I've been on the side of not allowing alternative products to be called meat, chicken, beef, ham, or other words that are similar. Tofurky is cool, people are not likely to think it's a heritage breed.
This study is great. If a plant alternative looked and tasted *exactly* like the real animal product but is not nutritionally identical, then calling it one of the above things is not good. A steak doesn't need an ingredient list. Every alternative product does. Do you get the same iron, zinc, niacin, B12?

As a scientist, I issue a critical PSA here: *Always skip to the end of a published study and check the competing interests.* Gee whiz, look at that! This study’s first author received grants from the North Dakota Beef Association. Take it with a grain of salt. In no way, shape or form, is beef “anti-inflammatory” or in any way health-promoting. That’s what the ND Beef folks want you to believe, so they paid for this study. Big Tobacco pulled the same stunt for years. Eat whole plant foods. They don’t cause disease. Animal products do (they also destroy the environment). Disappointed in you for reporting this misleading study, New Atlas.

Can we have an independent definitive study please with a definite conclusion, and long term deficiencies, benefits or not for switching and not a sitting on the fence ramble.

@ES - thanks for pointing that out!

ES, spot on! You can smell the bias in this report-you found the source. Thank you. I also noted the "potentially important physiological, anti-inflammatory, and or immunomodulatory roles." from beef vs the "known to lower cholesterol levels, reduce inflammation, and have an antioxidant effect" from the alternative beef product. I would go with the known vs the potentially important as a key indicator that the beef industry is at a loss for nutritional benefits.

Benefits of beef alternatives are extensive, including CO2 reduction, health benefits, including weight and cancer risk reduction, and ecological resource reductions.
Scientific facts regarding the nutritional value of plant based protein can be found here : https://nutritionfacts.org/video/plant-based-protein-are-pea-and-soy-protein-isolates-harmful/

@ES, Say it isn’t so - you’re claiming Duke Molecular Physiology Institute and Duke University Medical Center have been corrupted by money?

(The entire University system has been corrupted by financing. The financials of universities are broken beyond repair. The sooner we admit it, the better.)

It only took half the article before I thought, "Hmm, looks like the beef industry has sponsored a study to strike back at plant-based alternatives." Look to the end of the journal article and you'll see the study received "a grant from the North Dakota Beef Association". This study doesn't tell us anything we did not already know. It just generates some headlines saying meat isn't all bad.

Good point ES. Follow the money.

The comment about the money seems more politically motivated, or a knee jerk reaction at best after further investigation.

I google search the author and pulled additional studies posted.
One other study where this the grant is identified as a conflict of interest in that study.
(posted here:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00128/full?fbclid=IwAR0u1mXY9YSa6H_QR-p7nRLSsV91woBWwCnJEhHs_qqOViNGFIF5_X6E970 )

The conclusion by the evil meat researchers were this:

Some people may do better with meat, some better with plants.
Overall - mixing the two is probably the best way to go for most.

If I want vegetable nutrients and metabolites and metabolites I'll eat real, unprocessed vegetables, not the highly modified messed-around-with output of some chemical plant somewhere.
The Veggies can have my locally-reared grass-fed beef, mutton, free range chicken and pork from my local butcher when they tear them from my cold, dead hand.
I thought we were supposed to be cutting back on heavily processed "plastic" foods, not eating them in preference to the natural product.