Center for Public Health Nutrition, University of Washington, P.O. Box 353410, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.
Nutrients. 2022 Nov 11;14(22):4767. doi: 10.3390/nu14224767.
Plant-based milk alternatives and plant-based waters are of variable nutritional value. The present objective was to assess nutrient density of all plant-based beverages in the US Department of Agriculture Branded Food Products Database and determine whether plant-based milk alternatives met the proposed nutrient standards. Plant-based milk alternatives (n = 1042) were identified as almond, soy, coconut, cashew, other tree nut, flax/hemp, pea, and oat, quinoa, and rice products. Plant-based waters (n = 550) were coconut, aloe, tree, fruit, and plain. Machine searches of ingredient lists identified products with added sugars, salt, vitamins, and minerals. Plant-based milk alternatives were tested for compliance with previously developed nutrient standards. The Nutrient Rich Food Index (NRF5.3), two versions of Nutri-Score, and Choices International were the nutrient density metrics. Plant-based milk alternatives had mean energy density of 49 kcal/100 g, were low in protein (1.1 g/100 g), often contained added sugars and salt, and tended to be fortified with calcium, vitamin A, vitamin D, and vitamin B12. Only 117 milk alternatives (11.2%) met nutrient standards and only 80 (7.7%) met the more stringent “best of class” standards for ≥2.8 g/100 g protein and <3.1 g/100 g added sugars. The latter were mostly soy milks. Nutri-Score grades varied depending on whether the beverages were treated as beverages or as solid foods, as is currently required. The highest NRF5.3 scores were given to soy, almond, and tree nut milk alternatives. Plant-based waters had low energy density (23 kcal/100 g), contained added sugars (4.6 g/100 g), and some had added vitamin C. Applying nutrient standards to plant-based milk alternatives can aid new product development, promote more transparent labeling, and inform potential regulatory actions. Guidance on minimum protein content, maximum recommended amounts of fat, added sugars, and sodium, and consistent fortification patterns would be of value to regulatory agencies and to the food industry.
植物奶替代品和植物水的营养价值各不相同。本研究旨在评估美国农业部品牌食品数据库中所有植物饮料的营养密度,并确定植物奶替代品是否符合建议的营养标准。植物奶替代品(n = 1042)包括杏仁、大豆、椰子、腰果、其他坚果、亚麻/大麻、豌豆和燕麦、藜麦和大米产品。植物水(n = 550)包括椰子、芦荟、树木、水果和普通水。通过机器搜索成分清单,确定了添加糖、盐、维生素和矿物质的产品。植物奶替代品是否符合之前制定的营养标准进行了测试。营养丰富食品指数(NRF5.3)、两种版本的 Nutri-Score 和 Choices International 是衡量营养密度的指标。植物奶替代品的平均能量密度为 49 千卡/100 克,蛋白质含量低(约 1.1 克/100 克),通常含有添加糖和盐,并且倾向于添加钙、维生素 A、维生素 D 和维生素 B12。只有 117 种奶替代品(11.2%)符合营养标准,只有 80 种(7.7%)符合更严格的“最佳”标准,即蛋白质含量≥2.8 克/100 克,添加糖含量<3.1 克/100 克。后者主要是大豆奶。Nutri-Score 等级取决于饮料是作为饮料还是固体食品处理,这是目前的要求。NRF5.3 得分最高的是大豆、杏仁和坚果奶替代品。植物水的能量密度低(约 23 千卡/100 克),含有添加糖(4.6 克/100 克),有些还添加了维生素 C。将营养标准应用于植物奶替代品可以帮助新产品开发,促进更透明的标签,并为潜在的监管行动提供信息。关于最低蛋白质含量、最大推荐脂肪量、添加糖和钠量以及一致的强化模式的指导意见将对监管机构和食品行业有价值。