Alternative proteins are receiving increased global attention. This burgeoning interest in plants (especially plant-based meat alternatives), insects, algae, and cultured meat has been attributed to their reported health benefits, lower environmental impact and improved animal welfare compared to conventional animal-based meat. Food producers and the media are promoting acceptance of these products, claiming superior nutritional, environmental and ethical credentials and a desirable novel sensory experience. However, the evidence supporting these claims remains unclear. In this review, we summarise the main evidence underlying the nutritional, sensorial, economical, ethical, and environmental reasons reported for the rise in consumer demand for alternative proteins. We found many of these reasons to lack a strong evidence base. For instance, evidence is emerging for the nutritional benefits of plant-based meat alternatives, but present claims are largely based on established evidence for plant-based diets. Significant research gaps remain, especially longitudinal evidence on the sustained effects of replacing conventional animal-based proteins with alternative sources. For many alternative proteins, challenges exist in achieving desirable sensory properties akin to animal-based meat to promote their acceptance by consumers. Overall, fundamental shifts in the food system are required to create a culture in which healthful and sustainable food choices are the norm.

Consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked with higher energy intakes. Food texture is known to influence eating rate (ER) and energy intake to satiation, yet it remains unclear whether food texture influences energy intakes from minimally processed and ultra-processed meals. We examined the independent and combined effects of food texture and degree of processing on ad libitum food intake. We also investigated whether differences in energy intake during lunch influenced postmeal feelings of satiety and later food intake. In this crossover study, 50 healthy-weight participants [n = 50 (24 men); mean ± SD age: 24.4 ± 3.1 y; BMI: 21.3 ± 1.9 kg/m²] consumed 4 ad libitum lunch meals consisting of “soft minimally processed,” “hard minimally processed,” “soft ultra-processed,” and “hard ultra-processed” components. Meals were matched for total energy served, with some variation in meal energy density (±0.20 kcal/g). Ad libitum food intake (kcal and g) was measured and ER derived using behavioral coding of videos. Subsequent food intake was self-reported by food diary. There was a main effect of food texture on intake, whereby “hard minimally processed” and “hard ultra-processed” meals were consumed slower overall, produced a 21% and 26% reduction in food weight (g) and energy (kcal) consumed, respectively. Intakes were higher for “soft ultra-processed” and “soft minimally processed” meals (P < 0.001), after correcting for meal pleasantness. The effect of texture on food weight consumed was not influenced by processing levels (weight of food: texture*processing-effect, P = 0.376), but the effect of food texture on energy intake was (energy consumed: texture*processing-effect, P = 0.015). The least energy was consumed from the “hard minimally processed” meal (482.9 kcal; 95% CI: 431.9, 531.0 kcal) and the most from the “soft ultra-processed” meal (789.4 kcal; 95% CI: 725.9, 852.8 kcal; Δ=↓∼300 kcal). Energy intake was lowest when harder texture was combined with the “minimally processed” meals. Total energy intake across the day varied directly with energy intakes of the test meals (Δ15%, P < 0.001). Findings suggest that food texture–based differences in ER and meal energy density contribute to observed differences in energy intake between minimally processed and ultra-processed meals. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04589221.

Food texture combinations have a stronger impact in moderating oral processing behaviours and eating rate (g min⁻¹), than individual texture changes. This effect was the same for faster and slower eaters.

Taste preferences guide food choices and dietary behaviours, yet few studies have shown a relationship between sweet and savoury taste preference and differences in dietary intakes or energy consumed from different “taste clusters”. We investigated differences in psycho-hedonic responses to sweet and savoury tastes and their association with energy intake, proportion of energy from macronutrients and energy intake from different “taste clusters”. In addition, we evaluated correspondence between two methods to classify “sweet-liker” status and the overlap between sweet and savoury taste preferences. Psycho-hedonic responses to sweet and savoury tastes of female participants (n = 66) were captured via staircase paired preference and the “sweet-liker phenotype” classification method. Quantitative dietary energy and macronutrient intakes were measured using three-day food diary, and the relative contributions of specific taste clusters to energy intake were derived for each participant. All participants completed anthropometric assessments measuring body mass index (BMI) and adiposity. Results showed no association between sweet and savoury preferences with dietary energy or macronutrient intakes, though there was a trend towards higher sweet food consumption among “sweet-likers”. A higher preference for savouriness was not associated with differences in daily energy intake, energy intake from protein, BMI or adiposity levels. There was little overlap in sweet and savoury preferences, suggesting a bi-modal split in taste preferences. “Sweet-likers” preferred a higher mean sucrose concentration than sweet “dislikers” (p < 0.001) indicating agreement between the two approaches. Future studies should consider comparing taste-liker differences using food choice tasks to address the current gap between taste preference measures and actual dietary behaviours.