Brasil
Brazilian Journal of Food Technology
Sumário Anterior Atual Seguinte
Sumário
ORIGINAL ARTICLE • Braz. J. Food Technol. 29 • 2026 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-6723.074025 linkcopy

Open-access Meat-derived patties and plant-based meat analogs from Brazil: Are the labels accurate for protein and lipid content?

AuthorshipSCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Although meat is the primary source of animal protein in the human diet, concerns about its environmental impact and the growing global population have led to the development of alternative proteins and meat analogs. As the demand for plant-based products rises, clear guidelines on nutrient content, such as protein and fat, are needed to ensure compliance. Thus, this study aimed to assess the accuracy of nutritional labeling for protein and lipid content in meat-derived patties and plant-based meat analogs. 21 processed products were examined: six meat-derived patties and 15 plant-based alternatives (plant-based patties; other plant-based products), available in groceries in western Paraná state, Brazil. Around 80% of plant-based analogous products had legumes as their primary protein source, mainly soybean, followed by pea and chickpea. Two meat-derived patties showed protein content below the Brazilian regulation limit (<15%), while all meat-derived patties met the lipid regulation (<25%). Laboratory analysis revealed minimal discrepancies between actual and labeled protein and lipid contents, except for chicken and beef patties A, which showed a >20% variation in lipid content. While protein and lipid contents in plant-based patties were lower than in meat-derived patties, no regulations currently define the minimum or maximum contents of these compounds in plant-based products. Additionally, 66.7% of plant-based patties showed more than 20% variation from label claims. In addition, other plant-based analog products had similar protein content to plant-based patties, and variation in lipid content reached over 20% compared to the label. Despite regulatory gaps, accurate labeling remains key to ensuring nutritional safety and meeting consumer expectations. In practice, producers should often batch-test products, set internal guardrails, and tighten supplier controls to improve label accuracy, while regulators establish composition standards and tolerance limits for plant-based meat analogs.

Keywords:
Alternative protein; Label claim; Regulation; Processed foods; Food composition

Highlights

Protein and lipid labeling accuracy evaluated in 21 meat-derived and plant-based products

All meat-derived patties complied with Brazilian lipid regulations (< 25%)

Legumes (soybean, pea, chickpea) were the primary protein source in 80% of plant-based analogs

Two-thirds of plant-based burgers showed >20% deviation from label values, underscoring regulatory gaps

1 Introduction

Several factors hinder consumers from substituting conventional meat foods with alternative plant-based products. The main consideration is the nutritional differences between these options. Additionally, factors such as cost, familiarity, psychological barriers, and overall acceptance play significant roles in consumers’ reluctance to switch from meat to alternative products (Cole et al., 2022; Michel et al., 2021).

Plant-based analogue proteins, insect-based foods, and lab-grown meat produced from animal muscle cells are the three main substitutes being developed in this context (Bryant & Sanctorum, 2021; Lee et al., 2023; Van Loo et al., 2020). Plant-based products are very popular and accepted by consumers, although their consumption remains relatively low, representing only 1% of total meat consumption (Araújo et al., 2022; Hwang et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2022).

Two categories of plant-based products can be used as meat substitutes: one including products designed to mimic meat in flavor, texture, appearance, and preparation methods, and another consisting of products that are not aimed at resembling meat. Although products designed to mimic meat are similar, they still differ from animal-derived products, which can limit their appeal and accessibility for consumers (Chandler & McSweeney, 2022; Cole et al., 2022; Van Loo et al., 2020).

Both meat consumers and flexitarians value sensory, visual, and texture similarities between plant-based and meat alternative products; however, some studies indicate that as consumption of meat alternatives increases, the demand for these products to resemble meat closely diminishes (Moreira et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022). In Brazil, the prevalence of burger and processed-meat consumption has risen by approximately 4.5% per year. A comparison of 2015-2019 and 2020-2023 indicates post-pandemic changes, with a prevalence around 18.8% higher in 2020-2023 (Barros et al., 2025).

The production of alternative plant-based products often uses high protein ingredients such as soybeans, mushrooms, lupins, rapeseed, canola, peas, and lentils. Soybean is the most used of these ingredients due to its high protein content. Mushrooms have good chewiness, while rapeseed and canola provide a meat-like texture (Alcorta et al., 2021). Legumes, such as peas and lentils, offer high protein content and lower fat compared to animal source proteins, along with added benefits of fiber, vitamins, and minerals (Chandler & McSweeney, 2022); however, plant-based alternatives may not support an equivalent or improved diet as their animal-based counterparts. The action mechanisms underlying plant-based proteins’ health effects compared with animal sources should be clarified further (Ferrari et al., 2022; Katidi et al., 2023). Therefore, given the lack of universal regulation defining what constitutes a meat substitute, it is not guaranteed that the nutrients in meat alternatives are comparable to those naturally found in meat (Curtain & Grafenauer, 2019).

Beef provides around 20 g/100 g of protein and contains some vitamins and minerals, benefiting body weight control due to its satiety-inducing effect and building lean muscle mass. Meat has heme iron, which is more bioavailable than non-heme iron from plants, and its consumption may help lower blood pressure (McAfee et al., 2010). In turn, excessive consumption of processed meat may be associated with an increased risk of developing various diseases, including colorectal cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and other chronic illnesses. Despite these risks, consumers often consider meat an essential component of their diet, alongside plant-based foods (Banyte et al., 2022). The Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAPA) regulates animal-derived products with specific limits and additives for burgers (Brasil, 2022). Within specified limits, this regulation allows the use of food additives and adjuvants in the production of patties and burgers (Brasil, 2022). Meanwhile, no regulations are available for plant-based meat analogues. A public consultation is currently open to define minimum identity and quality standards for plant-based products.

Beyond nutritional importance and public-health considerations, inaccurate labels create nutritional misinformation for consumers, reduce welfare and market efficiency, reduce producers’ profitability, and increase exposure to fines and penalties, recall, or withdrawals. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of nutritional labeling for protein and lipid content in meat-derived and plant-based meat analogs for explaining and implementing regulatory limits and requirements. Specifically, we examined 21 processed products: six of animal origin and 15 plant-based alternatives, all available in grocery stores in western Paraná state, Brazil.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Sampling

This study analyzed a range of processed food products from various sources and suppliers available in the local grocery stores in the city of Cascavel, state of Paraná, Brazil, acquired in July 2021. Frozen animal-derived products included patties of different types: beef, pork, and a mixture of poultry and beef. Frozen plant-based products included burgers made from soybean protein, pea protein, chickpeas, quinoa, mushrooms, and eggplant. Additionally, other vegetable-based products such as veggie meats, nuggets, meatballs, kibbeh, and sausages were also examined. Sampling criteria were based on leading brands for meat-derived patties, as well as on market availability for plant-based products. All products showed commercial validity and were derived from random batches by selecting three to five items from each package (patties, nuggets, sausages, or veggie meatballs) and kept frozen (-12 °C) until the analysis. Table 1 provides a comprehensive list of these products along with their respective ingredients.

Thumbnail
Table 1
List of ingredients from meat-derived and plant-based analog products.

2.2 Labels evaluation

Label information from meat-derived and plant-analogs was collected considering the product descriptive name, the list of ingredients, and the nutrition facts panel, protein (g), total fat (g), and carbohydrates (g), as well as energy (kcal) and daily intake (%) of energy. The food products were divided into three groups: meat-derived patties, plant-based patties, and other plant-based products (plant-based nuggets, sausages, and meatballs).

2.3 Chemical composition

According to the method described by the Association of Official Analytical Chemistry (2005), the chemical composition of animal and plant-based samples was determined based on moisture, ash, crude protein, and lipids. These analyses were chosen based on their availability in our lab during this study period. The whole frozen product was ground before the analysis.

The moisture content was determined by the drying method in an oven at 105 °C for 24 hours. The ash content was determined by weight difference after muffle incineration at 550 °C for 12 hours. The crude protein content was analyzed by the Kjeldahl method. Nitrogen content was measured and converted to protein content by the conversion factor of 6.25. Lipid content was determined by the cold extraction method using chloroform as solvent. The total carbohydrate content (including dietary fibers) was calculated by the difference among all the other components, while the energy (kcal) was calculated considering 4 kcal for each g of carbohydrates and proteins and 9 kcal for each g of total lipids. All chemical analyses were conducted in triplicate, whereas label accessing was from each package.

2.4 Data analysis

All laboratory analyses were performed in triplicate, with results expressed as mean ± SD, whereas label data were used as printed on the package.

3 Results and discussion

Many ingredients were used to prepare meat and plant-based products from the three groups of products available in western Paraná state, Brazil (Table 1). The label list of ingredients indicated at least eight main different ingredient categories: 1. proteins; 2. fat and oils; 3. flours and starches; 4. thickeners and stabilizers; 5. seasonings, spices, aromas, and flavorings; 6. colorings and additives; 7. vitamins and minerals, and 8. others.

Proteins were the most commonly used ingredient (1), being present in all products. It includes beef, pork, chicken meat, soybean protein (textured or isolated), pea protein, chickpea, lentils, quinoa, gluten, eggplant, and mushrooms. Fats and oils (2) and thickeners and stabilizers (4) are moderately used across all products. Sodium tripolyphosphate, polyphosphate sodium, carrageenan, and methylcellulose were the stabilizers and thickeners used. The main antioxidants were sodium erythorbate, BHA, and ascorbic acid, while beef fat, pork fat, chicken fat, palm fat, cottonseed oil, sunflower oil, coconut fat, canola oil, sesame oil, olive oil, and vegetable fat were used in the formulation of the products (Table 1).

Seasonings, spices, aromas, and flavorings (5) were a common ingredients across all products. The main spices and herbs used in these 21 products were onion, garlic, pepper (black, white), rosemary, thyme, coriander, parsley, paprika, basil, oregano, cumin, allspice, nutmeg, cinnamon, vinegar, and apple cider vinegar. Meanwhile, other natural meat flavor, garlic flavor, smoke flavor, natural aromas, artificial flavors, meat-flavored condiments, and liquid smoke are also present in some food products.

Colorings and additives (6) were less often used, including beetroot powder, caramel IV, cochineal carmine, charcoal, and paprika. Monosodium glutamate, natural flavor, and smoke flavor were flavor enhancers, while citric acid, glucone delta lactone, and sodium citrate were acidity regulators. Vitamins and minerals (7) were used in some products, except the meat-derived, which included iron, vitamin B12, and ferric orthophosphate. No flour or starches (3) were added to the meat-derived burgers. Some of the other ingredients (8) used met none of these seven categories, which were water, breadcrumbs, glucose syrup, dextrose, baking powder, tomato sauce, chestnut, Brazilian nuts, parmesan cheese, barley malt, and yeast extracts.

On average, 19.2 ingredients were required for meat-derived products formulation, 17 for plant-based patties, and only 15.7 for other plant-based products. However, the ingredient amounts vary across all products: a minimum of nine and a maximum of 27 for meat-derived products; a minimum of 11 and a maximum of 27 for plant-based patties, and a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 23 for plant-based products. By reviewing the labels of the products in terms of their ingredients, we found that Spanish meat-derived (burgers, sausages, and meatballs) had fewer ingredients than their plant-based analogs, while nugget meat had more ingredients than the plant-based (Costa-Catala et al., 2023). In comparison, meat-derived patties from Brazil contained more (average) ingredients (Table 1) than those from Spain (an average of 9.7) (Costa-Catala et al., 2023). This occurs because Brazilian regulation allows including food additives and adjuvants, water, seasoning, spices, aromas, and condiments, animal and vegetable fats, maltodextrin, mono and disaccharides, animal and vegetable proteins, sodium chloride, and other hypo-sodium salts to produce burgers (Brasil, 2022).

Furthermore, 80% of all plant-based analogs (patties, nuggets, meatballs, sausage, kibbeh, and meat-analogs) products have legumes as the main protein, mainly soybean, in addition to pea and chickpea. Only one product had mushrooms as a protein source (6.7%) (Table 1). Costa-Catala et al. (2023) used vegetables (47%) as the main source of proteins, followed by a mixture of cereals with vegetables (22%). Only cereals as a main protein source showed a percentage of only 8% of products. Ingredient diversity is also linked to their commercial availability and application cost.

Producers routinely reformulate products through ingredient substitution or by introducing new formulations to meet consumer expectations, accommodate shifts in consumption patterns, and manage cost pressures. Thus, ingredient lists change in line with market trends, updated nutritional guidelines, and growing environmental and public health concerns.

3.1 Chemical composition of meat-derived patties

Table 2 shows the chemical composition of meat-derived patties, followed by the plant-based patties, and the remaining plant-based products. The moisture content of meat-derived patties ranged from 56% to 71.3%, with the lowest content of the chicken and beef patty A and the highest for chicken and beef patty B (Table 2). The moisture content of meat-derived patties is similar to ground pork and ground beef burgers, approximately 62% (Swing et al., 2021) and 67.8% for raw beef burgers (Melo et al., 2024), and 65-70% for chicken burgers (Albergamo et al., 2021). The moisture content affects juiciness of the burgers, which may be responsible for consumer disapproval of the product (Alves et al., 2020). Moisture content also varies depending on the preparation method, such as oven baking, grilling, or pan frying, and dilutes the other ingredients, such as protein and fat.

Thumbnail
Table 2
Moisture and ash content of meat-patties, plant-based patties, and other plant-based products.

The ash content ranged from 1.4% (beef burger A) to 3.2% (chicken and beef patty A) (Table 2). Similar findings were reported for beef burgers, 2.1% (Barros et al., 2020), and pork burgers, 1.8% (Swing et al., 2021). The increase in ash content may be related to adding spices, such as seasonings, starches, soybean protein, and fiber-rich vegetables (Bahmanyar et al., 2021; Hatamikia et al., 2019).

Figure 1A shows the protein content from chemical composition and labels inspection. The protein content from the labels of meat-derived burgers ranged from 12.5% (beef patty A) to 16.7% (beef patty B). For three samples, laboratory (lab) determination of protein content was lower than that shown on the label of the burgers: beef patty A (13%), pork patty (15%), and chicken and beef patty A (15.2%) (Figure 1A). According to MAPA regulation, the minimum protein content required for patties/burgers is 15% (Brasil, 2022). Therefore, neither the label value (13%) nor the laboratory result (14.5%) was compliant with the regulation (Figure 1A).

thumbnail of Figure 1
Figure 1
(A) Protein and (B) lipid content of commercial meat-derived patties from Brazil. Error bars are the standard deviation from three determinations.

Brazilian regulation also states that up to 30% of the proteins used for burger production can be from mechanically separated meat (MSM), and up to 4% of non-meat proteins can be added to reach the required protein content (Brasil, 2022). However, in the meat-derived patties with lower than 15% of proteins, besides beef (and MSM), soybean protein was added to beef patty A, and no added protein was reported for beef patty C (Table 1). Brazilian regulations allow for up to 20% variation in nutrient content (Brasil, 2003, 2013). The protein content of all meat-derived patties analyzed showed less than 20% variation between the actual values and the information on the label, as well as compliance with the minimum required protein content.

The content of lipids in the meat-derived burger in two samples was higher than the lab analysis when compared with the label: 19% for beef patty A (16.3% on the label) and 19.8% for chicken and beef patty A (16.3% on the label) (Figure 1 B). Chicken and beef patty had the lowest lipid content, B, 7.6% (8.75% on the label). Only chicken and beef patty A resulted in more than 20% variation between actual and label. This discrepancy is not in line with consumer rights, which might affect the confidence of consumers and reflect on public health concerns. Food labeling influences consumers’ behaviors, industry practices, and health outcomes. Consumers tend to reduce dietary energy intake by 6.6% and total fat by 10.6% after checking label information (Shangguan et al., 2019). Although two samples showed higher fat content than that reported on the label, according to Brazilian regulation, up to 25% of fat is allowed in this product (Brasil, 2022).

Overall, most meat patties had protein and lipid contents within the legal minimum and maximum requirements. For proteins, two products (33.3%) were slightly lower than those required by regulations, while for lipids, most of the products were according to the legal requirement (less than 25%); however, one product presented more than 20% of variation between actual and label information.

3.2 Chemical composition of plant-based patties

Plant-based patties had lower moisture content than meat-derived patties, with contents ranging from 39.1% (for the soybean patty) to 63.1% (for the mushroom patty) (Table 2). The moisture content ranged between 48-57% for textured vegetable protein and textured isolate soybean protein burgers (Bakhsh et al., 2021) and 60.2% for burgers containing pea protein, soybean protein, and sunflower protein (Marchi et al., 2021). The ash content was also like meat-derived patties, ranging between 1.3% and 3.3%, and is also similar to textured vegetable protein and textured isolate soybean protein burgers (2.6% and 3.2%) (Bakhsh et al., 2021). According to Godschalk-Broers et al. (2022), although moisture is lower than that of meat burgers, for meat-analogs, juiciness cannot be only explained by moisture content (MC), cooking loss (CL), or expressible moisture (EM) for meat-like products. This suggests that this attribute may be related to a combination of different compositional and textural aspects, which still need further studies to better understand.

Figure 2A shows the protein content in plant-based patties. Four samples had lower label content than their actual measured content (soybean and pea patty, chickpea and quinoa patty, mushroom patty, and eggplant patty). However, the soybean and pea blend patty and pea patty contained 13.9% and 13.4%, respectively, whereas the soybean patty had only 10.6% (Figure 2A). According to the Brazilian labeling regulations, which allow for up to 20% variation between the label and actual nutrient content (Brasil, 2003, 2013), only two burgers (pea patty and eggplant patty) complied with the standard. Our study showed a low protein content compared to the reports of values higher than 16% for different plant-based burgers (Bakhsh et al., 2021; Marchi et al., 2021; Swing et al., 2021). Compared with the meat-derived patties (Figure 1A), only beef patty A, which had the lowest protein content, was close to the soybean burger and the soybean and pea patty.

thumbnail of Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) Protein and (B) lipid content of commercial plant-based patties from Brazil. Error bars are the standard deviation from three determinations.

Regarding the lipid content in plant-based patties (Figure 2B), four samples analyzed in the lab were higher than those on the label. Soybean patty and pea patty stand out, with 15.6% and 23.6% of lipid content, respectively. Only two samples followed the Brazilian labeling regulation (Brasil, 2003, 2013) the chickpea and quinoa burger, and the eggplant burger. Plant-based patties (Figure 2B) generally presented lower lipid content than meat patties (Figure 1B). Fat content was about 11% in burgers containing pea protein, soybean protein, and sunflower protein (Marchi et al., 2021), ranging between 14.3% and 17.2% in textured vegetable protein and textured isolate soybean protein burgers (Bakhsh et al., 2021).

In Brazil, there is still no legislation for protein and lipid content for plant-based patties. Currently, a potential regulation to establish the minimum identity and quality requirements for plant-based analogs and the rules for visual identity and labeling of these products has been discussed and was introduced by the MAPA through Ordinance No. 831, of June 28, 2023, but it has not been updated (Brasil, 2023). Few countries have yet regulations that present minimum requirements for meat-derived analog products. Canada holds the largest number of product categories, followed by Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and China (Zhang et al., 2023). In Canada, standards for simulated meat, poultry, and egg products specify minimum requirements for total protein content and protein rating, along with limits on fat content. According to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), meat-derived analog products must contain at least 16% protein and up to 25% lipids (Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2021), while in China (2012) and Japan (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2022), soy-based analog products must contain 12% and more than 10% of protein, respectively. Similarly, it must be clearly indicated to consumers that a product is a simulated product by using terms such as “imitation”, “substitute”, or “simulated” on product labels and in advertising (Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2024). In turn if Brazil adopting similar patterns to Canada; therefore, plant-based patties would not meet the minimum protein content, whereas Japan’s requirements appear less stringent and would be easier to meet.

3.3 Chemical composition of other plant-based products

Among the other plant-based products (Table 1), soybean kibbeh had the lowest moisture content at 34.6%, while soybean and pea meat showed the highest moisture content, 60.2% (Table 2). The average overall moisture content reached just over 50%, which is slightly lower than that of meat and plant-based burgers. Such a result is probably linked to the texture, since these products are less juicy than patties. The moisture content also dilutes the other ingredients, such as protein and fat. The ash content varied from 1.8% to 3.7%, like those for meat- and plant-based patties.

The protein content of plant-based products ranged from 9.7% to 20.2% (Figure 3A), with the lowest content for soybean, pea, and chickpea meatballs, while the highest occurred in soybean and pea meat. For all plant-based products, the protein content on the label was similar to that from the lab analysis, except for chickpea nuggets (Figure 3A). The product exhibited a deviation of over 20%, thus failing to comply with Brazilian labeling requirements (Brasil, 2003, 2013). Beniwal et al. (2021) reported brands of meat analog products such as nuggets, meatballs, and sausages with protein contents between 12% and 20%.

thumbnail of Figure 3
Figure 3
(A) Protein and (B) lipid content of commercial plant-based analogs from Brazil. Error bars are the standard deviation from three determinations.

An established framework for assessing protein quality is the digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) (Matthews et al., 2025). In plant-based food products, protein quality is driven by formulation and processing rather than total protein alone. Ingredients such as soy isolates generally provide a higher density of indispensable amino acids than several other legumes and blending legumes and cereal proteins can mitigate limiting amino acids (Herreman et al., 2020). Processing can further modify quality by altering structure and reducing anti-nutritional factors, whereas excessive heat and Maillard reactions can decrease lysine availability and impair overall protein quality (Nikmaram et al., 2017). Consequently, two products with similarly labeled proteins may deliver different amounts of digestible protein and DIAAS to the consumer (Matthews et al., 2025).

The lipid content in other plant-based products (Figure 3B) was not very accurate between lab analysis and labels. Only chickpea nuggets and soybean and pea meat presented a higher content on the label compared to lab analysis. In contrast, all other products presented higher content from lab analysis than the nutrition facts panel on the labels. None of the samples followed the Brazilian regulation (Brasil, 2003, 2013) by presenting a lipid content varying by more than 20%.

The lipid content varied from 4.2% to 27.2%, with the highest value for soybean, pea, and chickpea sausage, followed by breaded soybean nuggets (23.2%), soybean and pea minced meat (22.4%), and soy, pea, and chickpea meatball (19.5%). These concentrations were higher for the plant-based (Figure 2B) and meat-derived burgers (Figure 1B) in our study. Meat analogs formulation drives fat content in unbreaded plant-based analogues, which add vegetable oils and oil type, while amount affects sensory properties, and serum release (Cho et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2026). Whereas breaded products are often par-fried to set the batter/breading, a step that promotes oil absorption and results in high lipid content (Jang and Lee, 2024). A study from Spain reported vegetable-analog products, such as ‘meatballs’, sausages, and nuggets, with lipid content lower than 15% (Costa-Catala et al., 2023). In the study by Beniwal et al. (2021), only burgers presented high lipid content (up to 22%), while for the other analogs, the lipid content reached at most 12.8% (sausage).

The 16% protein minimum and 25% lipids maximum for meat-derived analog products standards from CFIA Canada (Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2021) were not reached for soybean or pea meat, as well as soybean meatball (for protein) and soybean, pea, and chickpea sausage (for lipids). In turn, 12% for China (2012) and 10% for Japan (Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center, 2022) in terms of protein for soy-based analog products requirements was met by other Brazilian plant-based products, except one that reached 9.7% protein (soybean, pea, and chickpea meatball) and 27.2% lipid (soybean, pea, and chickpea sausage).

In general, meat-derived patties presented the closest protein and lipid contents to the label’s information, mainly <20%, as required by the regulation (Brasil, 2003, 2013). The discrepancy increased for plant-based patties and was even more visible for other plant-based products, especially regarding lipid content. Since these products are recent and Brazil has not yet regulated the maximum and minimum content of protein and lipids, regulatory entities must focus on monitoring the quantities of these compounds, particularly lipids. This approach will ensure nutritional safety and meet consumer expectations. Producers should use direct laboratory analysis for the nutritional facts panel and batch-tests against label claims, as well as setting internal standards to address shortfalls and strengthening supplier controls. Regulators should establish composition benchmarks and explicit tolerance and verification procedures for plant-based products to align oversight and protect consumers.

3.4 Daily intake of energy and nutrients

The average energy (kcal) of plant-based patties was lower than that of meat-derived patties and other plant-based analogs (Figure 4). The calorie content of any food is related to its formulation and preparation. As aforementioned, the lipid content of meat-derived patties (Figure 1B) is close to that of other plant-based analogs (Figure 3B) and quite superior to plant-based patties (Figure 2B). Lipids are responsible for 9 kcal per g, while carbohydrates and protein are responsible for 4 kcal per g, hence reflecting on the energy (kcal) content of each food product, varying according to its chemical composition. In addition, label information was accurate, with energy content calculated from the laboratory analysis concentrations (Figure 4).

thumbnail of Figure 4
Figure 4
Energy values of (A) meat patties; (B) plant-based patties; (C) plant-based analog products from Brazil.

The 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that females consume 1,600-2,400 calories per day, while adult males should consume 2,200-3,000 calories per day, depending on individual age, physical activity, and overall health (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2020). Brazilian label regulation requires 2,000 calories per day as a reference for the daily intake recommendation of each nutrient (Brasil, 2003). Table 3 shows the energy, carbohydrate, protein, and total lipids daily intake information considering 2,000 calories per day and 100 g portions of all products from the label and from laboratory analysis.

Thumbnail
Table 3
Daily intake (%) recommendations for energy, carbohydrates, protein, and total lipids based on 2,000 calories per day and portions of 100 g of meat-patties, plant-based patties, and other plant-based products.

The Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges (AMDR) are nutritional guidelines for the reduction of chronic diseases. The AMDR for carbohydrates is set at 45% to 65% of daily calories, for fats at 20% to 35% with a limitation of saturated fats to <10% of daily calories, and for proteins at 10% to 35% of energy intake for adults (Espinosa-Salas & Gonzalez-Arias, 2023). Additionally, an intake of approximately 300 g of carbohydrates, 75 g of protein, and 55 g of lipids can provide the 2,000 kcal recommended for daily consumption. As the carbohydrate content was determined by the difference between protein, fat, and ash, the fiber content was neglected and included as digestible carbohydrate, even when some products have some fiber content. This may lead to an overestimation of the available carbohydrates and, consequently, of the energy content of fiber-containing products. Although the presence of ingredients such as chickpea and pea flour suggests potential fiber content, their contribution is likely limited, except in the case of the mushroom burger, which is expected to be richer in fiber. Further studies, including dietary fiber analysis, are recommended to provide a more accurate nutritional profile, especially considering the increasing interest in fiber-rich plant-based products.

Meat eaters, vegetarians, and vegan dietary patterns showed an energy daily intake ranging from 1947-2101kcal per day, with an average protein intake lower than that for vegetarians (13.4%) and vegan (12.9%) consumers compared to meat eaters (16.0%). However, all consumers reached the acceptable AMDR lower limit (Neufingerl & Eilander, 2023). This intake may be related to the consumption of burgers, meatballs, minced meat, sausages, nuggets, kibes, among others, meat- or plant- based (Musa-Veloso & Juana, 2020; Pereira et al., 2024).

In addition, there is a complex relationship between label information, consumer understanding, and decision-making. Claims about the source of protein of plant-based cheese influenced consumer choices by 5% to 7%. However, front-of-package labels indicating high contents of saturated fat and sodium reduced the likelihood of consumers choosing the product (Tavares Filho et al., 2024). These findings underscore that accurate label claims are key to achieving consumer expectations. This matter is especially relevant for consumers under restrictive diet plans, e.g., high-protein, low-fat, energy-restricted, or hypercaloric, because discrepancies between labeled and actual protein and lipid contents can materially affect target macronutrient intake.

4 Conclusion

Our study found that the protein and lipid contents in meat-derived burgers are close to those on the labels. However, according to Brazilian regulations, only two patties have a lower minimum protein content (>15%). Compared with meat-derived, plant-based patties had slightly lower protein content, contrary to their label information, showing more than 20% variation from label claims in 66.7% across all products. In all other plant-based analogous products, larger discrepancies were observed between the information on the labels and that from the laboratory analysis, especially for lipid content. Because Brazil lacks specific regulations on minimum protein and maximum lipid contents for plant-based products, these products cannot be considered non-compliant. Consumers who pay close attention to product labels can help achieve balanced nutrition, particularly when incorporating new foods into their diet. Nevertheless, accurate labels are required to ensure nutritional safety and meet consumer expectations. Producers should use direct laboratory analysis for the nutritional facts panel and test often batches against the label, improve internal targets to avoid shortfalls, and tighten supplier controls. Regulators should set composition benchmarks and clear tolerance/verification rules for plant-based products to standardize oversight and protect consumers. Further studies to enlarge the analytical panel should address elemental composition, dietary fiber, amino acids profile, saturated and trans-fat to assess the accuracy of nutrition labels more comprehensively, given the observed variation across product categories and types.

  • Cite as:
    Leonarski, E., Borin, R., Guedes, G. B., Felicetti, M. A., Quast, L. B., & Pinto, V. Z. (2026). Meat-derived patties and plant-based meat analogs from Brazil: Are the labels accurate for protein and lipid content? Brazilian Journal of Food Technology, 29, e2025074. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-6723.074025
  • Data Availability Statement
    The data supporting this study are not publicly available but can be requested from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
  • Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process
    While preparing this work, the author(s) employed the Grammarly Premium and ChatGPT4.o tools to organize and refine the wording of phrases, transitions, scientific terminology, and other elements. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication.
  • Funding:
    Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (303720/2022-0) and Universidade Federal da Fronteira Sul (PES-2024-0022).

References

  • Albergamo, A., Vadalà, R., Metro, D., Nava, V., Bartolomeo, G., Rando, R., Macrì, A., Messina, L., Gualtieri, R., Colombo, N., Sallemi, S., Leonardi, M., Lo Turco, V., Dugo, G., & Cicero, N. (2021). Plant ingredients and health-promoting compounds. Foods, 10(9), 2129. PMid:34574239.
  • Alcorta, A., Porta, A., Tárrega, A., Alvarez, M. D., & Vaquero, M. P. (2021). Foods for plant-based diets: Challenges and innovations. Foods, 10(2), 293. PMid:33535684. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020293
    » https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020293
  • Alves, R. A., Sousa, A. M. B., Madeira, D. S. S., Santos, R. M., Pereira, A. L. F., Lemos, T. de O., & Abreu, V. K. G. (2020). Low-fat beef burgers containing fructooligosaccharides: Physicochemical properties, cooking characteristics, and sensory evaluation. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 44(9), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.14649
    » https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.14649
  • Araújo, S. A., Ribeiro, R. D. X., Lima, A. G. V. O., Nascimento, T. V. C., Silva Júnior, J. M., Silva, T. M., Pimentel, P. R. S., Santos, N. J. A., Lanna, D. P. D., Bezerra, L. R., & Oliveira, R. L. (2022). Physicochemical composition and sensory attributes of manufactured beef burger patties obtained from young Nellore bulls supplied with lauric acid. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 46(1), e16126. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.16126
    » https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.16126
  • Association of Official Analytical Chemistry – AOAC. (2005). Official methods of analysis of the AOAC (18th ed.). Gaithersburg: AOAC International.
  • Bahmanyar, F., Hosseini, S. M., Mirmoghtadaie, L., & Shojaee-Aliabadi, S. (2021). Effects of replacing soy protein and bread crumb with quinoa and buckwheat flour in functional beef burger formulation. Meat Science, 172, 108305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108305
    » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108305
  • Bakhsh, A., Lee, S. J., Lee, E. Y., Sabikun, N., Hwang, Y. H., & Joo, S. T. (2021). A novel approach for tuning the physicochemical, textural, and sensory characteristics of plant-based meat analogs with different levels of methylcellulose concentration. Foods, 10(3), 560. PMid:33800417. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10030560
    » https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10030560
  • Banyte, A., Di Lauro, I. V., Mitova, A., Schauman, C., Simoniello, E., & Perez-Cueto, F. J. A. (2022). Why do men choose and adhere to a meatless diet? International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 27, 100446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100446
    » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2021.100446
  • Barros, A. Q. S., de Aguiar, Ï. W. O., Carioca, A. A. F., Adriano, L. S., & Sampaio, H. A. de C. (2025). Tendência temporal de marcadores do consumo alimentar entre adultos registrados no Sistema de Vigilância Alimentar e Nutricional, Brasil: Análise de série temporal. Revista do SUS Epidemiologia em Serviços de Saúde, 34, e20240041.
  • Barros, J. C., Munekata, P. E. S., Carvalho, F. A. L., Pateiro, M., Barba, F. J., Domínguez, R., Trindade, M. A., & Lorenzo, J. M. (2020). Use of tiger nut (Cyperus esculentus L.) oil emulsion as animal fat replacement in beef burgers. Foods, 9(1), 1-15.
  • Beniwal, A. S., Singh, J., Kaur, L., Hardacre, A., & Singh, H. (2021). Meat analogs: Protein restructuring during thermomechanical processing. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 20(2), 1221-1249. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12721
    » https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12721
  • Brasil. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária – ANVISA. (2003). Aprova o Regulamento Técnico sobre Rotulagem Nutricional de Alimentos Embalados (Resolução - RDC nº 360, de 23 de dezembro de 2003). Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil, Brasília. Retrieved in 2025, July 13, from https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/anvisa/2003/rdc0360_23_12_2003.html
    » https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/saudelegis/anvisa/2003/rdc0360_23_12_2003.html
  • Brasil. Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária – ANVISA. (2013, julho 26). Resolução - RE nº 2.586, de 25 de julho de 2013. Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil, Brasília. Retrieved in 2025, July 13, from https://pesquisa.in.gov.br/imprensa/jsp/visualiza/index.jsp?data=26/07/2013&jornal=1&pagina=32&totalArquivos=112
    » https://pesquisa.in.gov.br/imprensa/jsp/visualiza/index.jsp?data=26/07/2013&jornal=1&pagina=32&totalArquivos=112
  • Brasil. Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária – MAPA. (2022). Portaria SDA nº 724, de 23 de dezembro de 2022. Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil, Brasília. Retrieved in 2025, July 13, from https://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/portaria-sda-n-724-de-23-de-dezembro-de-2022-453548742#wrapper
    » https://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/portaria-sda-n-724-de-23-de-dezembro-de-2022-453548742#wrapper
  • Brasil. Ministério da Agricultura e Pecuária – MAPA. (2023). Portaria SDA/MAPA nº 831, de 28 de junho de 2023. Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil, Brasília. Retrieved in 2025, July 13, from https://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/portaria-sda/mapa-n-831-de-28-de-junho-de-2023-493518856
    » https://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/portaria-sda/mapa-n-831-de-28-de-junho-de-2023-493518856
  • Bryant, C., & Sanctorum, H. (2021). Alternative proteins, evolving attitudes: Comparing consumer attitudes to plant-based and cultured meat in Belgium in two consecutive years. Appetite, 161, 105161. PMid:33577863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105161
    » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105161
  • Canadian Food Inspection Agency – CFIA. (2021). Canadian standards of identity: Volume 7 – Meat products. Retrieved in 2025, July 13, from https://inspection.canada.ca/en/about-cfia/acts-and-regulations/list-acts-and-regulations/documents-incorporated-reference/canadian-standards-identity-volume-7
    » https://inspection.canada.ca/en/about-cfia/acts-and-regulations/list-acts-and-regulations/documents-incorporated-reference/canadian-standards-identity-volume-7
  • Canadian Food Inspection Agency – CFIA. (2024). Common name on food labels. Retrieved in 2025, July 13, from https://inspection.canada.ca/en/food-labels/labelling/industry/common-name
    » https://inspection.canada.ca/en/food-labels/labelling/industry/common-name
  • Chandler, S. L., & McSweeney, M. B. (2022). Characterizing the properties of hybrid meat burgers made with pulses and chicken. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 27, 100492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2022.100492
    » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2022.100492
  • China. (2012). SB/T 10649-2012: Soy protein products. Tokyo: Ministry of Commerce.
  • Cho, Y., Bae, J., & Choi, M.-J. (2023). Physicochemical characteristics of meat analogs supplemented with vegetable oils. Foods, 12(2), 312. PMid:36673404. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12020312
    » https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12020312
  • Cole, E., Goeler-Slough, N., Cox, A., & Nolden, A. (2022). Examination of the nutritional composition of alternative beef burgers available in the United States. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 73(4), 425-432. PMid:34847799. https://doi.org/10.1080/09637486.2021.2010035
    » https://doi.org/10.1080/09637486.2021.2010035
  • Costa-Catala, J., Toro-Funes, N., Comas-Basté, O., Hernández-Macias, S., Sánchez-Pérez, S., Latorre-Moratalla, M. L., Veciana-Nogués, M. T., Castell-Garralda, V., & Vidal-Carou, M. C. (2023). Comparative assessment of the nutritional profile of meat products and their plant-based analogues. Nutrients, 15(12), 2807. PMid:37375711. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15122807
    » https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15122807
  • Curtain, F., & Grafenauer, S. (2019). Plant-based meat substitutes in the flexitarian age: An audit of products on supermarket shelves. Nutrients, 11(11), 2603. PMid:31671655. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11112603
    » https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11112603
  • Espinosa-Salas, S., & Gonzalez-Arias, M. (2023). Nutrition: Macronutrient Intake, Imbalances, and Interventions. StatPearls. Retrieved in 2025, July 13, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594226/
    » https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594226/
  • Ferrari, L., Panaite, S. A., Bertazzo, A., & Visioli, F. (2022). Animal- and plant-based protein sources: A scoping review of human health outcomes and environmental impact. Nutrients, 14(23), 5115. PMid:36501146. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14235115
    » https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14235115
  • Food and Agricultural Materials Inspection Center – FAMIC. (2022). Textured soy protein products. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Retrieved in 2025, July 13, from http://www.famic.go.jp/english/jas/_doc/jas0019.pdf
    » http://www.famic.go.jp/english/jas/_doc/jas0019.pdf
  • Godschalk-Broers, L., Sala, G., & Scholten, E. (2022). Meat analogues: Relating structure to texture and sensory perception. Foods, 11(15), 2227. PMid:35892811. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152227
    » https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11152227
  • Hatamikia, M., Elhamirad, A. H., Heydari, R., Sharayei, P., & Azarpazhooh, E. (2019). Investigating the physicochemical, sensory and microbial properties of plant-based protein products (meat-free burgers) formulated using various Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. protein isolates. Plant Science Today, 6(3), 346-355. https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.2019.6.3.563
    » https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.2019.6.3.563
  • Herreman, L., Nommensen, P., Pennings, B., & Laus, M. C. (2020). Comprehensive overview of the quality of plant‐ And animal‐sourced proteins based on the digestible indispensable amino acid score. Food Science & Nutrition, 8(10), 5379-5391. PMid:33133540. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.1809
    » https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.1809
  • Hwang, J., You, J., Moon, J., & Jeong, J. (2020). Factors affecting consumers’ alternative meats buying intentions: Plant-based meat alternative and cultured meat. Sustainability (Basel), 12(14), 5662. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145662
    » https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145662
  • Jang, J., & Lee, D.-W. (2024). Advancements in plant-based meat analogs enhancing sensory and nutritional attributes. NPJ Science of Food, 8(1), 50. PMid:39112506. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-024-00292-9
    » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-024-00292-9
  • Katidi, A., Xypolitaki, K., Vlassopoulos, A., & Kapsokefalou, M. (2023). Nutritional quality of plant-based meat and dairy imitation products and comparison with animal-based counterparts. Nutrients, 15(2), 401. PMid:36678272. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15020401
    » https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15020401
  • Lee, S. Y., Lee, D. Y., Jeong, J. W., Kim, J. H., Yun, S. H., Mariano, E., Lee, J., Park, S., Jo, C., & Hur, S. J. (2023). Current technologies, regulation, and future perspective of animal product analogs: A review. Animal Bioscience, 36(10), 1465-1487. PMid:37170512. https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.23.0029
    » https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.23.0029
  • Marchi, M., Costa, A., Pozza, M., Goi, A., & Manuelian, C. L. (2021). Detailed characterization of plant-based burgers. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 2049. PMid:33479456. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81684-9
    » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81684-9
  • Matthews, J. J., Arentson-Lantz, E. J., Moughan, P. J., Wolfe, R. R., Ferrando, A. A., & Church, D. D. (2025). Understanding dietary protein quality: Digestible indispensable amino acid scores and beyond. The Journal of Nutrition, 155(10), 3152-3167. PMid:40675340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.07.005
    » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.07.005
  • McAfee, A. J., McSorley, E. M., Cuskelly, G. J., Moss, B. W., Wallace, J. M. W., Bonham, M. P., & Fearon, A. M. (2010). Red meat consumption: An overview of the risks and benefits. Meat Science, 84(1), 1-13. PMid:20374748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.08.029
    » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.08.029
  • Melo, F. A. B. R., Galvão, M. B. F., da Costa, A. F., da Silva, C. F., Guerra, J. M. C., & Stamford, T. C. M. (2024). Development and evaluation of nutritional and quality standard of beef burger supplemented with pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata) seed flour. Foods, 13(11), 1702. PMid:38890933. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13111702
    » https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13111702
  • Michel, F., Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2021). Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives. Food Quality and Preference, 87, 104063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104063
    » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104063
  • Moreira, M. N. B., Veiga, C. R. P., Su, Z., Reis, G. G., Pascuci, L. M., & Veiga, C. P. (2021). Social media analysis to understand the expected benefits by plant-based meat alternatives consumers. Foods, 10(12), 3144. PMid:34945694. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10123144
    » https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10123144
  • Musa-Veloso, K., & Juana, J. (2020). Regulation and labeling of plant-based beverages and simulated meat, poultry, and egg products in Canada and the United States. Cereal Foods World, 65(4), 44-46.
  • Neufingerl, N., & Eilander, A. (2023). Nutrient intake and status in children and adolescents consuming plant-based diets compared to meat-eaters: A systematic review. Nutrients, 15(20), 4341. PMid:37892416. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15204341
    » https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15204341
  • Nikmaram, N., Leong, S. Y., Koubaa, M., Zhu, Z., Barba, F. J., Greiner, R., Oey, I., & Roohinejad, S. (2017). Effect of extrusion on the anti-nutritional factors of food products: An overview. Food Control, 79, 62-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.03.027
    » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.03.027
  • Pereira, C. G., Moreira, R. E. de C., Afonso, P. A., Silva, A. R. C. S., Palhares, M. P. P., Souza, S. V. C., & Anastácio, L. R. (2024). Plant-based products: Analysis of international regulations and strategies used for designation and labeling in Brazil. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft + Technologie, 200, 115980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2024.115980
    » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2024.115980
  • Shangguan, S., Afshin, A., Shulkin, M., Ma, W., Marsden, D., Smith, J., Saheb-Kashaf, M., Shi, P., Micha, R., Imamura, F., & Mozaffarian, D. (2019). A meta-analysis of food labeling effects on consumer diet behaviors and industry practices. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 56(2), 300-314. PMid:30573335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.09.024
    » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.09.024
  • Swing, C. J., Thompson, T. W., Guimaraes, O., Geornaras, I., Engle, T. E., Belk, K. E., Gifford, C. L., & Narayanan Nair, M. (2021). Nutritional composition of novel plant-based meat alternatives and traditional animal-based meats. HSOA Journal of Food Science & Nutrition, 7(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.24966/FSN-1076/100109
    » https://doi.org/10.24966/FSN-1076/100109
  • Tavares Filho, E. R., Silva, R., Campelo, P. H., Platz, V. H. C. B., Spers, E. E., Freitas, M. Q., & Cruz, A. G. (2024). Think and choose! The dual impact of label information and consumer attitudes on the choice of a plant-based analog. Foods, 13(14), 2269. PMid:39063353. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13142269
    » https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13142269
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture – USDA. (2020). Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025 (9th ed.). Washington, D.C.
  • Van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V., & Lusk, J. L. (2020). Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter? Food Policy, 95, 101931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101931
    » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101931
  • Wang, Y., Tuccillo, F., Lampi, A., Knaapila, A., Pulkkinen, M., Kariluoto, S., Coda, R., Edelmann, M., Jouppila, K., Sandell, M., Piironen, V., & Katina, K. (2022). Flavor challenges in extruded plant-based meat alternatives: A review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 21(3), 2898-2929. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12964
    » https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12964
  • Zhang, K., Zang, M., Wang, S., Zhang, Z., Li, D., & Li, X. (2023). Development of meat analogs: Focus on the current status and challenges of regulatory legislation. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 22(2), 1006-1029. PMid:36582054. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.13098
    » https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.13098
  • Zhang, Y., Mtiulishvili, L., Sala, G., Scholten, E., & Stieger, M. (2026). Juiciness of plant-based meat analogues is driven by serum release rather than serum composition and viscosity. Food Hydrocolloids, 172, 111950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2025.111950
    » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2025.111950

Edited by

  • Associate Editor:
    Elane S. Prudêncio.

Data availability

The data supporting this study are not publicly available but can be requested from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Publication Dates

  • Publication in this collection
    16 Mar 2026
  • Date of issue
    2026

History

  • Received
    13 July 2025
  • Accepted
    08 Dec 2025
Creative Common - by 4.0
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
location_on
Instituto de Tecnologia de Alimentos - ITAL Av. Brasil, 2880, 13070-178, Tel 55 19 3743-1762 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
E-mail: bjftsec@ital.sp.gov.br
rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS
Reportar erro