ProVeg International defines nutritional gaps and benefits in plant-based fish alternatives
The nutritional quality of plant-based fish alternatives varies widely depending on product type, brand, and country of origin, according to analysis by ProVeg International. The organization urges manufacturers to prioritize product development that delivers nutritional value — including fortification with key micronutrients — in addition to taste and texture.
Most examined products (78%) meet EU criteria for “source of protein,” and all contain fiber, unlike fish. However, only 27% of the plant-based alternatives listed omega-3 content, which was primarily alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) instead of the more bioavailable eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) omega-3 fatty acids found in fish.
Meanwhile, ProVeg International welcomes the environmental benefits of plant-based fish alternatives, noting that nearly 40% of global fish stocks are overfished and another 50% are harvested at maximum capacity.
The food awareness organization analyzed 100 processed plant-based fish alternatives sold between 2024 and 2025 in 11 countries and three continents. The team examined the products’ nutritional quality, front-of-pack labeling, such as Nutri-Score ratings, and use of micronutrient fortification.
Nutritional labels
The researchers examined different processed plant-based fish alternatives to fish sticks, burgers, canned tuna, smoked salmon, shrimp, and calamari. They compared the average nutritional value of these products with fish and examined how these values differed across countries.
On average, a plant-based processed fish alternative includes 30% protein, 21% complex carbohydrates, 10% fiber, 4% sugar, and 31% total fats. Meanwhile, US and UK food databases indicate that fish-based products are, on average, higher in protein (52%), lower in sugar and fiber (both 1%), and lower in total fats (22%) than plant-based alternatives.
Nutri-Score is a voluntary nutrition label used in several European countries with a five-color scale (A to E) indicating a product’s nutritional quality.Generally, fish products are also slightly lower in salt at 3% compared to 5% for plant-based alternatives.
The researchers analyzed the Nutri-Score of products, where available, finding that overall, evaluated products showed a “generally adequate nutritional profile.” At the same time, the report highlights “room for improvement” in plant-based fish alternatives, specifically in salt and protein levels.
Macronutrient differences
Protein content varied across categories and countries. For example, plant-based canned tuna sold in the UK contained 15 g of protein per 100 g, but 22.6 g in Germany. Plant-based smoked salmon contains the lowest protein values, at an average of 2 g per 100 g.
The report calls on food manufacturers to pay closer attention to the types of fats used to increase the content of omega-3 fatty acids, for example, through algae oil, which contains EPA and DHA. On average, the products that listed omega-3 content contained 0.75 g per 100 g, which ProVeg International says is comparable to levels in many types of fish.
On average, the fish alternatives contained 3.57 g of fiber per 100 g of product, which would qualify them as a “source of fiber” according to EU nutrition claims regulation. Other than those coated with breadcrumbs, animal-based fish products do not contain fiber.
ProVeg International notes that fiber content improves the overall nutritional profile of fish alternatives. This helps consumers reach the recommended daily fiber intake, which many people globally do not.
Sugar and salt
Lowering the content of salt and added sugar is a key public health priority. On average, the fish alternatives contained 1.3 g of salt per 100 g, while the WHO recommends adults limit salt consumption to 5 g daily.
The report, “Out of the net, into the future,” sees plant-based fish alternatives as a promising innovation that is more environmentally-friendly.At the same time, as conventional fish is almost always salted during preparation, certain processed fish products are usually high in salt as well. For example, animal-based smoked salmon contains an average of 2.96 g of salt per 100 g, and plant-based alternatives reach 2.17 g.
The plant-based fish alternatives analyzed in the study are generally low in sugar, as is traditional fish. Across all countries, these alternatives contained less than 3 g per 100 g, although sugar levels were higher in South Africa and the UK.
The report recommends that food producers focus on “smart ingredients” that can enhance products’ flavor and provide essential nutrients. “For example, adding algae to a product formulation can provide the familiar fish taste as well as vitamins and fatty acids.”
Micronutrients and additives
Although fortification is a common strategy to enhance plant-based alternatives’ nutritional profile, the report notes that this is not commonly used in fish alternatives.
Spain was the only country with a strong vitamin B12 fortification, covering 50% of products. In Italy, the Netherlands, and Poland, over 25% of products contained added vitamin B12. In other countries, levels were lower, or there was no fortification with the core vitamin, which is mainly found in animal-sourced foods.
Iron showed a similar result: 100% of US products were fortified with iron, but there was no iron fortification in the UK, Czechia, and South Africa, and limited fortification levels in other countries.
Moreover, almost no products were fortified with iodine; the report identified only one product from the Italian market. Animal-based fish, cow’s milk, and dairy products are the primary sources of iodine for the general public.
“As more and more people transition toward a more plant-rich diet, it is vital to educate consumers about the importance of iodine and how to include it in their diet,” cautions the report. “On the other hand, food manufacturers should also consider iodine fortification, since it is the easiest way to add part of the recommended daily iodine intake to products.”
ProVeg International urges manufacturers to prioritize product development that delivers nutritional value, including fortification with key micronutrients.Like other processed foods, plant-based fish alternatives often contain additives, such as stabilizers, thickeners, flavorings, acidity regulators, and colors. Although these are generally safe, ProVeg International notes that consumers poorly understand them, calling on cleaner labels and greater transparency to help build consumer trust and confidence.
Food environment
The report urges manufacturers to produce healthier alternatives and includes recommendations across the food system to “unlock the full potential of plant-based fish alternatives.”
ProVeg International calls on retailers to improve the visibility and competitiveness of their products with strategic placement and pricing. It advises governments to set clear nutritional standards and fortification requirements for these alternatives to support public health and guide industry best practices.
The organization says consumer organizations should promote food literacy, explicitly focusing on reading food labels and understanding both the benefits and limitations of plant-based products.
Finally, the report requests scientists and researchers to investigate the long-term health impacts, nutrient bioavailability, and sensory qualities of plant-based fish alternatives to strengthen their evidence base and drive innovation.
“With the right investment and innovation, plant-based fish alternatives can play a key role in shaping a healthier, more sustainable future for people, animals, and the planet,” it concludes.
