence linking excess sugar intake to obesity, type 2 diabetes and dental disease. The vast majority also placed restrictions on sodium and saturated fat, the two other nutrients most consistently associated with non-communicable disease burden. This convergence suggests that, despite institutional and regional differences, the underlying nutritional science has produced a broadly shared view of which dietary components should trigger concern on the front of a package. Sweeteners, energy density, protein, fibre, fruit and vegetable content appeared in more variable combinations across models, reflecting differing philosophies about whether labels should simply flag harmful nutrients or also reward beneficial ones.

Where the consensus frays is in the details of implementation. Thresholds for what counts as high in sugar differ between models; some assess nutrients per 100 grams while others evaluate them per serving or as a proportion of total energy; category-specific rules treat staples such as cheese, oils and beverages differently across schemes. The review documents this heterogeneity in granular detail, showing that two products judged unhealthy under one national scheme may pass cleanly under another. For multinational food manufacturers, this patchwork creates compliance complexity and, critics argue, opportunities to formulate products to game particular algorithms. For policymakers in countries drafting their first labelling laws, the absence of a single validated standard complicates decisions that industry lobbyists are often eager to influence.

Validation emerged as another significant gap. The review assessed whether models had demonstrated convergent validity, meaning agreement with other established measures of nutritional quality, and criterion validity, meaning the ability to predict health-relevant outcomes. Convergent validity was demonstrated for nine of the 42 models, while criterion validity was shown for only three. In other words, the scientific evidence underpinning most front-of-pack labelling algorithms remains thin relative to their policy importance. The authors note that this imbalance reinforces the need for greater regional guidance and alignment, so that new labelling programmes can build on models whose performance has been rigorously tested rather than reinventing criteria from scratch under political pressure.

The policy stakes are considerable. Diet-related non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes and several cancers, are among the leading causes of death globally, and governments increasingly view front-of-pack labels as a fast, low-cost intervention that shifts both consumer choice and industry reformulation. Chile’s warning-label law, implemented in stages since 2016, has been associated with reductions in purchases of sugary drinks and prompted widespread product reformulation across the region. The Pan American Health Organization’s nutrient profile model has served as a regional benchmark, while the World Health Organization has issued guiding principles and framework manuals to support member states. The European Union is weighing a harmonised mandatory front-of-pack label, a debate in which the choice between Nutri-Score-style summary scores and other approaches has become intensely contested among member states, scientists and industry groups.

The review also situates nutrient profiling within a broader scientific conversation about what food labels should measure. A growing body of research argues that nutrient-based models, however well calibrated, fail to capture the degree of industrial processing, exemplified by the NOVA classification of ultra-processed foods, which has been independently associated with adverse health outcomes in large cohort studies. Recent work has explored modifying established algorithms, such as Australia’s Health Star Rating, to account for ultra-processing, and examining the complementarity between updated Nutri-Score criteria and NOVA categories. The Oxford review does not resolve this debate, but its systematic inventory provides the evidentiary scaffolding for it, documenting precisely which models exist, what they measure and where their validation evidence stands.

Methodologically, the review followed established systematic review practice, including structured searches across peer-reviewed databases and targeted collection of grey-literature policy documents from national ministries, regional health bodies and regulatory agencies across the Americas, Europe, Asia, Africa and the Eastern Mediterranean. The authors screened studies collaboratively, analysed model characteristics in detail and reported their findings with extensive supplementary tables. The inclusion of grey literature proved essential: many of the 42 models, particularly those embedded in national regulations from Chile and Mexico to Kenya, Samoa and the Gulf states, exist primarily in legal texts and technical manuals rather than scientific journals. Without such searches, the true global diversity of nutrient profiling for labelling would be substantially underestimated.

The review’s central message is ultimately one of opportunity tempered by fragmentation. Front-of-pack nutrition labelling has matured from a handful of voluntary schemes into a global policy movement with real evidence of impact, and the raw material for that movement, a library of 42 nutrient profile models, is now catalogued and characterised. But the heterogeneity the authors document suggests that the field has not yet converged on what constitutes the most appropriate model for labelling purposes, and that validation evidence lags behind deployment. Greater regional guidance and alignment, the authors conclude, would help countries adopt models with demonstrated performance, reduce industry gaming of inconsistent thresholds, and move the world’s food packages toward labels that are not only eye-catching but scientifically defensible. As more governments prepare to legislate, the choice of algorithm beneath the label may prove as consequential as the label itself.

Subject of Research: Nutrient profile models developed and used for front-of-pack nutrition labelling systems to classify foods and support policies against diet-related non-communicable diseases.

Article Title: Systematic review of nutrient profile models for front-of-pack nutrition labelling

Article References: Bica, M., Renzella, J., Kaur, A., & Rayner, M. (2026). Systematic review of nutrient profile models for front-of-pack nutrition labelling. Nature Food. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-026-01414-0

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1038/s43016-026-01414-0

Keywords: nutrient profile models, front-of-pack nutrition labelling, food policy, non-communicable diseases, sugar, sodium, saturated fat, warning labels, Nutri-Score, traffic-light labelling, systematic review, public health nutrition