Ost är ett näringsrikt livsmedel som är rikt på högkvalitativa proteiner, vitaminer (t.ex. vitamin A och B12) och mineraler (t.ex. kalcium och fosfor). Ost innehåller dock också relativt höga halter av mättade fettsyror och salt, som generellt förknippats med ökade nivåer av LDL-kolesterol respektive högt blodtryck. Både LDL-kolesterol och högt blodtryck utgör riskfaktorer för hjärt-kärlsjukdom. Trots innehållet av mättade fettsyror och salt har konsumtion av ost visat sig var förknippat med minskad risk för hjärt-kärlsjukdom. Ostkonsumtion har inte heller visat sig leda till förväntad ökning av LDL-kolesterol eller blodtryck. För att förklara dessa oväntade hälsoeffekter av ost hänvisas ofta till betydelsen av ostmatrixen, dvs. den samlade effekten av alla näringsämnen och icke näringsämnen, hur de är organiserade i olika strukturer och även av den fysiska oststrukturen. Effekter av ostmatrixen kan även bidra till positiva effekter relaterat till muskel-, ben- och tandhälsa.

Parallellt med ökad kunskap om ostmatrixens betydelse för hälsoeffekter finns det ett växande intresse av att förstå vilka hälsoeffekter som kan förväntas vid utbyte av ost mot växtbaserade alternativ, och betydelsen av deras matrix. Med det övergripande syftet att summera kunskapen om ostmatrixens betydelse för hälsoeffekter av ost, jämfört med livsmedelsmatrisen för växtbaserade ostalternativ, bidrar denna rapport till ett sakligt underlag för denna diskussion.

Flera hälsofrämjande faktorer relaterade till ostmatrixen har föreslagits, inkl. förekomsten av specifika fettsyror, protein av hög kvalitet, bioaktiva peptider, biotillgängligt kalcium, och fördelaktig kvot mellan kalcium och fosfor. En central faktor är också organiseringen av fett i globulära fettstrukturer (eng. ”milk fat globules”), som omges av ett unikt membran innehållande många bioaktiva ämnen. Även organiseringen av proteinet kasein i micelliknande strukturer antas spela en viktig roll.

Hittills saknas studier som specifikt undersökt betydelsen av matrixen hos växtbaserade ostalternativ för hälsoeffekter. De flesta av de föreslagna fördelaktiga ”ostmatrixfaktorerna” kan dock antas inte förekomma naturligt i växtbaserade ostalternativ. För växtbaserade mejerialternativ diskuteras i stället andra faktorer, såsom högre bearbetningsgrad, berikning, antinutritionella faktorer, liksom innehåll och kvalitet av fiber, kolhydrater, fett och protein, i förhållande till mejeriprodukter.

Hälsoeffekterna av ost och mekanismerna bakom dessa är ännu inte helt klarlagda, men tillgänglig kunskap tyder på att ostmatrixen kan ge hälsofördelar som inte uppenbart kan erhållas från växtbaserade alternativ. Det ska dock inte uteslutas att oväntade matrixeffekter hos växtbaserade ostalternativ kan komma att klarläggas i framtida forskning, på samma sätt som förståelsen av ostmatrixen och dess möjliga inverkan på hälsan har växt fram över tid. Speciellt intressant kan det vara att undersöka möjligheterna med fermentering, avseende såväl struktur som näringsinnehåll hos växtbaserade ostalternativ. Fortsatta framsteg inom detta område är viktiga för att bättre förstå de möjliga hälsoeffekterna av att ersätta mejeriprodukter, som ost, med växtbaserade alternativ.

Cheese is nutritious, rich in high quality proteins, vitamins (e.g., A, B12), and minerals (e.g., calcium, phosphorus) but also relatively high in saturated fats och salt. However, despite the high levels of saturated fats och salt, cheese consumption has been linked to reduced cardiovascular disease risk and shown not to increase LDL cholesterol or blood pressure. These unexpected findings are often attributed to the cheese matrix, which includes the combined effect of all nutrients and non-nutrients in cheese, how they are organized in different structures and the physical cheese structure.

With increased knowledge on the role of the cheese matrix on health, there is growing interest in understanding expected health effects when replacing cheese with plant-based alternatives, and the role of their matrix. The aim of this report is to summarize the current knowledge on the role of the cheese matrix in the health effects of cheese, in comparison with plant-based cheese alternatives.

Several matrix factors may contribute to positive cardiometabolic effects of cheese, e.g., unique fatty acids, fat globule organization, casein micelle like structures, bioactive peptides and amino acids, the bioaccessibility of calcium, and vitamin K. Several cheese matrix factors are also suggested to benefit muscle- and bone health, e.g., the content of high-quality protein, favourable calcium-to-phosphorus ratio and content of vitamin K. The favourable ratio of calcium to phosphorus is also positive for dental health. Other positive effects of cheese on dental health are attributed to casein, low carbohydrate content (lactose which is less caries-inducing than other carbohydrates) and the saliva-stimulating effect of chewing cheese.

No study has analyzed the food matrix effect on plant-based cheese alternatives. Therefore, the comparisons to cheese can so far only be inferred from differences in nutrient composition, processing, and raw materials between plant-based and dairy cheese. Specific components in plant-based alternatives, such as anti-nutrients and the fortification of vitamins and minerals may potentially impact their health effect.

In conclusion, current evidence indicates that cheese, due to its unique matrix, may confer health benefits superior to those of plant-based alternatives, particularly with respect to cardiometabolic, dental, and musculoskeletal health outcomes. However, it remains uncertain whether assumptions derived from current knowledge of individual nutrients and ingredients accurately reflect the true health effects of plant-based cheese alternatives. Future research may further develop our understanding of how certain processes, such as fermentation, affect the cheese matrix and reveal unexpected health properties and matrix effects of plant-based cheese alternatives.

The market for plant-based dairy alternatives is growing; therefore, focusing on the nutritional quality of these products is important. This study evaluates the nutritional profile of plant-based alternatives to milk, yoghurt, cheese, cream, ice cream and fat spread in the Swedish market and compares them to corresponding dairy products. The nutritional quality of organic vs non-organic and plain vs flavoured plant-based milk and yoghurt alternatives was also assessed. Nutritional data for 222 plant-based dairy alternatives were collected from the manufacturers’ websites, and data for corresponding dairy products were obtained from the Swedish Food Composition Database. Plant-based dairy alternatives had higher fibre content than dairy products, while their protein content was lower, except for soy-based products. The saturated fat content of plant-based dairy alternatives was similar to or lower than dairy products, except for coconut-based yoghurt and plant-fat-based cheese. Their energy content was also similar to or lower than dairy products, except for coconut-based yoghurt, plant-based fat spread and plant-based ice cream, which contained higher energy than yoghurt, blended margarine, and ice cream, respectively. The micronutrient fortification was mainly in plant-based milk, yoghurt, and cheese alternatives; thus, compared to dairy, they had similar or higher vitamins D, B2, and B12 (except in plant-based milk alternatives), calcium and iodine content. Furthermore, organic plant-based milk and yoghurt alternatives had a lower micronutrient content (e.g., vitamins B2 and B12, iodine and calcium) except for vitamin D than non-organic varieties. Flavoured plant-based milk and yoghurt alternatives were higher in energy and total sugar than plain varieties. In summary, plant-based dairy alternatives have nutritional strengths and weaknesses compared to dairy products that should be considered when replacing dairy. 

Plant-based analogues (PBAs) for meat and dairy are typically categorised as ultra-processed foods. However, current evidence that PBA consumption negatively impacts health is controversial. As such, these products may be inappropriately negatively coloured by the “processed foods are unhealthy” heuristic. We investigated the strength of this heuristic among Swedish consumers and explored its impact on perceived healthiness within different food categories (meat, dairy, seafood, vegetables/legumes, and PBAs). In an online experiment, participants (N=563) rated the healthiness and level of processing of 24 food products (presented as images), completed the food technology neophobia (FTN) scale, and reported consumption frequency of different foods. The results indicated that this heuristic, measured as Pearson’s r between perceived healthiness and level of processing, was prevalent and robust (posterior mean = -0.58, probability of association>99 %) as well as stronger among women and individuals with higher FTN. Moreover, the impact of the heuristic differed across food categories: healthiness ratings for vegetable/legume and seafood products perceived as processed were more negatively impacted compared to those for meat products (probability of association>99 %). The potential implications of this for the protein shift and encouraging substituting red meat with products based on raw materials associated with health (i.e., plants and seafood) are discussed. 

The transition towards more plant-based diets is identified as an important measure for limiting dietary climate impact. Plant-based meat analogues (PBMAs) have been proposed as a viable lower carbon alternative to meat, and its market is rapidly growing globally. However, knowledge about the climate impact of PBMAs in relation to other foods is currently limited due to the challenge of comparing life cycle assessments (LCAs) using different methods. The aim of this study was to review the climate impact of PBMAs based on LCAs published up to 2021. Original LCA data were recalculated to harmonize differences in method choices among studies and presented as the climate impact of final products at factory gate. The median climate impact of PBMAs was estimated at 1.7 kg CO2 eq./kg of product with a more than fourfold variation in impact (0.5–2.4 kg CO2 eq./kg product). Climate impact per protein content of the final product varied from 0.4 to 1.2 kg CO2 eq./100 g protein with a median impact of 0.8 kg CO2 eq./100 g protein. Cultivation of raw materials and manufacturing were identified to be responsible for a large proportion of GHG emissions up to factory gate. However, the assessment of climate impact in the production chain was challenged by the level of detail of data provided. A transparent reporting strategy regarding the specific stages in the supply chain, method choices and product information is recommended to facilitate identification of hot spots to target for improved climate performance of future PBMAs and to enable accurate comparisons between studies. It could further be concluded that current scientific knowledge on the climate impact of PBMAs is based on a limited number of LCAs that often rely on a combination of secondary data and collected data at production scale or from pilot-scale production facilities. Future LCAs of PBMAs would benefit from additional assessments of commercial production using region- and site-specific data. © 2023 The Authors

Algae have gained increasing attention as promising food from both an environmental and nutritional perspective. However, current understanding is still limited. This report summarizes the status of knowledge for this emerging sector, focusing on micro- and macroalgae species most relevant for Europe (particularly Sweden). Environmental impacts, with focus on climate, are evaluated through literature reviews and analysis of existing life cycle assessments (LCAs), and nutritional potential in the form of data compilation and calculation of nutrient density scores. Overall, findings reveal that current data is incomplete and of poor representativeness. Most LCAs are not performed on commercial production, but at pilot or experimental scale, why often only indicative drivers for greenhouse gas emissions may be identified. For microalgae, there is a wide diversity of production systems in different conditions across the globe. Based on the data at hand, energy use is a key hotspot across most studies for this production, driven by the requirements of different types of systems and species, and to location. For macroalgae production, despite poor representativeness of especially green and red macroalgae, key aspects for minimizing greenhouse gas emissions are associated with energy consumption and use of materials for farming such as ropes. No LCA exists on wild harvested macroalgae, representing the largest production volume in Europe (>95%); large-scale wild harvest may also be associated with risks to ecosystems unless suitable management is enforced. Significant data gaps also exist in food composition databases regarding nutrient and heavy metal content in algae (e.g., vitamins and omega-3 fatty acids). When available, nutrient content was found to be highly variable within and across species, but overall, the evaluation of nutritional quality indicated that algae may be a considerable source of minerals and vitamin B12. The contribution of fiber and protein is generally minimal in a 5 g dry weight portion of macroalgae; microalgae may have higher protein content, and also fat. However, excessive amounts of iodine and several heavy metals may be represented even in very small amounts of unprocessed macroalgae. In summary, the suggested potential of farmed algae as a sustainable food resource is overall strengthened by its generally low carbon footprint during production compared to other food raw materials. However, more input data are needed to fill data gaps regarding both environmental impacts and nutrient quality, and effects from different processing, as well as improved understanding of nutrient and contaminant bioavailability. Pending further research, careful considerations of risks and benefits associated with algae production and consumption should be applied.

Nutrient and toxicant levels as well as their bioavailability in S. latissima and Ulva species (fenestrata, intestinalis, rigida) were reviewed. Nutritional quality was assessed by nutrient contribution to daily reference intake (DRI) per portion (5 g dry weight), nutrient density score NRF21.3, and comparisons to reference foods. Toxicological assessments comprised tolerable daily intake (TDI)-levels. Based on mean %DRI per portion, S. latissima and Ulva species were good sources (%DRI >15) of calcium, magnesium, iron, selenium, and vitamin B12. Mean %DRI was <10% for fiber, sodium, and protein. Toxicological concerns were mainly due to iodine (mean %TDI per portion: 3160% for S. latissima and 41–91% for Ulva species). Mean %TDIs for inorganic arsenic, cadmium, and lead were <20% for S. latissima and 9–97%, 6–15%, and 21–46%, for the selected Ulva species, respectively. Bioavailability data were scarce and is, together with nutritional impact of processing, an important aspect to address in future studies.

Evidence-based scientific methods combining health and environmental perspectives are urgently required to support policy decisions and recommendations for more sustainable food systems. This review provides a systematic overview of health metrics and methods to combine health and environmental assessment of foods and diets. Key methodological considerations of importance for best practices are highlighted as well as trends over the past decade, and future research needs. A systematic literature review was performed in the databases Scopus, Dimensions and Pub Med. Eligible articles combined health impact and environmental assessment of food and were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 2010 and 2020. Differences in method choices were highlighted based on study approach, dietary baseline data, dietary exposure, dietary-related health outcome, method for health assessment, choice of health metric, environmental outcome and method for combined health and environmental assessment. A total of 33 articles using nine different health metrics in combination with environmental assessment of foods were identified. Avoided, averted, delayed or preventable deaths or cases, followed by disability- or quality-adjusted life years, and hazard ratio were the health metrics most commonly used. Three principal methods to combine health and environmental assessment of foods and diets were identified; parallel assessment (n = 26), scaled assessment (n = 7) and integrated assessment (n = 1). Method choices affecting reliability and uncertainty, as well as suitability for different purposes were described. Over the past decade, a strong acceleration in the research field of combined health and environmental assessment of food was noted, both regarding number of published studies and method development for more holistic sustainability assessments. Transition towards more sustainable food choices offers great potential to improve public health and reduce environmental impact from the food system. This review identified several health metrics that are suitable for use in methods combining health and environmental dimensions when studying the sustainability of food systems. For best practices, improved knowledge on how multi-criteria sustainability indicators can be assessed, communicated and implemented by different actors along the food supply chain is required. © 2022 The Authors

Nutritional quality of 142 plant-based meat analogues (PBMAs) on the Swedish market were assessed by nutritional contribution (NC) to recommended nutrient intake, three labelling systems (Keyhole, Nutri-Score, nutrition claims) and comparisons to meat references. Based on median (min-max) NC for macronutrients, PBMAs in general appeared as healthy options to meat due to higher NC per 100 g for fibre [PBMAs: 15% (1-33%) vs meat: 0% (0-2%)] and lower NC for saturated fat [PBMAs: 4% (0-59%) vs meat: 15% (1-51%)]. The NC per 100 g for salt was substantial for both PBMAs [25% (5-52%)] and meat [24% (2-55%)]. Limited data for micronutrients indicated that PBMAs are higher in iron compared to meat. Nutrition quality varied both between and within product categories. Mince, bite/fillet and nugget analogues were the main healthier categories, according to labelling systems. Bioavailability of iron, protein quality and effects of processing are important future aspects to consider. © 2022 The Author(s).