The skin is the largest organ of our body, making everything we touch a potential influence on our health.
In this section are insights into the effects of various chemicals on human health, evaluation of their sources, and exploration into effective strategies to reduce chemical presence in our daily lives.
Furthermore are provided excerpts on related environmental topics as supplementary material.
To Be or Not to Be Meat
The push for increased vegetable consumption, particularly in the United States, has sparked a significant plant-based movement. This movement has led to a growing demand for plant-based products, prompting companies to explore various ways to offer more plant-based options that can closely replicate meat. Yet, are these alternatives better than meat?
The push for increased vegetable consumption, particularly in the United States, has sparked a significant plant-based movement. This movement has led to a growing demand for plant-based products, prompting companies to explore various ways to offer more plant-based options that can closely replicate meat. Some of the leading companies in this sector, known for their innovative meat alternatives, include Impossible Foods, Beyond Meat, and MorningStar Farms.
There is a wide range of plant-based products available on the market today, including patties, chicken tenders, sausage, steak, corn dogs, and chicken nuggets. These alternatives are commonly found not only in grocery stores but also in sit-down restaurants and fast-food chains, reflecting the rising demand for plant-based options.
As more individuals experiment with these products instead of traditional meat, a crucial question arises: Are plant-based meat alternatives better than the meat products they aim to imitate? This debate can be analyzed through three key areas: consumer health, environmental impact, and cost.
Consumer Health
The health effect of eating plant-based and meat comes down to the products contents. Certain components of food, such as saturated fats, fiber, sodium, and protein are all focused on when it comes down to one's health, especially in the prevention of disease.
The American Heart Association points out that saturated fats increase the amount of bad cholesterol aka LDL in one's body which plays into the risk of developing diseases of concern such as heart disease. A notable factor is fiber as Bazzano states that fiber plays a role in lowering LDL resulting in a lower risk of heart disease therefore within the body fiber reverses the effects that saturated fat has on cholesterol.
As time progresses, the connection between nutrition and heart health becomes increasingly important. This shift leads to a greater focus on the contents of the foods we consume, drawing our attention to nutrition labels. By examining these labels, we can compare the nutritional content of real meat and plant-based meat.
Beyond Meat
When comparing a 113g Beyond 113g patty to a beef burger, Meakin evaluates the two options side by side showing that Beyond has less saturated fat, and less protein whereas a beef patty has less calories, less fat, less fiber and less sodium.
Impossible Meat
When comparing the nutrition labels of a premade Impossible burger and a premade grass-fed Angus beef patty from Trader Joe's, as provided by Open Food Facts, we can see some differences. A 113g Impossible patty contains fewer calories and less saturated fat compared to a 113g beef patty. However, the beef patty has lower cholesterol levels. Notably, both the Impossible burger and the beef patty have the same amount of protein.
Morning Star
FoodServiceDirect displays the nutrition labels for two of Morningstar Farms' 64g Veggie Burgers, which together weigh 128g. When compared to a 128g lean Angus beef patty, the results show that the Morningstar burger contains less saturated fat and cholesterol, while the beef patty has fewer calories and more protein.
Comparing Products Based on Composition
When comparing plant-based patties to traditional meat patties in terms of saturated fats, fiber, sodium, and protein, the results indicate that plant-based options generally contain less saturated fat and protein, while beef patties tend to have lower fiber and sodium content.
From a heart health perspective, focusing on the levels of saturated fats, fiber, sodium, and protein is crucial in preventing heart disease. Plant-based meats are preferable due to their lower saturated fat content and higher fiber levels. The increased fiber helps manage cholesterol levels; however, the higher sodium content of some plant-based products can be concerning for heart health. Fortunately, companies like Impossible Foods have recognized this issue, introducing products like Impossible Lite, which contains 75% less saturated fat than meat and no cholesterol.
Overall, plant-based products not only demonstrate better nutritional profiles compared to meat but also show a commitment to health by adapting their offerings to provide healthier choices for consumers.
Environmental Impact
The environmental impact of food production is evident in various factors, including land use, carbon emissions, and water consumption. This analysis will compare plant-based meats, such as Beyond Meat, Impossible Foods, and MorningStar, to red meat, specifically beef.
Beyond Meat
Heller, in an article from the University of Michigan, states that when the Beyond Burger is compared to a quarter pound of U.S. beef, it has a 93% lower impact on land usage. According to Consumer Ecology, producing an Impossible Burger requires 77.9 times less land than making a 4-ounce beef burger. Heller further explains that Beyond Meat generates 90% less greenhouse gas emissions compared to beef. Additionally, when comparing Beyond Meat to a quarter pound of U.S. beef, Heller notes that it has more than 99% less impact on water usage.
Impossible Meat
Consumer Ecology reports that the carbon footprint of an Impossible Burger is 0.75 kg per burger, resulting in greenhouse gas emissions that are 13 times lower than those of a beef burger. Additionally, Consumer Ecology states that producing an Impossible Burger requires 18 times less water than a standard 4 oz beef burger.
Morning Star
According to Morningstar, their products have a significantly reduced environmental impact compared to meat. Specifically, they have a 73-98% lower effect on land use. When it comes to carbon dioxide emissions, Statista reports that Beyond Meat uses 0.4 kg of carbon dioxide for a quarter pound, while traditional beef requires 3.7 kg. Additionally, Morningstar states that their products result in a 33-95% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions compared to meat. Furthermore, these products also have an 86-99% lower effect on water usage necessary for food production.
Comparing Products Based to Evaluate Environmental Effect
In summary, plant-based options are more environmentally friendly because they require less land, water, and carbon dioxide to produce compared to meat production.
Cost
Cost is a significant factor that influences many people's food choices, making it an important consideration for consumer decisions.
Beyond and Impossible Meat
Morford claims that plant-based meats like Impossible and Beyond are about 50% more expensive than both inorganic and organic beef.
Morning Star
According to the Vegout Team, Morningstar offers a set of four ¼ pound steakhouse-style plant-based burgers priced at $9.19. While this is considered one of the more affordable options for plant-based burgers, it is still more expensive than traditional beef burgers.
Conclusion
Overall, meat options are more cost-effective than Beyond, Impossible Meats, or MorningStar plant-based products.
Closing Thoughts
The movement in many parts of the world, including the United States, to increase vegetable consumption has led to innovative solutions aimed at achieving this goal. One notable development is the creation of plant-based meat, designed to replace animal meat and promote a healthier diet.
When comparing plant-based products to traditional meat, several benefits emerge—aside from cost considerations. Plant-based options are generally healthier for consumers and more environmentally friendly, making them a preferable choice.
References
American Heart Association. (2021). Saturated Fat.
https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/fats/saturated-fats
Bazzano, Lynda. (2008). Effects of soluble dietary fiber on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and coronary heart disease risk. Springer Link.
https://link-springer-com.mantis.csuchico.edu/article/10.1007/s11883-008-0074-3
Consumer Ecology. “Impossible Burger Carbon Footprint & Environmental Impact”.
Fairway. “IMPOSSIBLE BURGER PATTIES, 6 COUNT, 24 OZ”
FoodServiceDirect. Morningstar Farms Grillers Veggie Burgers, 18 Ounce -- 5 per case.
HastyCart. Our Finest Lean Angus Burgers, 8 x 128g.
https://www.hastycart.ca/product/our-finest-lean-angus-burgers-8-x-128g/
Heller, Martin C. and Gregory A. Keoleian. (2018) “Beyond Meat's Beyond Burger Life Cycle Assessment: A detailed comparison between a plant-based and an animal-based protein source.” CSS Report, University of Michigan: Ann Arbor 1-38.
Impossible. IMPOSSIBLE BEEF LITE MADE FROM PLANTS, 12 OZ.
https://impossiblefoods.com/products/beef/beef-lite
Meakin, Connor. [New Data] Beyond Meat vs Beef: Which is Better for You and the Environment?. BlueBird Provisions. https://bluebirdprovisions.co/blogs/news/beyond-meat-vs-beef
Morford, Katie. (2023). “Impossible vs. Beyond Meat: Taste, Nutrition, Cost, and More.“ Simply Recipies.
Morning Star. “Environmental Impact Calculator”.
Open Food Facts. “Grass fed angus beef burgers - Trader Joes - 4 4oz/113g Patties”
https://world.openfoodfacts.org/product/00507233/grass-fed-angus-beef-burgers-trader-joes
Statista. “Comparison of total cradle-to-distribution impacts* of quarter pound Beyond Burger and quarter pound U.S. beef patty, as of 2017”. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254448/environmental-impacts-beyond-burger-us-beef-patty/#:~:text=The%20lifecycle%20of%20a%20quarter,produces%20just%200.4%20kg%20CO2e.
UC Davis “Lab-Grown Meat Potential”
https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/lab-grown-meat-carbon-footprint-worse-beef
VegOut Team. (2023). “MorningStar Farms Launches New Vegan ‘Steakhouse’ Burger”. VegOut.
The Emerging Concern of Plastics
Have you ever realized how many items around you contain plastic? Plastic is highly prevalent in our daily lives, found in items like clothing, cutting boards, water bottles, plates, cutlery, dishes, cosmetics, phones, blankets, and more. Why is this a concern? Micoplastics—tiny plastic particles—along with nanoplastics- even smaller (<100 nm) plastic particles- have raised growing concerns about their potential toxicity and other negative effects, particularly involving brain health and the gut.
Have you ever considered how many items around you are plastic? Plastic is highly prevalent in our daily lives (“Microplastics infiltrate all systems of body”, 2023), found in items like clothing, cutting boards, water bottles, plates, cutlery, dishes, cosmetics, phones, blankets, and more.
Why is this a concern? Micoplastics—tiny plastic particles—along with nanoplastics- even smaller (<100 nm) plastic particles- have raised growing concerns about potential toxicity and other negative effects involving the brain and gut.
Memory & Cognition
Microplastics can be ingested or inhaled through food, water, and air, eventually entering the bloodstream and potentially crossing biological barriers, including the blood-brain barrier. Once they penetrate this barrier, they can accumulate in brain tissue, which may trigger immune responses that lead to neuroinflammation and cognitive impairment. This raises concerns about conditions such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease (Sofield, 2024), as well as overall neuronal communication.
Additionally, microplastics may contribute to oxidative stress and cell damage by generating reactive oxygen species. Such cell damage is worrisome because it can reduce synaptic plasticity, ultimately affecting learning and memory.
Animal studies conducted both in vivo and in vitro have evaluated the effects of polystyrene nanoplastics on mice, focusing on the extent of cognitive dysfunction. These studies highlight neuroinflammatory responses that may contribute to cognitive deficits and reduced neuronal activity (Paing, 2024). Another study assessed the impact of microplastics on honeybees, revealing impairments in learning and memory (Pasquini, 2024). These findings raise concerns about cognitive impairment and the potential for neurodegenerative diseases
The Gut
The realization of the importance of your gut microbiome is becoming more realized, and for good measure. The health status of your microbiota is important for many key health factors, including brain activity and cognitive functions (Chen, 2021). Plastic is known to affect the gut-brain axis, also therefore, also pays a role in neurotransmitters, neurodegeneration, gut dysbiosis, microbial dysbiosis, gut inflammation, dysfunction, disruption, immune activation, and neurological effects (Sofield, 2024).
Conclusion
Research indicates that plastics can impact our mental and gut health, particularly affecting memory and cognitive function. While more human studies are needed to confirm the extent of damage caused by micro and nanoplastics, current findings suggest that ingesting plastic has a negative effect on our health. Mindful efforts to reduce plastic intake, such as ceasing the use of using plastic cutting boards, cookware tools and utensils, helps to mitigate ingestion.
More information:
Nihart, A.J., Garcia, M.A., El Hayek, E. et al. Bioaccumulation of microplastics in decedent human brains. Nat Med (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03453-1
References
Chen, Y., Xu, J., & Chen, Y. (2021). Regulation of Neurotransmitters by the Gut Microbiota and Effects on Cognition in Neurological Disorders. Nutrients, 13(6), 2099. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13062099
Microplastics infiltrate all systems of body, cause behavioral changes. (2023, August 24). The University of Rhode Island. https://www.uri.edu/news/2023/08/microplastics-infiltrate-all-systems-of-body-cause-behavioral-changes/
Paing, Y. M. M., Eom, Y., Song, G. B., Kim, B., Choi, M. G., Hong, S., & Lee, S. H. (2024). Neurotoxic effects of polystyrene nanoplastics on memory and microglial activation: Insights from in vivo and in vitro studies. The Science of the total environment, 924, 171681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171681
Pasquini, E., Ferrante, F., Passaponti, L., Pavone, F. S., Costantini, I., & Baracchi, D. (2024). Microplastics reach the brain and interfere with honey bee cognition. The Science of the total environment, 912, 169362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169362
Sofield, C. E., Anderton, R. S., & Gorecki, A. M. (2024). Mind over Microplastics: Exploring Microplastic-Induced Gut Disruption and Gut-Brain-Axis Consequences. Current issues in molecular biology, 46(5), 4186–4202. https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb46050256