Mycotoxins found in all plant-based meat alternatives and beverages tested in UK market survey
A landmark survey of 212 plant-based products purchased from UK retailers has detected mycotoxin contamination in every single sample tested, including meat alternatives and beverages. The findings, published 1 May 2026 in Food Control, carry significant implications for food safety regulation, raw material monitoring, and manufacturing practices across the plant-based food sector.
A peer-reviewed study led by the University of Parma, in collaboration with Cranfield University, has confirmed the widespread presence of regulated and emerging mycotoxins in plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) and plant-based beverages (PBBs) available on the UK market. Whilst individual contamination levels fell below current EU maximum limits, the ubiquitous co-occurrence of multiple mycotoxins across all product categories signals an urgent need for dedicated regulatory frameworks and extended raw material monitoring.
The plant-based food market in the UK represented £942 million in sales in 2023, with PBMAs and PBBs accounting for £373 million and £404 million respectively. As consumption of these products grows, the absence of specific mycotoxin legislation or monitoring plans for PBMAs and PBBs presents a clear gap in food safety oversight.
Industry and regulatory implications
The research team investigated the occurrence of nineteen mycotoxins across 92 PBMAs and 120 PBBs collected from the top five UK retailers between January and February 2024. Mycotoxins analysed included aflatoxins (AFB1, AFB2, AFG1, AFG2), ochratoxin A (OTA), zearalenone (ZEN), fumonisins (FB1, FB2), deoxynivalenol (DON), HT-2/T-2, enniatins, beauvericin (BEA), alternariol (AOH), alternariol monomethyl ether (AME), and tentoxin (TEN).
Every product contained at least one mycotoxin, and co-occurrence across multiple toxins was widespread. The authors noted that “although individual concentrations were generally below EU maximum levels for cereals and related commodities, contamination was ubiquitous: all products contained at least one mycotoxin, and co-occurrence was common across all types of PBMAs and PBBs.”
For food manufacturers, this has direct relevance to raw material sourcing and quality control. The complex, multi-ingredient formulations typical of PBMAs – frequently incorporating cereal flours, legume proteins, vegetables, herbs, and spice mixes – each represent a potential mycotoxin entry point. The authors concluded that “the actual contribution of PBMAs and PBBs to dietary mycotoxin exposure is likely underestimated and may not reflect accurately the real exposure patterns in the UK.”
Emerging mycotoxins dominate contamination profiles
Among the most striking findings was the exceptionally high prevalence of emerging, non-regulated Fusarium toxins. BEA was detected in 98.9% of PBMAs, whilst ENNA and ENNA1 were each found in 93.5% of samples. In PBBs, BEA was present at 100% prevalence in both oat-based beverages (OBBs) and almond/nut-based beverages (ABBs). The Alternaria toxins AOH, AME, and TEN were also frequently detected across PBMA categories, with AME found in 85.9% of samples.
Critically, none of these emerging mycotoxins are currently subject to specific maximum limits in EU or UK legislation when present in finished plant-based products. The authors stated that “further monitoring studies should be conducted to assess the potential risks associated with the consumption of plant-based products, considering the current dietary habits of the population.”
Raw material sources driving contamination
Legume-based and mixed cereal-legume PBMAs exhibited the highest aflatoxin prevalence, reaching up to 82.6% – notably higher than the 39.5% reported in Italian market data. OBBs showed strikingly high levels of type A trichothecenes, with HT-2 detected in 94.7% of samples, consistent with the known susceptibility of oats to Fusarium spp. infection. Soy-based beverages (SBBs) were characterised by a high OTA prevalence of 90.3%.
The authors attributed concentration differences between PBMAs and PBBs to ingredient complexity and water dilution, observing that “all mycotoxins had significantly higher concentrations in the meat alternatives based on cereals, legumes, vegetables, or a combination of these, when compared with the PBBs.”
Andrea Patriarca, Senior Lecturer in Mycology at Cranfield University, underscored the challenge for regulators: “A significant concern arises when new foods enter the market, as there are currently no established regulations to monitor mycotoxins. We collaborate closely with various sectors in the food industry, from farmers to food companies, to help implement effective mycotoxin management integrated within food safety standards.”
A call for extended monitoring and risk assessment
The study calls explicitly for mycotoxin monitoring to be extended to the primary raw commodities – particularly legumes and pulses – used in PBMA and PBB manufacture. Of the 92 PBMAs tested, 86 contained legumes, yet regulatory monitoring of legumes for mycotoxins remains limited to OTA in soybeans.
The authors further highlighted that conventional food processing techniques including cooking, roasting, baking, and pasteurisation have “little to no effect in the mitigation of mycotoxins in cereals and pulses,” whilst the impact of extrusion and hydrothermal treatment used in alternative protein production remains largely unknown. The formation of bound or masked mycotoxins during processing cannot be excluded.
The researchers concluded that “policymakers and the industry should consider the changing dietary patterns and the importance of raw material control and good manufacturing practices. Ensuring the safety of plant-based foods is essential to support their role as healthy and sustainable alternatives in the ongoing dietary transitions.”
Journal reference
Torrijos, R., Mihalache, O. A., Patriarca, A., et al. (2026). Mycotoxin contamination in plant-based beverages and meat alternatives: A survey of the UK market. Food Control, 183, 111910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2025.111910
