To compare nutritional value and aspects with environmental impact of high-protein (HP) and ‘normal-protein’ (NP) ultra-processed foods (UPF).

299 HP and 286 NP products were evaluated regarding aspects of nutritional value, energy density, Nutri-Score, number of additives as well as hyper-palatability and price. Environmental impact of HP UPF was addressed by analysing protein sources and the use of environmentally persistent non-nutritive artificial sweeteners.

Cross-sectional market analysis in German supermarkets and online shops.

299 HP and 286 NP UPF products.

HP compared to NP UPF had a lower energy density, a lower content of sugar, total and saturated fat, whereas fibre and protein content (62·2 % animal protein) were higher (all P < 0·001). HP products therefore had a higher prevalence of Nutri-Score A (67·2 % v. 21·7 %) and a lower prevalence of Nutri-Score E (0·3 % v. 11·2 %) labelling (both P < 0·001). By contrast, salt content and the number of additives (environmentally persistent sweeteners, sugar alcohols, flavourings) were higher in HP compared to NP UPF (P < 0·001). When compared to HP products, twice as many NP were identified as hyper-palatable (82·5 % v. 40·5 %; P < 0·001). The price of HP was on average 132 % higher compared to NP UPF (P < 0·001).

While major adverse aspects of UPF regarding nutritional profile and hyper-palatability are less pronounced in HP compared to NP products, higher salt content, increased number of additives and negative environmental effects from frequent use of animal protein and environmentally persistent sweeteners are major drawbacks of HP UPF.