3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Proposed Nutrient Standards for Plant-Based Beverages Intended as Milk Alternatives

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Plant-based beverages (PBB) that are marketed as alternatives to cow milk are gaining in popularity worldwide. Nutrient quality of PBB can be highly variable.

          Objective: To develop a set of voluntary or mandatory nutrient standards for the PBB product category in order to assist innovation and guide product development and reformulation.

          Methods: The present goal was to develop standards for PBB energy content, minimum protein content and quality, maximum content for added fat, sugar, and salt, and to suggest fortification levels for selected vitamins and minerals. The standards were based on dietary recommendations and guidelines and current practices of federal agencies in the US.

          Results: The proposed energy and nutrient content for PBB milk alternatives are maximum 85–100 kcal energy per 100 g; a minimum for 2.2/100 g of high-quality protein, low content of saturated fat (<0.75/100 g) and added sugar (5.3–6.25/100 g) and consistent fortification with calcium, vitamins A, D, B-2, and B-12 at levels comparable to those found in cow milk (1%). Ideally, the protein content ought to be increased (2.8/100 g) and added sugar content reduced even further (2.7–3.1/100 g) for “best of class” products. These proposed standards were applied to the 641 existing PBB products listed in the 2018 version of the USDA Branded Food Products Database (BFPDB). The standards were met by <5% of the PBB on the US market.

          Conclusion: Often viewed as equivalent to milk in nutritional value, many PBB are often low in protein and are fortified with varying amounts of calcium, and vitamins A and D. Nutrient standards for this category should be adopted by the food industry, by public health regulatory authorities, and by standardization bodies such as the Codex Alimentarius.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Values for digestible indispensable amino acid scores (DIAAS) for some dairy and plant proteins may better describe protein quality than values calculated using the concept for protein digestibility-corrected amino acid scores (PDCAAS)

          An experiment was conducted to compare values for digestible indispensable amino acid scores (DIAAS) for four animal proteins and four plant proteins with values calculated as recommended for protein digestibility-corrected amino acid scores (PDCAAS), but determined in pigs instead of in rats. Values for standardised total tract digestibility (STTD) of crude protein (CP) and standardised ileal digestibility (SID) of amino acids (AA) were calculated for whey protein isolate (WPI), whey protein concentrate (WPC), milk protein concentrate (MPC), skimmed milk powder (SMP), pea protein concentrate (PPC), soya protein isolate (SPI), soya flour and whole-grain wheat. The PDCAAS-like values were calculated using the STTD of CP to estimate AA digestibility and values for DIAAS were calculated from values for SID of AA. Results indicated that values for SID of most indispensable AA in WPI, WPC and MPC were greater ( P <0·05) than for SMP, PPC, SPI, soya flour and wheat. With the exception of arginine and tryptophan, the SID of all indispensable AA in SPI was greater ( P <0·05) than in soya flour, and with the exception of threonine, the SID of all indispensable AA in wheat was less ( P <0·05) than in all other ingredients. If the same scoring pattern for children between 6 and 36 months was used to calculate PDCAAS-like values and DIAAS, PDCAAS-like values were greater ( P <0·05) than DIAAS values for SMP, PPC, SPI, soya flour and wheat indicating that PDCAAS-like values estimated in pigs may overestimate the quality of these proteins.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            How well do plant based alternatives fare nutritionally compared to cow’s milk?

            Due to the issues like lactose intolerance and milk allergy arising from the consumption of cow's milk, there has been an increased demand in the plant based alternative milks around the world. Food industry has addressed these demands by introducing various milk beverages which are promoted as alternatives coming from plant sources which include almond milk and soy milk. Though they are popularly advertised as healthy and wholesome, little research has been done in understanding the nutritional implications of consuming these milk beverages in short term and long term. Further, consumers associate these alternatives to be a direct substitute of cow's milk which might not be true in all cases. This review tries to address the issue by outlining the differences between cow's milk and commercially available alternative milks in terms of their nutrient content. Though various plant based alternate milks have been studied, only the four most consumed milk beverages are presented in this review which are consumed widely around the world. A complete nutritional outline and the corresponding health benefits of consuming these plant based milk beverages have been discussed in detail which could help the consumers make an informed decision.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Plant‐based Milks: A Review of the Science Underpinning Their Design, Fabrication, and Performance

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Nutr
                Front Nutr
                Front. Nutr.
                Frontiers in Nutrition
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-861X
                20 October 2021
                2021
                : 8
                : 761442
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Center for Public Health Nutrition, University of Washington , Seattle, WA, United States
                [2] 2Clinical Nutrition Research Centre, Singapore Institute of Food and Biotechnology Innovation , Singapore, Singapore
                [3] 3Frances Stern Nutrition Center Tufts Medical Center and Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine and Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University , Boston, MA, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: José M. Alvarez-Suarez, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Ecuador

                Reviewed by: Wendy J. Dahl, University of Florida, United States; Samson Oyeyinka, Bicol University, Philippines

                *Correspondence: Adam Drewnowski adamdrew@ 123456uw.edu

                This article was submitted to Nutrition and Food Science Technology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Nutrition

                Article
                10.3389/fnut.2021.761442
                8564006
                34746213
                0cbca025-0546-49a6-9c8d-bd20eba4eb02
                Copyright © 2021 Drewnowski, Henry and Dwyer.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 19 August 2021
                : 23 September 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 4, Equations: 0, References: 36, Pages: 9, Words: 7013
                Funding
                Funded by: Nestlé Health Science, doi 10.13039/100010886;
                Categories
                Nutrition
                Original Research

                plant-based beverages,milk alternatives,nutrient standards,added sugar,fortification,codex alimentarius,food and drug administration,standards of identity

                Comments

                Comment on this article