A pioneering study recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A unveils an intriguing disparity in the use of food additives between plant-based and animal-based supermarket products. Conducted by researchers from the Institute for Optimum Nutrition (ION) in London, this rigorous observational study offers a novel comparative analysis of like-for-like food items sourced from a prominent UK supermarket, dated October 2025. The study’s findings suggest that plant-based products incorporate significantly more food additives, ingredients, and E-numbers than their animal-based counterparts, marking a crucial data point amid growing consumer interest in plant-based diets and food processing concerns.
The research team, led by senior author Joseph Whittaker, meticulously paired 71 matched sets of items to ensure comparability. These pairs included familiar products such as almond milk versus cow’s milk, plant-based meat alternatives versus conventional meat, as well as vegan and dairy brownies, among others. The core rationale was to evaluate the compositional differences in additives and ingredients with as much parity in product type and packaging as possible. This methodical approach underscores the scientific rigor applied to dissecting the nuanced formulations emerging within plant-based alternative foods.
Key quantitative metrics reveal that the collective plant-based products contained a total of 199 distinct food additives, nearly double the 100 additives identified in the animal-based products. Similarly, the ingredient count was measurably higher in the plant-based range, reaching 1,566 compared to 1,110 for animal-based goods. Additionally, there was a higher diversity of E-numbers—39 in the plant-based sector, compared to 31 in animal-based items—with 50 unique identifiers recorded overall. These findings signal not only a greater multiplicity of additives but also hint at more complex formulation processes underlying plant-based items.
One of the most striking contrasts emerged within product categories typically involving dairy, meat, and fish. The plant-based analogues of these food groups demonstrated the largest disparities in terms of additive prevalence. This aligns with broader industry trends where reproducing the taste, texture, and nutritional profiles of animal-derived products necessitates intricate recipes and novel ingredient technologies, often involving multiple food additives for stability, preservation, and sensory mimicry.
Despite these quantitative differences, Whittaker emphasizes that a greater number of additives does not directly equate to heightened health risks. He points out that regulatory safeguards ensure all additives comply with rigorous UK food safety standards. Moreover, the study’s scope was limited to ingredient lists rather than measuring additive concentrations or intake exposure, leaving open important questions regarding the actual health implications of these findings.
The study was prompted against a backdrop of rapidly evolving dietary patterns. Recent population surveys indicate declining per capita meat consumption in the UK and increasing adoption of plant-based diets in western countries such as the US, as well as growing prevalence of flexitarian dietary behavior in regions like Flanders. These shifts underscore the importance of scrutinizing the nutritional and compositional characteristics of plant-based alternatives, which are progressively replacing traditional animal products on supermarket shelves globally.
Whittaker also highlights the broader consumer trend towards ‘clean labels’—a demand for products with simpler ingredient lists devoid of additives and artificial components. This movement reflects heightened public consciousness about ultra-processed foods and their potential adverse health outcomes. While this study was not focused on processing levels, the authors suggest that the higher additive count may be linked to the inherently processed nature of many plant-based alternatives designed to mimic animal products, a hypothesis warranting further investigation.
A clear limitation of this research is its reliance on a single supermarket’s product range, restricting the ability to generalize these results robustly across other markets, brands, and geographic regions. The authors advocate for future studies incorporating broader product portfolios and diverse international settings. Confirmatory research could elucidate whether these patterns hold universally or are idiosyncratic to this specific dataset.
Furthermore, the study stops short of a detailed assessment of the degree of food processing in plant-based items. Given the increasing consumer shift towards whole foods and minimally processed diets, this represents a critical avenue for subsequent work. Understanding how processing influences additive use, nutritional quality, and health outcomes in plant-based consumers is paramount given the rapid expansion of this sector.
In the interim, the authors advise those adopting plant-based diets to prioritize whole plant foods such as vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts, and grains—foods naturally devoid of additives and rich in beneficial phytonutrients. They caution that heavily processed plant-based alternatives, despite their convenience and sensory appeal, may contribute to a more refined dietary profile potentially lacking the nutritional advantages traditionally associated with plant-centric eating patterns.
This study ultimately provides a valuable snapshot of the current state of plant-based product formulation from a food additive perspective. By quantifying and comparing additives, ingredients, and E-numbers, it sparks important discussion about the balance between innovation in food technology and consumer health priorities. As the plant-based market continues to flourish, an evidence-based approach to food composition and additives will be essential for informed consumer choices and regulatory oversight.
The research team hopes their findings will galvanize more comprehensive investigations into additives, processing, and health impacts, helping both industry players and consumers navigate the complex landscape emerging at the intersection of nutrition science, food technology, and evolving dietary habits. By unlocking these insights, the study aims to contribute meaningfully to the ongoing dialogue about how modern food systems can best support public health in an era of dietary transformation.
Subject of Research: Number and type of food additives in plant-based versus animal-based products
Article Title: Number and type of food additives in plant-based vs animal-based products: an analysis of a UK supermarket range
News Publication Date: 25-Jun-2026
Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2026.2673198
References: Stewart et al. 2021; Sullivan et al. 2024; Deliens et al. 2022
Image Credits: Not specified
Keywords
Food additives, plant-based products, animal-based products, E-numbers, food processing, plant-based diets, nutrition, food safety, clean label trend, dietary patterns, food technology, observational study
Tags: additive levels in almond milk vs cow’s milkcompositional differences in plant-based foodsE-numbers in plant-based foodsfood additives and consumer healthfood additives in vegan productsfood processing in plant-based dietsInstitute for Optimum Nutrition food additive researchplant-based food additives comparisonplant-based meat alternative additivesstudy on plant-based vs animal food ingredientsUK supermarket plant-based vs animal productsvegan food additive analysis 2025
