← FAT Research Library

📅 Prepared June 4, 2026

✍️ Dirk Adams, with the assistance of AI

⌛ 32 min read

FOOD AS MEDICINE RESEARCH SERIES | RESEARCH PAPER

The Current and Foreseeable Role of Animal, Poultry, and Seafood Protein in the Food as Medicine Movement

A narrative research paper using peer-reviewed studies, public-health guidance, and independent third-party sources

Prepared for publication by Farm Animal Transparency | June 4, 2026

Source note: This paper relies on peer-reviewed scientific literature and third-party/public sources, including governmental and professional public-health guidance. It does not use Farm Animal Transparency materials as evidence.

Abstract

Food as Medicine (FIM) is moving from philanthropic food access and pilot programs toward a healthcare-linked set of interventions that includes medically tailored meals, medically tailored groceries, produce prescriptions, nutrition education, food pharmacies, and value-based procurement. The movement has primarily emphasized diet quality, food security, produce access, and cardiometabolic disease management. Animal-source proteins – including terrestrial meat, poultry, and seafood – are not the defining feature of FIM, but they are already relevant because medically tailored meals and groceries often require complete meals, adequate protein, cultural acceptability, and disease-specific nutrient modification. This paper reviews the current and foreseeable role of animal, poultry, and seafood proteins in FIM using peer-reviewed studies, systematic reviews, public-health guidelines, and independent third-party sources. The evidence supports a bounded role: animal-source proteins may help meet protein, essential amino acid, vitamin B12, iron, zinc, selenium, iodine, vitamin D, and omega-3 fatty acid needs in selected populations and program designs. However, the role is source-specific and condition-specific. Processed meats should be minimized or excluded from health-oriented FIM standards; red meat should be limited and used thoughtfully; poultry has a pragmatic role when lean, minimally processed, and not fried or sodium-heavy; and fish and seafood have especially strong relevance to cardiometabolic FIM when low-mercury, properly identified, safely sourced, and prepared without excess sodium or frying. The foreseeable role of these proteins will depend less on whether they are categorically considered medicine and more on whether FIM programs can operationalize protein adequacy, source quality, processing level, preparation method, equity, cultural fit, food safety, antimicrobial stewardship, traceability, and procurement accountability.

Keywords

Food as Medicine; medically tailored meals; medically tailored groceries; animal-source foods; poultry; seafood; protein quality; cardiometabolic disease; health care procurement; nutrition security; antimicrobial stewardship; seafood traceability.

Executive Summary

The role of animal, poultry, and seafood proteins in Food as Medicine is real but bounded. Current FIM evidence supports food-based interventions as potential tools to improve diet quality and food security, while effects on clinical outcomes remain mixed and highly dependent on design, duration, patient risk, and integration with care (Volpp et al., 2023; Seligman et al., 2025). Animal-source proteins should therefore not be framed as a stand-alone therapeutic solution. They are better understood as one set of ingredients within complete dietary patterns and medically tailored food interventions.

The strongest scientific case is not that meat, poultry, or seafood is medicine in isolation. The stronger case is that protein adequacy, protein quality, food form, processing level, sodium content, preparation method, and source-specific risks matter when FIM programs design meals and grocery packages for people with chronic disease, frailty, malnutrition risk, cancer, kidney disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or pregnancy-related nutrition needs.

1. Methods and Scope

This paper is a narrative review and strategic synthesis, not a systematic review or clinical guideline. It was prepared to assess the current and foreseeable role of terrestrial animal meat, poultry, and fish/seafood proteins in the Food as Medicine movement. The scope is limited to peer-reviewed scientific publications, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized trials, public-health guidelines, governmental sources, and independent third-party procurement or health-system sources. Industry marketing materials and Farm Animal Transparency materials were excluded as evidentiary sources.

Sources were prioritized in five categories: (1) Food as Medicine definitions, evidence reviews, randomized trials, and policy analyses; (2) dietary guidance on protein foods, fish/seafood, red meat, processed meat, and cardiometabolic health; (3) clinical nutrition literature on protein needs in older adults, chronic illness, kidney disease, cancer, wounds, and frailty; (4) seafood safety, seafood identity, import reliance, and traceability sources; and (5) health-system and institutional procurement frameworks relevant to food purchasing, antibiotic stewardship, animal welfare, sustainability, and transparency.

Because FIM interventions are rapidly evolving, current public-health and policy sources through 2026 were included for context. Scientific claims about health effects were weighted toward peer-reviewed studies and formal guidelines. Policy, procurement, and traceability claims were supported by governmental and independent third-party sources when peer-reviewed clinical trials were not applicable.

2. Food as Medicine: Current Intervention Landscape

The American Heart Association has defined Food as Medicine as the provision of healthy food resources to prevent, manage, or treat specific clinical conditions in coordination with the healthcare sector (Volpp et al., 2023). This definition encompasses a range of interventions, including medically tailored meals, medically tailored groceries, produce prescriptions, and other food-based supports that are increasingly linked to clinical referral, insurance coverage, Medicaid demonstrations, and value-based care arrangements (Downer et al., 2020; Mozaffarian et al., 2022; CHCS, 2026).

The current evidence base is promising but incomplete. A 2025 American Heart Association scientific statement systematically reviewed 14 randomized controlled trials of FIM interventions in the United States with noncommunicable disease outcomes. The review reported consistent improvements in diet quality and food security but inconsistent clinical outcomes, with major variation in design, intensity, duration, and intervention type (Seligman et al., 2025). This matters for animal-source proteins because the field cannot yet make confident claims about the clinical effect of any single ingredient category within FIM. The evidence is intervention-level, not ingredient-level.

Medically tailored meals (MTMs) provide prepared meals designed for a patient’s diagnosis, symptoms, allergies, medication side effects, and functional needs, usually by or under the direction of registered dietitian nutritionists. Medically tailored groceries (MTGs) provide unprepared or lightly processed foods selected for a person’s condition; leading definitions explicitly include fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, and lean proteins (HHS/ODPHP, 2024; Healthcare x Food, 2026). Therefore, animal, poultry, and seafood proteins are already within the operational scope of FIM when included as lean proteins in meals or groceries.

However, produce prescriptions and many nutrition incentive models are still produce-centered. The uneven clinical evidence for produce-only subsidies, including a 2026 randomized clinical trial in adults with diabetes and food-insecurity risk that did not improve cardiometabolic or utilization outcomes, suggests that FIM may need to evolve toward more complete dietary-pattern interventions rather than assuming that a single food category is sufficient (Drake et al., 2026). Protein adequacy and quality are part of that broader dietary-pattern question.

3. Why Protein Matters in Food as Medicine

Protein is not merely a macronutrient target; it is a clinical design variable. Dietary protein provides indispensable amino acids and nitrogen needed for lean mass maintenance, immune function, wound healing, enzyme and hormone synthesis, and recovery from illness. Protein quality is often assessed by the digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS), which Moughan and colleagues describe as a more accurate method than older scoring systems for assessing protein quality in single-source foods (Moughan, 2024). Animal-source foods often have high protein quality because they contain all indispensable amino acids in digestible forms, although plant-source foods can meet protein needs when diets are appropriately designed.

The clinical importance of protein varies by population. Healthy adults may meet needs with varied diets, but older adults and people with acute or chronic illness often require higher protein intake. ESPEN practical guidance for geriatric nutrition suggests approximately 1.0 to 1.2 g/kg/day for many older adults and higher intakes, often around 1.2 to 1.5 g/kg/day, in acute or chronic illness, wounds, or malnutrition risk (Volkert et al., 2022). Dialysis patients also commonly require higher protein intake, while non-dialysis chronic kidney disease often requires lower or carefully managed protein intake; this is a clear example of why protein in FIM must be tailored rather than generalized (Ikizler et al., 2020).

Animal-source proteins can contribute protein, vitamin B12, iron, zinc, selenium, iodine, and other micronutrients. Fish and seafood can additionally provide long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, iodine, and selenium. These attributes are relevant in FIM because medically tailored meals often serve patients with high disease burden, poor appetite, impaired mobility, food insecurity, or reduced ability to plan and prepare nutrient-dense meals. In those settings, adequate protein and micronutrient density can affect adherence and functional resilience even when the primary clinical endpoint is cardiometabolic disease.

The key qualifier is that protein source matters. Increasing total protein without distinguishing between processed meat, red meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, dairy, legumes, nuts, and soy may obscure differences in saturated fat, sodium, heme iron, omega-3 fatty acids, contaminants, preservatives, cost, cultural fit, environmental impact, and food safety. Food as Medicine programs should therefore avoid generic “high-protein” messaging and instead specify clinically appropriate protein sources and food forms.

4. Terrestrial Animal Meat: Potential Role and Constraints

Terrestrial animal meat, particularly red meat from beef, pork, lamb, or similar sources, can contribute high-quality protein, vitamin B12, zinc, and bioavailable iron. These attributes may matter in selected FIM populations, such as people with inadequate intake, iron deficiency risk, muscle wasting, or culturally specific food preferences. However, the public-health case for routine red meat expansion in FIM is weak. The better-supported role is limited, portion-controlled, minimally processed use when clinically appropriate.

The main constraint is processed meat. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified processed meat as carcinogenic to humans based on sufficient evidence for colorectal cancer, and estimated that each 50 g daily portion of processed meat increases colorectal cancer risk by approximately 18% (IARC, 2015). The World Cancer Research Fund recommends eating little, if any, processed meat and limiting red meat to moderate amounts, noting strong evidence linking red and processed meat to colorectal cancer (WCRF, 2018). Processed meats are also often high in sodium, saturated fat, and preservatives, all of which are poorly aligned with cardiometabolic FIM goals.

Evidence on unprocessed red meat is more nuanced but still cautions against making it a central FIM protein. Meta-analyses and cohort studies have linked higher red meat intake, particularly processed red meat, with greater risks of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and colorectal cancer (Shi et al., 2023; Li et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2024). Dietary guidance from the American Heart Association recommends healthy protein sources emphasizing mostly plants, regular fish and seafood, low-fat dairy, and, if meat or poultry is desired, lean cuts and unprocessed forms prepared with little or no salt (Lichtenstein et al., 2021).

In a FIM framework, red meat should therefore be treated as a possible but constrained ingredient, not a health-forward default. The best role for red meat is likely: small portions; lean cuts; no curing, smoking, nitrate/nitrite-heavy processing, or high sodium; integration with vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and unsaturated fats; and use only when culturally, clinically, and nutritionally appropriate. For many cardiometabolic FIM programs, plant proteins, seafood, and lean poultry will usually be easier to justify as default proteins.

5. Poultry Protein: Pragmatic but Not Automatically Therapeutic

Poultry has a practical role in FIM because it is widely available, culturally familiar in many communities, comparatively easy to prepare, relatively lean when skinless and unprocessed, and operationally feasible for meal production. For medically tailored meals and groceries, poultry can provide complete protein without the stronger cancer and cardiometabolic concerns associated with processed meats and high red-meat diets. It may also be easier to adapt to low-sodium, diabetes-supportive, renal, heart-failure, and texture-modified menus than many other animal-source proteins.

The evidence base, however, does not support overclaiming. A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis of white meat intake and cardiometabolic disease concluded that available evidence did not indicate either a beneficial or detrimental role of white meat consumption for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, while also noting the need to distinguish processed from unprocessed white meat and to evaluate substitution patterns (Ramel et al., 2023). This suggests that poultry’s role in FIM is primarily as a neutral or pragmatic lean-protein option rather than a disease-specific treatment.

Processing and preparation determine whether poultry is compatible with FIM. Fried chicken, breaded nuggets, deli turkey, high-sodium rotisserie products, cured poultry products, and ultra-processed poultry meals do not carry the same nutritional profile as plain roasted, baked, stewed, or grilled poultry. The 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines advise consuming a variety of protein foods from animal and plant sources and replacing deep-fried preparation methods with baked, broiled, roasted, stir-fried, or grilled methods (USDA/HHS, 2026). For FIM, that guidance points toward poultry in minimally processed forms, prepared without excess sodium, added sugars, refined starches, or fried coatings.

The foreseeable role of poultry in FIM is likely to be substantial because of cost, availability, culinary flexibility, and patient acceptance. But FIM programs should not simply ask whether poultry is present. They should ask what form it takes, whether it is processed, how much sodium it contains, how it is prepared, what it replaces, and whether it is procured under credible food-safety and antibiotic-stewardship expectations.

6. Fish and Seafood Protein: The Strongest Source-Specific Case, with Important Safeguards

Fish and seafood have the strongest source-specific scientific and guideline support among animal-source proteins for inclusion in health-oriented dietary patterns. The American Heart Association recommends regular fish and seafood intake as part of cardiovascular dietary guidance, and its 2018 science advisory concluded that one to two seafood meals per week can reduce risk of congestive heart failure, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and sudden cardiac death, particularly when seafood replaces less healthful foods (Rimm et al., 2018; Lichtenstein et al., 2021). A 2021 meta-analysis of 25 cohort studies with more than two million participants found that fish intake and marine omega-3 intake were inversely associated with cardiovascular mortality, with a dose-response signal of approximately 4% lower cardiovascular mortality risk per additional 20 g/day of fish intake (Jiang et al., 2021).

Federal dietary guidance also supports seafood consumption. The FDA and EPA advice on fish recommends that adults eat at least 8 ounces of seafood per week based on a 2,000-calorie diet, and that pregnant or breastfeeding people eat 8 to 12 ounces per week from choices lower in mercury (FDA/EPA, 2024). This is directly relevant to FIM because many programs serve people with cardiometabolic risk, pregnancy-related needs, or food insecurity who may underconsume seafood because of cost, access, knowledge, preparation barriers, or concerns about contaminants.

Seafood also creates unique transparency and safety challenges. Species identity matters because the nutritional, allergen, contaminant, and culinary profile of salmon, tuna, sardines, catfish, shrimp, scallops, cod, pollock, tilapia, and shellfish differ substantially. Mercury and other contaminants require specific guidance, especially for pregnancy and children. Shellfish and fish allergies can be severe. Low-cost seafood may be canned, frozen, imported, mislabeled, high in sodium, or battered and fried. Therefore, seafood-forward FIM should emphasize low-mercury choices, accurate species identity, low-sodium preparation, avoidance of deep frying, culturally familiar recipes, and practical storage/cooking support.

Seafood supply chains also differ from meat and poultry. NOAA reported that U.S. per-capita seafood consumption in 2023 was 19.1 pounds and estimated that 80% of seafood eaten in the United States that year came from foreign imports (NOAA Fisheries, 2026). FDA oversees most seafood safety, while USDA FSIS regulates Siluriformes fish such as catfish. FDA’s imported seafood safety program relies on seafood HACCP, import oversight, foreign partnerships, and risk-informed surveillance (FDA, 2024). A 2025 meta-analysis found substantial seafood species mislabeling in the United States, although estimates vary by product, study design, and species tested (Ahles et al., 2025). These facts do not argue against seafood; they argue for stronger seafood literacy and procurement standards inside FIM.

The foreseeable role of seafood in FIM is therefore significant. Programs may increasingly use low-mercury seafood – including salmon, sardines, trout, pollock, canned light tuna, or culturally preferred local fish – in cardiometabolic MTMs, medically tailored groceries, teaching kitchens, and food pharmacy modules. The practical challenge will be to make seafood affordable, acceptable, accurately labeled, safely sourced, low in sodium, and easy to prepare.

7. Clinical Use Cases Where Animal, Poultry, and Seafood Proteins May Matter Most

Food as Medicine should not assign a single protein strategy to all patients. The relevance of animal-source proteins depends on diagnosis, functional status, baseline diet quality, food security, budget, culture, kidney function, medication profile, allergies, and ability to shop and cook. The following populations illustrate where source-specific protein decisions are most clinically relevant.

7.1 Cardiometabolic disease: cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and hypertension

Cardiometabolic disease is the central clinical target of many FIM interventions. Here, the role of animal-source protein is mainly to support satiety, meal completeness, glycemic stability, and replacement of less healthful foods. The evidence favors dietary patterns rich in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, unsaturated fats, and fish/seafood, with limited processed meat and moderated red meat (Lichtenstein et al., 2021; USDA/HHS, 2026).

For diabetes-focused FIM, lean poultry or seafood can help construct lower-glycemic meals when paired with high-fiber carbohydrates and non-starchy vegetables. However, the primary mechanism is the whole meal pattern, not the animal protein alone. A poultry- or fish-based meal that is fried, high in sodium, and low in fiber is not aligned with FIM goals. A meal that pairs grilled fish, roasted poultry, beans, vegetables, whole grains, and unsaturated fats is more consistent with current evidence.

7.2 Older adults, frailty, sarcopenia, and post-hospitalization recovery

Older adults are one of the strongest clinical arguments for adequate protein within FIM. Malnutrition, frailty, poor dentition, low appetite, social isolation, and inability to cook can reduce protein intake. ESPEN guidance supports higher protein intake in older adults, especially in illness or malnutrition risk (Volkert et al., 2022). Medically tailored meals that include tender poultry, fish, eggs, dairy, or other protein sources may help meet needs in forms that are easy to chew and digest.

For this population, the best FIM question is not whether the program is animal-based or plant-based; it is whether it reliably delivers enough total protein, energy, and micronutrients in forms the person will eat. Animal-source foods may be useful because smaller portions can deliver high-quality protein and micronutrients. At the same time, fiber, vegetables, fruits, hydration, and bowel tolerance remain important.

7.3 Cancer, cachexia, wounds, and pressure injuries

Cancer care, cachexia risk, wound healing, and pressure injuries often require attention to protein and energy adequacy. Clinical nutrition guidelines emphasize protein intake and dietary counseling for people with cancer or malnutrition risk (Arends et al., 2017; ESMO, 2021). Animal-source proteins can be useful because they are dense sources of protein and essential amino acids; poultry, fish, eggs, yogurt, and tender meats may be adapted to taste changes, chewing limitations, nausea, or texture modifications.

Food as Medicine programs serving this population should be careful not to impose generic low-calorie or overly restrictive cardiometabolic diets. In some patients, the immediate clinical priority may be maintaining weight, preserving lean mass, and reducing treatment interruptions. Protein source selection should be individualized, and seafood or poultry may be preferable when appetite is limited and patients need palatable, digestible, high-quality protein.

7.4 Chronic kidney disease and dialysis

Kidney disease illustrates why FIM protein protocols must be clinically precise. For non-dialysis chronic kidney disease, dietary protein may need to be restricted or individualized to slow disease progression and manage uremic symptoms. For maintenance dialysis, protein needs are often higher because of losses and catabolic stress (Ikizler et al., 2020). A generic high-protein FIM box could be inappropriate for one CKD patient and insufficient for another.

Animal-source proteins can be used in kidney-focused meals, but portion control, phosphorus additives, potassium, sodium, fluid status, and comorbid diabetes or heart failure all matter. Processed meats and high-sodium poultry or seafood products are particularly problematic. Dialysis-focused FIM may use controlled portions of poultry, fish, eggs, or meat, while non-dialysis CKD programs may use more plant-forward or lower-protein menus depending on the patient’s stage and medical plan.

7.5 Pregnancy, lactation, and child nutrition within healthcare-linked food programs

Although many FIM programs focus on chronic disease in adults, healthcare-linked nutrition support also intersects with pregnancy, lactation, and child nutrition. Seafood is important here because federal guidance recommends 8 to 12 ounces per week of low-mercury seafood for pregnant and breastfeeding people (FDA/EPA, 2024). The challenge is to provide practical, affordable, culturally acceptable, low-mercury options and to avoid confusing pregnant people with a simplistic message that fish is either universally beneficial or universally risky.

Poultry and other animal-source foods may also provide protein, iron, zinc, and B12, but FIM programs should align with obstetric, pediatric, and food-safety guidance. For children and pregnant people, species selection, mercury guidance, allergen awareness, and safe handling are central.

8. Procurement, Transparency, and Public-Health Constraints

If food becomes part of healthcare, procurement becomes part of healthcare quality. Animal, poultry, and seafood proteins raise questions that go beyond nutrient composition: processing, sodium, antimicrobial use, animal welfare claims, origin, food safety, seafood species identity, import reliance, and traceability. These issues are not peripheral to FIM; they affect patient trust, public-health alignment, and institutional accountability.

8.1 Processing level and sodium

The simplest FIM procurement rule is also one of the most important: animal-source proteins should be minimally processed and low in sodium. Processed meat is difficult to reconcile with FIM because of colorectal cancer evidence, sodium burden, and cardiometabolic risk. Highly processed poultry and seafood products can have similar sodium and additive problems even when the base protein is lean. Food as Medicine procurement should distinguish plain chicken from deli turkey, baked fish from fish sticks, canned low-sodium salmon from salted seafood spreads, and lean cooked meat from cured sausages.

8.2 Antimicrobial stewardship

Antimicrobial resistance creates a public-health bridge between food production and healthcare. CDC states that antimicrobial-resistant bacteria can spread among people, animals, food, and the environment (CDC, 2024). FDA’s 2024 summary reported that U.S. sales and distribution of medically important antimicrobial drugs approved for use in food-producing animals increased from 2023 to 2024 while remaining below the 2015 peak (FDA, 2025). USDA FSIS has also updated guidance on substantiating animal-raising and environment-related claims and strongly encourages third-party certification and testing approaches for certain antibiotic claims (USDA FSIS, 2024).

FIM programs do not need to become antibiotic-policy organizations, but they should avoid ignoring antibiotic-related claims when buying animal-source foods with healthcare dollars. Procurement criteria can ask whether antibiotic claims are present, what they mean, whether they are third-party verified, and whether vendor documentation is adequate.

8.3 Seafood traceability and species identity

Seafood requires its own transparency logic. Unlike meat and poultry, much seafood is imported, and most seafood products do not carry the same type of USDA establishment number used for meat and poultry. Species substitution, market-name ambiguity, distributor labeling, and complex import chains can make it difficult for patients and institutions to know exactly what seafood they are buying. FDA’s Seafood List provides guidance on acceptable market names, and FDA regulates most seafood safety through HACCP and import oversight (FDA, 2024). NOAA data on import reliance and evidence of mislabeling reinforce the need for traceability and species literacy in healthcare-linked seafood procurement (NOAA Fisheries, 2026; Ahles et al., 2025).

This does not mean FIM should avoid seafood. It means seafood procurement should be more specific: species or acceptable market name, country of origin, wild-caught or farmed status, low-mercury category when relevant, sodium content, certification or inspection information where available, and vendor responsibility for documentation.

8.4 Animal welfare, sustainability, and healthcare values

Food as Medicine is not only a clinical nutrition movement; it is increasingly connected to health-system purchasing, community benefit, equity, and public-health accountability. Practice Greenhealth and Good Food Purchasing frameworks include values such as nutrition, environmental sustainability, local economies, animal welfare, valued workforce, and transparency in institutional food procurement (Practice Greenhealth, 2026; Center for Good Food Purchasing, 2026). These frameworks are not clinical trials, but they are relevant to the foreseeable role of animal-source proteins because health systems must reconcile patient nutrition with broader health externalities.

For FIM, the practical implication is tiered procurement, not perfection. Programs should start with minimum standards – unprocessed or minimally processed, low sodium, documented food safety, and product identity – and then add higher-level criteria such as verified animal-raising claims, seafood traceability, antibiotic stewardship, animal welfare certifications, local/regional sourcing, and environmental metrics where feasible.

9. Foreseeable Role in the Next Phase of Food as Medicine

The next phase of FIM will likely be defined by reimbursement, standardization, care integration, implementation science, and measurable quality standards. In that environment, animal, poultry, and seafood proteins will not disappear; they will become more explicitly specified. The foreseeable role can be summarized in six developments.

9.1 From produce-only to complete dietary-pattern models

Produce prescriptions will remain important, but the evidence base suggests that produce alone may not be enough to change clinical outcomes in many high-risk populations. Complete dietary-pattern models will likely receive more attention: produce plus protein, whole grains, legumes, healthy fats, culinary support, and condition-specific tailoring. Animal-source proteins may be one component of those models, especially when used to improve meal adequacy, satisfaction, or adherence.

9.2 Protein adequacy as a quality metric

Medically tailored meals and groceries will likely need explicit protein metrics. For some populations, the key quality question will be whether the program delivers enough protein to meet needs; for others, such as non-dialysis CKD, the question may be whether protein is appropriately limited. Future FIM standards could require documentation of grams of protein per meal, protein source, protein quality, sodium, phosphorus additives, and adaptation to diagnosis.

9.3 Seafood-forward cardiometabolic modules

Seafood is well positioned for targeted FIM modules because cardiovascular dietary guidance already supports regular fish intake. The foreseeable model is not generic seafood promotion; it is low-mercury, affordable, low-sodium, culturally appropriate seafood integrated into meals and groceries for cardiometabolic risk. Canned salmon, sardines, trout, pollock, and other accessible options could be used with cooking support and careful attention to sodium and species identity.

9.4 Poultry as the operational default animal protein

Poultry will likely remain a common animal-source protein in MTMs and MTGs because it is familiar, versatile, and comparatively easy to produce in lean forms. The foreseeable standard should not be “poultry is healthy”; it should be “unprocessed, low-sodium poultry in appropriate portions and healthful preparations may be a practical lean-protein option.”

9.5 Processed meat exclusion from health-oriented standards

As FIM standards mature, processed meat is likely to become an explicit exclusion or limited-use category. The cancer and cardiometabolic evidence, plus sodium concerns, make routine use of processed meat difficult to defend in healthcare-linked nutrition programs. This should apply not only to red processed meats but also to high-sodium processed poultry or seafood products when they undermine the clinical goals of the intervention.

9.6 Procurement transparency as implementation infrastructure

The most important foreseeable shift may be that FIM programs will evaluate not only what nutrients are delivered, but also how food is sourced and documented. Health plans, Medicaid agencies, hospitals, and medically tailored meal vendors may increasingly ask for evidence on product identity, processing, sodium, animal-raising claims, antibiotic claims, seafood origin, species identity, traceability, and food safety. These questions will be especially important if FIM becomes a reimbursed healthcare service rather than a grant-funded add-on.

10. Research Agenda

The role of animal, poultry, and seafood proteins in FIM cannot be settled by dietary guidelines alone. It needs implementation research and clinical trials that evaluate real-world food packages, patient populations, and healthcare outcomes. The following research questions are priorities.

1. In medically tailored meals, does meeting diagnosis-specific protein targets improve functional outcomes, glycemic outcomes, wound healing, hospital utilization, or patient-reported outcomes compared with otherwise similar meals that do not explicitly optimize protein?
2. Among older adults receiving FIM interventions, do animal-source protein options improve total protein intake, lean mass, frailty, falls, or quality of life compared with plant-forward or mixed-protein interventions designed to meet the same protein target?
3. For cardiometabolic FIM programs, do seafood-inclusive meals or groceries improve diet quality, omega-3 intake, lipids, blood pressure, or adherence compared with similar non-seafood meal patterns?
4. Can produce prescriptions become more effective when paired with protein, culinary education, and complete-meal planning, and does the source of protein affect adherence or outcomes?
5. What procurement standards for animal-source foods are feasible for Medicaid, health plans, medically tailored meal providers, and food pharmacies without making programs unaffordable?
6. Do seafood species-label literacy and traceability standards improve patient trust, program confidence, or procurement accuracy?
7. How do cultural preferences affect acceptance of poultry, seafood, red meat, and plant proteins in medically tailored meals and groceries?
8. What are the health, cost, environmental, and animal welfare tradeoffs when FIM programs shift from processed red meat to poultry, seafood, legumes, or mixed-protein patterns?

11. Limitations

This paper has several limitations. First, it is a narrative synthesis rather than a systematic review, and it does not grade evidence using a formal evidence hierarchy. Second, the FIM evidence base is still early; even high-quality reviews find limited numbers of randomized trials and heterogeneous outcomes. Third, most FIM studies evaluate whole interventions rather than specific protein sources, so conclusions about animal, poultry, and seafood proteins are inferred from broader clinical nutrition, dietary-pattern, and procurement evidence. Fourth, public-health guidance on diet evolves, and recommendations may differ across countries or organizations. Fifth, animal welfare, sustainability, and procurement transparency are important implementation considerations, but they are not clinical efficacy endpoints and should not be confused with evidence that one protein source is medically superior for a given patient.

The appropriate conclusion is therefore cautious: animal, poultry, and seafood proteins have a meaningful role in FIM when they are part of complete, condition-specific, culturally acceptable, minimally processed dietary patterns. They should not be presented as stand-alone medicines.

12. Conclusion

Animal, poultry, and seafood proteins are already relevant to Food as Medicine because medically tailored meals and groceries require complete meals, adequate protein, patient acceptance, and diagnosis-specific tailoring. Their role is not categorical; it is clinical and operational. Protein can matter greatly in older adults, people with malnutrition risk, cancer, wounds, dialysis, pregnancy, and high disease burden. But the best FIM programs will distinguish protein source, processing level, preparation method, sodium, safety, cultural fit, and procurement credibility.

Among animal-source categories, seafood has the strongest source-specific public-health rationale, particularly for cardiometabolic dietary patterns and omega-3 intake, but it requires careful attention to mercury, allergies, species identity, import reliance, mislabeling, and traceability. Poultry has a pragmatic role as a lean and widely usable protein when unprocessed and prepared without excess sodium or frying. Red meat should be limited and used thoughtfully; processed meat is generally poorly aligned with health-oriented FIM standards.

The foreseeable role of animal-source proteins in FIM is therefore not “more meat” or “meat as medicine.” It is a more disciplined model: medically tailored protein, complete dietary patterns, minimally processed foods, seafood safety, antimicrobial stewardship, transparent procurement, and patient-centered cultural fit. Food as Medicine will be strongest when it moves beyond single-food slogans and builds complete, evidence-informed food systems that are nutritionally adequate, clinically appropriate, and accountable from procurement to plate.

References

Ahles, S., et al. (2025). A meta-analysis of seafood species mislabeling in the United States. Food Control. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2025.111359

Arends, J., Bachmann, P., Baracos, V., et al. (2017). ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients. Clinical Nutrition, 36(1), 11-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2016.07.015

Berkowitz, S. A., Delahanty, L. M., Terranova, J., et al. (2019). Medically tailored meal delivery for diabetes patients with food insecurity: A randomized cross-over trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 34, 396-404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-018-4716-z

Center for Good Food Purchasing. (2026). Good Food Purchasing values and standards. https://goodfoodpurchasing.org/

Center for Health Care Strategies. (2026). Food is Medicine in Medicaid: How states can expand nutrition services. https://www.chcs.org/resource/food-is-medicine-in-medicaid-how-states-can-expand-nutrition-services/

Clark, J. M., Maw, M. T. T., Pettway, K., et al. (2025). Impact of medically tailored meals on clinical outcomes among low-income adults with type 2 diabetes: A pilot randomized trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 40(8), 1711-1719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09248-x

Deng, S., et al. (2025). Projected one- and five-year effects of medically tailored meals by state. Health Affairs.

Downer, S., Berkowitz, S. A., Harlan, T. S., Olstad, D. L., & Mozaffarian, D. (2020). Food is medicine: Actions to integrate food and nutrition into healthcare. BMJ, 369, m2482. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2482

Drake, C., Buckman, C., Brucker, A., et al. (2026). Produce prescription subsidy for patients with diabetes: A pragmatic randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine.

European Society for Medical Oncology. (2021). Cancer cachexia in adult patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Annals of Oncology.

FDA. (2024). Advice about eating fish. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/food/consumers/advice-about-eating-fish

FDA. (2024). Imported seafood safety program. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/food/importing-food-products-united-states/imported-seafood-safety-program

FDA. (2024). Seafood List. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. https://www.cfsanappsexternal.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=SeafoodList

FDA. (2025). 2024 Summary report on antimicrobials sold or distributed for use in food-producing animals. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Healthcare x Food. (2026). Defining Food is Medicine. https://www.healthcarexfood.org/en/about/defining-food-is-medicine

Hager, K., Cudhea, F. P., Wong, J. B., et al. (2022). Association of national expansion of insurance coverage of medically tailored meals with estimated hospitalizations and health care expenditures in the US. JAMA Network Open, 5(10), e2236898. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.36898

HHS/ODPHP. (2024). Food Is Medicine landscape summary. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

HHS/ODPHP. (2025). Food Is Medicine analytic framework: Measurement domains and indicators. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

IARC. (2015). IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of red meat and processed meat. International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization.

Ikizler, T. A., Burrowes, J. D., Byham-Gray, L. D., et al. (2020). KDOQI clinical practice guideline for nutrition in CKD: 2020 update. American Journal of Kidney Diseases, 76(3 Suppl 1), S1-S107. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2020.05.006

Jiang, L., Wang, J., Xiong, K., Xu, L., Zhang, B., & Ma, A. (2021). Intake of fish and marine n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and risk of cardiovascular disease mortality: A meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Nutrients, 13(7), 2342. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13072342

Kroetz, K., Luque, G. M., Gephart, J. A., et al. (2020). Consequences of seafood mislabeling for marine populations and fisheries management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48), 30318-30323. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2003741117

Li, C., Bishop, T. R. P., Imamura, F., et al. (2024). Meat consumption and incident type 2 diabetes: A federated meta-analysis of individual participant data from 31 cohorts in 20 countries. The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 12(9), 619-630.

Lichtenstein, A. H., Appel, L. J., Vadiveloo, M., et al. (2021). 2021 dietary guidance to improve cardiovascular health: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 144(23), e472-e487. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001031

Mohan, D., Mente, A., Dehghan, M., et al. (2021). Associations of fish consumption with risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality among individuals with or without vascular disease from 58 countries. JAMA Internal Medicine, 181(5), 631-649. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.0036

Mozaffarian, D., Mande, J., & Micha, R. (2022). Food is medicine – the promise and challenges of integrating food and nutrition into health care. JAMA Internal Medicine, 182(9), 889-890.

Moughan, P. J. (2024). Digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS): 10 years on. Frontiers in Nutrition, 11, 1389719. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2024.1389719

NOAA Fisheries. (2026). Fisheries of the United States, 2023. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/sustainable-fisheries/fisheries-united-states

Practice Greenhealth. (2026). Food purchasing criteria. https://practicegreenhealth.org/topics/food/food-purchasing-criteria

Ramel, A., Martinez, J. A., Kiely, M., et al. (2023). White meat consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Food & Nutrition Research, 67. https://doi.org/10.29219/fnr.v67.9543

Rimm, E. B., Appel, L. J., Chiuve, S. E., et al. (2018). Seafood long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and cardiovascular disease: A science advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 138(1), e35-e47. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000574

Seligman, H. K., et al. (2025). A systematic review of Food Is Medicine randomized controlled trials for noncommunicable disease in the United States: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001343

Sheffield, S., Fiorotto, M. L., & Davis, T. A. (2024). Nutritional importance of animal-sourced foods in a healthy diet. Frontiers in Nutrition, 11, 1424912. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2024.1424912

Shi, W., Huang, X., Schooling, C. M., & Zhao, J. V. (2023). Red meat consumption, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Heart Journal, 44(28), 2626-2635.

USDA/HHS. (2026). Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025-2030. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/

USDA FSIS. (2024). USDA releases updated guideline to strengthen substantiation of animal-raising and environment-related claims. U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service.

Volkert, D., Beck, A. M., Cederholm, T., et al. (2022). ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical nutrition and hydration in geriatrics. Clinical Nutrition, 41(4), 958-989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2022.01.024

Volpp, K. G., Berkowitz, S. A., Sharma, S. V., et al. (2023). Food Is Medicine: A presidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 148(18), 1417-1439. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001182

Wang, D. D., Li, Y., Bhupathiraju, S. N., et al. (2024). Red meat intake and risk of cardiovascular diseases. The Journal of Nutrition.

World Cancer Research Fund. (2018). Diet, nutrition, physical activity and colorectal cancer. World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research.

World Cancer Research Fund. (2026). Limit consumption of red and processed meat. https://www.wcrf.org/research-policy/evidence-for-our-recommendations/limit-red-processed-meat/