Meat substitutes: Resource demands and environmental footprints (2024)

• •

  High impact of meat consumption can be reduced with substitute products.

• •

  Plant-based meat substitutes have on average 50% lower environmental impact.

• •

  Mycoprotein, microalgae, and meat cultures demonstrate a positive tendency.

• •

  Insect biomass can be a promising source for hybrid meat substitutes.

3.1. Plant-based meat substitutes

Plants remain the main source of the biomass used to substitute meat. For plant-based substitutes, these inputs include primary ingredients, e.g., soybeans, wheat, peas, and lupine. Raw grains should go through processing to improve nutrient availability and be considered as meat substitutes. Studies have indicated the use of wet spinning technology as a common method to produce food-grade fibers from soy, pea, and faba beans (Grossmannand Weiss,2021). Electrospinning is another potential technology for the formulation of textures on nanofiber level (Fonmbohetal., 2021), however, such applications are rather limited to the specific cases, where the inclusion of specific substances (polyphenols or probiotics) in food matrix is required. More industrially applicable are “top-down” techniques applicable to plant protein concentrates and isolates (soy, wheat, pea, lupine, rapeseed, etc.) via low (cooking) and high moisture extrusion (Pietschetal., 2019), proteins and hydrocolloid mixtures (Kimetal., 2017), and shear cell technology (Cornetetal., 2021). It should be noted that the last technologies currently are mostly applicable on pilot scale only (Heetal., 2020). While processing technologies result in similar texturizing products, their applications could be differentiated due to the resource demands and associated environmental impacts.

The main matrix ingredients of plant-based substitutes include cereals and pseudocereals (e.g., chia, quinoa) as well as legumes, and mixtures of those. The greenhouse gas emissions of the production of main matrix components range in the scope of 0.2-2.1 CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ for grains (beans) and flours; 0.7-3.3 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ for protein concentrates; 1.8-13.0 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ protein for isolates (and proteins) (Table1). Land use impacts also demonstrate similar tendency: 2.0-5.5 m², 3.2-20.8 m², and 5.8-34.7 m² for raw materials, concentrates, and isolates respectively. Moreover, when meat substitutes are considered, it should be noted that extensive processing, and the addition of minor components like spices and preservatives usually add 13–26% to the resource demand and therefore increases the environmental impact of plant-based meat (Heusalaetal., 2020b; Saerensetal., 2021; Smetanaetal., 2021).

Legumes are the most frequently used raw material for the formation of meat substitute structures (Curtainand Grafenauer,2019). Among them, soybeans, peas, and lupine are the dominant species that are used for this purpose. Level of processing (protein concentration) similarly influences the impact of other legumes used for meat substitutes (Fresánetal., 2019; Heusalaetal., 2020b; Lie-Piangetal., 2021). Similarly, water and fossil energy demand can be reduced to 0.7-10.2 % if mild fractionation methods are applied (Heusalaetal., 2020b; Lie-Piangetal., 2021).

Protein-enriched products based on nuts are quite common, especially when the delivery of high amounts of lipids is tolerated (e.g., for sports nutrition). Meat analogs based on nut proteins are very rare, as is information on their resource demand and environmental impact. However, it is known that nuts have a high demand for water (Fultonetal., 2019), and it can be expected that the GHGE impacts of nut-based products will be in the range of 2.1 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ (Fresánetal., 2019). Potato protein, more applicable for other purposes, is used as an additive in meat substitutes and hybrid products and is responsible for GHGE in the scope of 2.2-2.6 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ protein (Heusalaetal., 2020b).

The production of meat substitutes often relies on mixtures of plant and animal raw materials. If the plant base composition (mix of soybean and wheat concentrates) is reported to have an impact of around 2.3 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ (Fresánetal., 2019) then the addition of animal-derived products (e.g., eggs) increases the impact to 2.7 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ (Fresánetal., 2019). However, the increase in impact would depend on the amount added (Table2). More complex convenience mixtures consisting of plant protein concentrates or isolates (soy, pea), plant oils, additives and spices further increase the GHGE to 3.1-4.0 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹, energy use to 53.98 MJ kg⁻¹, land use to 1.6-3.7 m²a eq. kg⁻¹, water footprint to 9.73 liter eq. kg⁻¹ (Hellerand Keoleian,2018; Khanetal., 2019). “Impossible burger” (based on soy protein concentrate) has increased water consumption to 106.8 liter eq. kg⁻¹ (Khanetal., 2019). Even higher rates of water footprint are indicated for the average plant-based meat substitute in scope of 3.8 m³ kg⁻¹, which might be connected with the use of isolates, which are reported to have high water footprint (38.95 m³ kg⁻¹) (Berardyetal., 2015). Therefore, the impact of meat substitutes is determined by the impact of the main ingredients in the matrix mixtures.

Meat substitutes are frequently evaluated at the point of sale for convenience products. Aggregation of data from a few factories in the US on the production of 57 meat substitutes (burger patties, sausages, nuggets, cold cuts and grounded mass) based on soy, wheat, gluten, vegetable oils, and spices with salt in different preservation states (frozen to dried) indicates the average carbon footprint of 2.19±0.65 kg CO₂eq. per kg of product (Mejiaetal., 2020). Similar product (extruded mixtures) from white lupine protein isolate and buckwheat flour or amaranth flour had similar GHGE of 1.3-2.4 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ product or 4.3-8.0 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ protein (Detzeletal., 2021), as well as ready for consumer handling tofu: 2-13 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ protein (Mejiaetal., 2018). 1 kg of cooked pea meatballs produced in Germany were characterized with 22.35 kg CO₂eq., 1,698.6 points land use, 384.42 MJ energy use, 12.1 m³ deprived water scarcity, and 0.013 kg Peq. freshwater eutrophication kg⁻¹ protein (Sagetetal., 2021), with major impact on resource use (31-85% depending on the category) coming from consumer's cooking. Van Mierlo etal. in their study (vanMierlo etal., 2017) indicated the aggregated ranges of environmental impacts for vegetarian and vegan-based meat substitutes, separating them as chicken and beef replacers (all falling in the ranges of 0.59-1.35 kgCO₂eq./kg for climate change; 2.52-6.51 m² per year and kg for land use; 0.017-0.07 m³ kg⁻¹ for water use and 6.78-15.78 MJ kg⁻¹ for fossil fuel depletion). Recent LCA studies comparing different burgers on the market (Smetanaetal., 2021) and designing similar production conditions (Saerensetal., 2021) highlighted the low environmental impacts and resource demands of plant-based raw burger patties (113 g). The GHGE per burger patty were 0.17 kg CO₂eq. (pea-based from supermarket), 0.19 kg CO₂eq. (soy-based from supermarket), 0.06-0.1 kg CO₂eq. (pilot produced soy-based), 0.08-0.1 kg CO₂eq. (pilot produced pumpkinseed-based). Similarly, the impacts of all the products fell in the range of 0.5-2 MJ for non-renewable energy consumption and 0.05-0.44 m²org.arable for land use per 113 g of raw patty. Impacts in the resource scarcity were 8-14% of those highlighted for beef burger patties. The results correspond well to the previous GHGE of a plant-based burger: 6.94 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹, water use: 0.18 m³ kg⁻¹ and land use: 3.5 m²org.arable kg⁻¹ (Goldsteinetal., 2017).

Plant-based meat substitutes, in general, have a low resource demand and environmental impact. It is determined by the impact of raw materials and other main components in the product matrices and their level of processing. A higher level of processing and the inclusion of a longer list of components usually increase the impact of meat analogs, calling for minimally processed plant-based meat substitutes.

3.2. Animal-based substitutes (fish, less common animals and milk-based)

Meat products can be substituted not only with plants but also with more similar types of biomass. Use of fish, meat of less common animals (rabbits, seals, kangaroo, and other game animals like wild boars and deer) or milk proteins are common strategies. It is often considered that alternative animal protein sources from species that are abundant and adopted to local conditions (e.g., kangaroo in Australia and deer in the Northern Hemisphere) can contribute to environmentally feasible human nutrition, by having a lower impact than conventional livestock (Gouldingetal., 2020; Hadjikakouetal., 2019). A recent study (Fialaetal., 2020) indicated that red meat (beef) can be sustainably replaced by local wild red deer (6.9 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ of meat), but only if the wild red deer is considered as an elementary flow without additional environmental burden (e.g., enteric methane emissions). In this case, travelling and hunting is responsible for 85% of the impact. When the enteric fermentation is included in the accounting the impacts increase to 20.1-47.1 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ of meat (Fialaetal., 2020). Other meat types could also be quite competitive if they are “extracted from nature in local conditions” such as seal and whale meat in Greenland (4.5 kg CO₂eq and 2.1 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ meat respectively) (Ziegleretal., 2021). Hunted meat amount, at the same time, depends on a quota system that varies between states, which from one side is defined according to the potential of the hunted population for reproduction and from the other side indicates that such a source of meat is quite limited to meet the demand of the entire population on a constant basis. Overhunting of wild animal species has a direct negative impact on biodiversity, particularly for slow-reproducing species, such as whales, etc. (Ingrametal., 2021). At the same time, the removal of wild animals from the food system (often interlinked with rural areas (Bélangerand Pilling,2019)) and their replacement with conventionally produced meat could result in tremendous negative environmental consequences associated with land use change and biodiversity loss (Boothetal., 2021).

Agriculture-based meat production (rabbits, ostriches) results in higher impacts for alternative animals, coming close to the impact of conventionally farmed livestock. Thus, rabbit meat is indicated to have an impact in the scope of 11.5 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ meat or 51.4-83.2 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ protein (Cesarietal., 2018; Jiangetal., 2020), while ostrich farming could be less impactful than poultry production (impact of 1.68 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹) (Ramedanietal., 2019).

Fish has been long considered a potential substitute and a high-value protein product. It should be noted that aquaculture (similarly to animal husbandry) is a source of proteins with very diverse environmental impacts. In general, GHGE are lower for fish products than for meats; however, if recalculated per 1 kg of proteins, the average GHGE of farmed fish (∼60 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ protein) is similar to that of poultry meat (∼59 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ protein) (Pooreand Nemecek,2018). The environmental impacts of wild-caught fish are lower than those of farmed fish and are mostly associated with the fuel use during fishing (Avadí etal., 2020). However, if the impact of bottom trawling is considered, then the impact increases dramatically due to the increased demand for energy (Salaetal., 2022) and impact on habitat change (Salaetal., 2021).

Dairy-based texturized meat substitutes (e.g., “Valess”), while on the market, are poorly assessed in environmental studies. The LCA study of Smetana etal., the only relatively recent study with dairy-based meat substitute (Smetanaetal., 2015), indicates the impact in the scope of 4.38-4.95 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ and 3.32-3.41 m² kg⁻¹ year⁻¹, 48.8-59.1 MJ kg⁻¹, which corresponds well to older approximations of 3.8-6.3 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹, 2.9-3.8 m² kg⁻¹ year⁻¹, 55.5 MJ kg⁻¹ (Blonketal., 2008; Headetal., 2011).

Application of alternative (underutilized) and wild animals to substitute conventional meat production, while being a source of important nutrients for local rural populations, is not completely justifiable in terms of environmental impact, resource availability, and biodiversity. On the other hand, the use of animal-derived components (e.g., milk) might be feasible, especially if it is considered as a secondary by-product.

3.3. Cultured meat (product of cellular agriculture)

Cultured meat production is still at the development stage and major uncertainties regarding the commercial scale production system still exists. Especially, the development of low-cost culture medium ingredients and energy efficient large-scale bioreactor systems are some of the key challenges (Postetal., 2020). Due to these uncertainties, the current estimates of the environmental impacts of cultured meat rely on modelling, assumptions, and data from laboratory-scale experiments. Some studies have estimated the impacts of future large-scale cultured meat production by using hypothetical process design (Smetanaetal., 2015), whereas other studies are based on the currently commonly used cell-culturing systems (Matticketal., 2015; Sinke et al., 2023; Tuomisto et al., 2022). Smetana etal. (Smetanaetal., 2015) used the data from previous studies by Tuomisto and Teixeira de Mattos (Tuomisto and de Mattos,2011) as the basis for their estimates, but assumed that cyanobacteria are produced in a bioreactor instead of an open pond. Due to the use of cyanobacteria as a main source of nutrients, these two studies had the lowest estimates for the land use of cultured meat (Fig.2). However, the production of cyanobacteria in a bioreactor instead of an open pond increased the energy use and GHGE of cultured meat substantially. The current state of the art for the production of steak-like meat still relies on a vast list of growth factors and animal-based serums for the culturing process (Kangetal., 2021).

Open in a separate window

Fig. 2

Environmental impact (Global Warming Potential and Water Footprint) and resource demand (Land Use and Non-renewable Energy Use) of raw materials (ingredients) used as matrices of meat substitutes; light dots – impact per kg of product in dry matter; dark dots – impact per kg of proteins; number in the brackets corresponds to the number of data points (Cianietal., 2021; Sinke et al., 2023; Deprá etal., 2020; Järviö etal., 2021; Matticketal., 2015; Pooreand Nemecek,2018; Sandmannetal., 2021; Smetanaetal., 2017, 2015; S. Smetanaetal., 2021; Tuomisto,2019; Upcraftetal., 2021)

The LCA studies of cultured meat production in systems resampling the current mammalian cell culturing systems show that the production of the culture medium ingredients and the bioreactor energy use have the highest contribution to the environmental impact of the process (Sinke et al., 2023; Matticketal., 2015). Mattick etal. (Matticketal., 2015) modelled the environmental impacts of cultured meat production in the US by using data for Chinese Hamster Ovarian (CHO) cells as a basis and assuming the use of serum-free culture medium consisting of synthetic amino acids, glucose, vitamins, minerals and soybean hydrolysate. The results showed higher GHGE for cultured meat than that of pork and poultry, but 75% lower emissions compared to beef. Cultured meat had lower land use than any of the livestock products. The eutrophication potential of cultured meat was lower than that of beef and pork, and at the same level with poultry.

The findings of a white paper reporting the results of a cultured meat LCA study based on data collected from start-up companies (Sinke et al., 2023) were in line with (Matticketal., 2015), but also showed that lower emissions compared to pork and poultry could be achieved by using low emission energy sources in cultured meat production. They also found that obtaining amino acids from plant-based hydrolysates instead of producing them synthetically could help reducing the environmental impacts of cultured meat.

Cultured meat (even though it is hypothetically modelled) is envisioned to require fewer resources than conventional meat. Optimization for cultured meat is envisioned through highly specialized, targeted tissue cultivation (no need for the resources of “peripheral systems”), higher production rates (the optimal cultivation system improving current 47% energy feed conversion efficiency and 72% protein feed conversion efficiency) and vertical system farming principles (Alexanderetal., 2017; Rubioetal., 2020).

In general, the current evidence shows that cultured meat could have the potential to have lower environmental impacts compared to livestock products, and especially beef, if the production process could be scaled up in a cost-efficient way and if low-emission energy sources were used in the production. The highest benefits are due to lower land use requirements and GHGE. However, as the development of cultured meat technology is in its early stages, it is unlikely that the products will be widely available in the near future. Therefore, cultured meat should be regarded as a possible option in the longer term, but it will not provide a solution to the current urgent requirements for action that are needed to achieve the SDGs by 2030.

3.4. Single-cell proteins (microalgae and bacteria)

Microalgal biomass has been considered a source of various products of value such as saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids, pigments, carbohydrates and in particular proteins (Caporgnoand Mathys,2018; Postmaetal., 2017). Advantages of microalgal cultivation such as reduced use of arable land (Postmaetal., 2017), use of waste streams as nutrient sources (Rashidetal., 2020), high productivity (Vadlamanietal., 2019) and control of algal biomass composition (Zarrinmehretal., 2020) contributed to the increased interest in developing novel and green cultivation systems. However, the cultivation of microalgae in bioreactors may not necessarily exhibit environmental benefits. Culture conditions such as the cultivation system, location, season, scale, and algal species considered (Schadeand Meier,2019), as well as the source of nutrients, are considerably influencing the environmental impact (Smetanaetal., 2017). Schade and Meier stated that “not every cultivation system is suitable for every specific climatic prerequisite and thus no system is favorable in general” (Schadeand Meier,2019). Because of the relatively low biomass concentrations achievable in photobioreactors, the phototrophic microalgae cultivation is usually done on a larger scale. For instance, Smetana etal. considered a scale of 580 L of an open raceway pond to produce 1 kg Chlorella vulgaris biomass sludge with a moisture content of 85-90% (w/w) (Smetanaetal., 2017). Contrarily, the same amount of C. vulgaris biomass produced under heterotrophic conditions in the presence of glucose as a carbon source requires only a volume of 10 L. Similar results were found for Galdieria sulphuraria growing heterotrophically on hydrolyzed food waste (Thielemannetal., 2021). Generally, the smaller the volume, the less energy is needed for heating and the smaller is the environmental impact. In order to transform microalgal biomass into a sustainable and environmentally friendly source of proteins all separate process steps from nutrients and energy supply, cultivation, and biomass processing as well as protein extraction need to be analyzed and optimized. Deprá etal. investigated the environmental impact of C. vulgaris and Arthrospira platensis biomass production under different culture configurations (Deprá etal., 2020). The investigated process included cultivation in raceway pond and tubular photobioreactor, centrifugal harvesting and spray-drying. Irrespective of the strain used, more than 70% of the energy (334.8 kWh for C. vulgaris and 249.8 kWh for A. platensis) was needed for the dewatering and drying of the biomass produced in the raceway pond. Contrarily, the energy demand of the tubular photobioreactor was considerably higher, and around 80% (549.1 kWh) of the energy was needed alone for cultivation. The production of 1 kg dry C. vulgaris biomass produced in the tubular photobioreactor and raceway pond was 220.3 and 141.3 kg CO₂eq., respectively. The production of A. platensis in the raceway pond resulted in 100.9 kg CO₂eq. The second largest contribution to the environmental impact comes from the applied nutrients (N and P). For instance, Herrera etal. have shown that nutrient management is critical to the sustainable production of microalgae and that the nutrients associated GHGE can be reduced by 80% and 20%, respectively, when nutrients from slurry and wastewater are recovered and recycled (Herreraetal., 2021).

Microalgae are not the only source of single-cell protein. In the recent years, the utilization of urban waste has been investigated to produce a wide range of microbes rich in proteins. Molitor etal. investigated a system where Clostridium ljungdahli first converted CO₂ into acetate under strict anaerobic conditions, coupled with a conversion of acetate and a nitrogen compound under aerobic conditions into Saccharomyces cerevisiae biomass (Molitoretal., 2019). The authors achieved a high protein productivity in cultured media of around 1-2 g protein L⁻¹ day⁻¹ using S. cerevisiae. An analysis of the environmental impact is currently missing. Similar to the production of microalgal biomass, the environmental impact depends on culture conditions and, in particular, on the source of nutrients. The nitrogen needed for this approach may come from food waste and the environmental impact associated with nutrient formation might be skipped. Another approach to single-cell protein production that has evolved in the last years is “power-to-protein”. Power-to-protein means that a hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria is cultured in a bioreactor where continuously hydrogen is generated by water electrolysis. The hydrogen oxidizing bacteria use the formed H₂, O₂ and CO₂ to form a protein-rich biomass. The environmental impact of energy sources used for the cultivation of hydrogen oxidizing bacteria to a large extent defines the sustainability of such biomass. For example, GHGE of such biomass could vary in the range of 1.05 – 8.4 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ of dried product, which in combination with other impacts is 53-100% lower than animal-based protein sources (Järviö etal., 2021). It has also been shown by Putri etal. that urban organic waste can be utilized as a nitrogen source in this approach (Putrietal., 2019). Sillman etal. carried out a LCA to analyze environmental sustainability (Sillmanetal., 2020). In their LCA, they examine production as a nitrogen source, CO₂ sources, electricity generation, bioreactors with in situ and external electrolysis, post-processes for biomass cultivation, and water removal. The GHGE impact was found in the best case to be around 1.7 kg CO₂eq. and in the worst case to be around 4.7 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ protein. The authors found out that the major effect on the environmental impact comes from the generation of electricity. Particularly, the electrolysis of water is energy intensive, and the source and technology must be carefully chosen to minimize the environmental impact. An option is to focus on external water electrolysis instead of in situ.

Generally, the environmental impact of single-cell proteins is dependent on the use of renewable energy. The greater the use of renewable energy in processes, the better the environmental performance. However, the time required to produce a certain amount of biomass and, eventually, proteins must be taken into account. Deprá etal. stated a biomass productivity of 0.2 and 0.32 g L⁻¹ and day for C. vulgaris and A. platensis, respectively, grown under phototrophic conditions in raceway ponds (75). This could result in a protein production of 0.1 and 0.16 g L⁻¹ and day, respectively. As previously stated Molitor etal. reported a protein production of 1-2 g per L and day in their C. ljungdahli / S. cerevisiae system (Rashidetal., 2020). The discovered productivities appear to be too low to allow a production at industrial scale, and thus more research is required to allow for more efficient production in the future.

3.5. Mycoprotein meat substitutes

Fungi biomass processing has a significant impact in addition to the impact of raw biomass production. According to Jungblunth etal., (Jungbluthetal., 2016) the processing and distribution of mycoprotein products doubles the environmental impact, especially the carbon footprint (from 2.44 to 4.99 kg CO₂eq. per portion). Similar or even higher rates of impact are found in earlier studies. Study of (Smetanaetal., 2018, 2015) also indicated similar rates of impacts 5.55-6.15 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ and 60.07-76.8 MJ kg⁻¹. A recent study relying on production modelling approaches defined the impact of 1 kg of protein (L-Mycoprotein) in the scope of 23.66 kg CO₂eq., 4.4 m² arable land and 2.2 m³ water consumed (Upcraftetal., 2021).

Despite the availability of fungi and mycoprotein products on the market, there is a clear lack of studies and production data in this domain. Preliminary studies indicate that the production of mycoprotein requires a lot of energy and high-quality raw materials (e.g., sugar), which results in high GHGE and energy use impacts.

3.6. Insect-based alternatives and hybrid products

There are only a few studies dealing with the LCA of insect-based meat substitutes. They can be grouped into those assuming that “fresh” insect biomass is an equivalent for raw meat, and those assessing more advanced processed products imitating meat texture. The first group of studies, dealing mostly with insect species allowed for food (e.g., mealworms: Tenebrio molitor, crickets: Acheta domesticus, and grasshoppers) define the environmental impact of raw insect biomass in the scope of 3.9-29 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ proteins (Upcraftetal., 2021). When more processed products are considered (e.g., burgers, schnitzel-like meat substitutes), then the impacts of insect production combine with the impacts of associated ingredients (e.g., plant flours or proteins, fibers, spices, and even meats), thus becoming hybrid products.

The percentage of the meat successfully replaced by insects is different depending on the type of insects but also on the type of product or processing: up to 40% of pork myofibrillar protein could be replaced with T. molitor protein in meat emulsion systems (Kimetal., 2020). Specifically, for T. molitor larvae, as well as for Bombyx mori pupae, it is indicated that defatted flour can be suitable for manufacturing emulsion sausages without adverse effects on technological or nutritional properties (Kimetal., 2016). It was found that hybrid sausages had higher acceptability than burgers. For example, it was possible to formulate frankfurters with a combination of 40% pork meat and 10% yellow mealworm (Choietal., 2017). More interesting is the application of fat extraction and protein purification methods to separate insect protein fractions (T. molitor) and use the protein concentrates and isolates as targeted ingredients. The GHGE impact of such protein fractions ranges from 3.05 to 10.87 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ protein extract (Larocheetal., 2022).

All these hybrid meat products have the potential to bridge the gap between meat and meatless products, as it has been reported that no significant difference in acceptability could be perceived (Nevilleetal., 2017; Profetaetal., 2020). The same strategy may apply to overcome food neophobia, as, for example, insects as novel ingredients were shown to be easier to introduce into diets when incorporated into familiar ready-to-eat food preparations (CaparrosMegido etal., 2016). Impacts of plant-meat hybrids range in the scope of 23.24-26.73 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ proteins for GHGE; 180-232.4 MJ kg⁻¹ proteins for non-renewable energy use (NRE); 23.2-26.7 m²a kg⁻¹ proteins for land use (LU) (Bauneetal., 2021), while the impacts of insect-plant and mycoprotein-plant hybrids range in the scope of 5.24-7.14 kg CO₂eq. kg⁻¹ proteins for GHGE; 46.74-83.8 MJ kg⁻¹ proteins for NRE; 5.9-18.56 m²a kg⁻¹ proteins for LU (Smetanaetal., 2021).

Insect biomass, therefore, could be perceived as a viable ingredient in a meat analog matrix; however, the processing functionality of insect proteins is limited, and therefore it should be combined with plant biomass for efficient fiber texture formation. It should be perceived as an example of plant-insect hybrid products, which, compared to plant-animal hybrid products, are more environmentally beneficial and can be recommended for further exploration.

¹Global meat industry - statistics & facts. Available at: https://www.statista.com/topics/4880/global-meat-industry/

Alexander P., Brown C., Arneth A., Dias C., Finnigan J., Moran D., Rounsevell M.D.A. Could consumption of insects, cultured meat or imitation meat reduce global agricultural land use? Glob. Food Sec. 2017;15:22–32. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2017.04.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Avadí A., Vázquez-Rowe I., Symeonidis A., Moreno-Ruiz E. First series of seafood datasets in ecoinvent: setting the pace for future development. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020;25:1333–1342. doi:10.1007/s11367-019-01659-x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Baune M.-C., Jeske A.-L., Profeta A., Smetana S., Broucke K., van Royen G., Gibis M., Weiss J., Terjung N. Effect of plant protein extrudates on hybrid meatballs – changes in nutritional composition and sustainability. Future Foods. 2021 doi:10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100081. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Bélanger J., Pilling D. The state of the world's biodiversity for food and agriculture. Food Agric. Org. United Nations (FAO) 2019 [Google Scholar]

Berardy, A., Costello, C., Seager, T., 2015. Life cycle assessment of soy protein isolate. ISSST Proceeedings.

Blonk H., Kool A., Luske B., de Waart S., Blonk Milieuadvies G., Vegetariërsbond N. Environmental effects of protein-rich food products in the Netherlands Consequences of animal protein substitutes. Blonk Milieu Advies, Gouda. 2008:1–19. [Google Scholar]

Bodirsky B.L., Dietrich J.P., Martinelli E., Stenstad A., Pradhan P., Gabrysch S., Mishra A., Weindl I., le Mouël C., Rolinski S., Baumstark L., Wang X., Waid J.L., Lotze-Campen H., Popp A. The ongoing nutrition transition thwarts long-term targets for food security, public health and environmental protection. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:19778. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-75213-3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Bohrer B.M. Review: Nutrient density and nutritional value of meat products and non-meat foods high in protein. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017;65:103–112. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2017.04.016. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Bonnet C., Bouamra-Mechemache Z., Réquillart V., Treich N. Viewpoint: Regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and animal welfare. Food Policy. 2020;97 doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101847. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Booth H., Clark M., Milner-Gulland E.J., Amponsah-Mensah K., Antunes A.P., Brittain S., Castilho L.C., Campos-Silva J.V., Constantino P., de A.L., Li Y., Mandoloma L., Nneji L.M., Iponga D.M., Moyo B., McNamara J., Rakotonarivo O.S., Shi J., Tagne C.T.K., van Velden J., Williams D.R. Investigating the risks of removing wild meat from global food systems. Curr. Biol. 2021;31:1788–1797. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2021.01.079. e3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Brouwer I.D., McDermott J., Ruben R. Food systems everywhere: Improving relevance in practice. Glob. Food Sec. 2020;26 doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100398. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Caparros Megido R., Gierts C., Blecker C., Brostaux Y., Haubruge É., Alabi T., Francis F. Consumer acceptance of insect-based alternative meat products in Western countries. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016;52:237–243. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.05.004. M4 - Citavi. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Caporgno M.P., Mathys A. Trends in microalgae incorporation into innovative food products with potential health benefits. Front. Nutr. 2018;5 doi:10.3389/fnut.2018.00058. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Caseificio Caramasche Soc. Coop., 2014. Carbon footprint analysis: parmigiano Reggiano DOP.

Cesari V., Zucali M., Bava L., Gislon G., Tamburini A., Toschi I. Environmental impact of rabbit meat: THE effect of production efficiency. Meat. Sci. 2018;145 doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.07.011. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Cheah I., Sadat Shimul A., Liang J., Phau I. Drivers and barriers toward reducing meat consumption. Appetite. 2020;149 doi:10.1016/j.appet.2020.104636. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Choi Y.-S., Kim T.-K., Choi H.-D., Park J.-D., Sung J.-M., Jeon K.-H., Paik H.-D., Kim Y.-B. Optimization of replacing pork meat with yellow worm (Tenebrio molitor L.) for Frankfurters. Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2017;37 doi:10.5851/kosfa.2017.37.5.617. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Ciani M., Lippolis A., Fava F., Rodolfi L., Niccolai A., Tredici M.R. Microbes: food for the future. Foods. 2021;10 doi:10.3390/foods10050971. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Clark L.F., Bogdan A.-M. The role of plant-based foods in Canadian Diets: a survey examining food choices, motivations and dietary identity. J. Food Product. Market. 2019;25 doi:10.1080/10454446.2019.1566806. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Clark M., Hill J., Tilman D. The Diet, health, and environment trilemma. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2018;43:109–134. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025957. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Cornet S.H.v., Snel S.J.E., Schreuders F.K.G., van der Sman R.G.M., Beyrer M., van der Goot A.J. Thermo-mechanical processing of plant proteins using shear cell and high-moisture extrusion cooking. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021 doi:10.1080/10408398.2020.1864618. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Curtain F., Grafenauer S. Plant-based meat substitutes in the flexitarian age: an audit of products on supermarket shelves. Nutrients. 2019;11 doi:10.3390/nu11112603. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Dalla Riva A., Burek J., Kim D., Thoma G., Cassandro M., de Marchi M. The environmental analysis of asiago PDO cheese: a case study from farm gate-to-plant gate. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2018;17 doi:10.1080/1828051X.2017.1344936. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

de Smet S., Vossen E. Meat: The balance between nutrition and health. A review. Meat. Sci. 2016;120:145–156. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.008. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Dekkers B.L., Boom R.M., van der Goot A.J. Structuring processes for meat analogues. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018;81 doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2018.08.011. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Deng Y., Achten W.M.J., van Acker K., Duflou J.R. Life cycle assessment of wheat gluten powder and derived packaging film. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 2013;7 doi:10.1002/bbb.1406. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Deprá M.C., Severo I.A., dos Santos A.M., Zepka L.Q., Jacob-Lopes E. Environmental impacts on commercial microalgae-based products: sustainability metrics and indicators. Algal. Res. 2020;51 doi:10.1016/j.algal.2020.102056. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Detzel A., Krüger M., Busch M., Blanco-Gutiérrez I., Varela C., Manners R., Bez J., Zannini E. Life cycle assessment of animal-based foods and plant-based protein-rich alternatives: an environmental perspective. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2021 doi:10.1002/jsfa.11417. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Detzel A., Krüger M., Busch M., Drescher A., Wriessnegger C.L., Köppen S. Deliverable 5.3 – Part I: report on the life cycle assessment results. Protein2Food Project Report. 2018 Heidelberg. [Google Scholar]

Domingo J.L., Nadal M. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red meat and processed meat: a review of scientific news since the IARC decision. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2017;105:256–261. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2017.04.028. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Fiala M., Marveggio D., Viganò R., Demartini E., Nonini L., Gaviglio A. LCA and wild animals: results from wild deer culled in a northern Italy hunting district. J. Clean. Prod. 2020;244 doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118667. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Fonmboh D.J., Aba E.R., Awah T.M., Fokunang T.E., Ndasi N.P., Ngangmou N.T., Tita B.L., Nono N.B., Samelle E.A.E., Fokunang B.L., Nubia K.C., Ntungwen F.C. The advances of plant product meat alternatives as a healthier and environmentally friendly option for animal meat protein consumption. Asian J. Biotechnol. Bioresour. Technol. 2021:23–40. doi:10.9734/ajb2t/2020/v6i430087. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Fresán U., Mejia M.A., Craig W.J., Jaceldo-Siegl K., Sabaté J. Meat analogs from different protein sources: a comparison of their sustainability and nutritional content. Sustainability. 2019;11 doi:10.3390/su11123231. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Fresán U., Sabaté J. Vegetarian diets: planetary health and its alignment with human health. Adv. Nutr. 2019;10 doi:10.1093/advances/nmz019. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Fulton J., Norton M., Shilling F. Water-indexed benefits and impacts of California almonds. Ecol. Indic. 2019;96 doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.12.063. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Goldstein B., Moses R., Sammons N., Birkved M. Potential to curb the environmental burdens of American beef consumption using a novel plant-based beef substitute. PLoS One. 2017;12 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0189029. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

González N., Marquès M., Nadal M., Domingo J.L. Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010–2020) evidences. Food Res. Int. 2020;137 doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109341. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Goulding T., Lindberg R., Russell C.G. The affordability of a healthy and sustainable diet: an Australian case study. Nutr. J. 2020;19 doi:10.1186/s12937-020-00606-z. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Grossmann L., Weiss J. Alternative Protein Sources as Technofunctional Food Ingredients. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2021;12 doi:10.1146/annurev-food-062520-093642. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Hadjikakou M., Ritchie E.G., Watermeyer K.E., Bryan B.A. Improving the assessment of food system sustainability. Lancet Planet Health. 2019;3 doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30244-4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Harwatt H. Including animal to plant protein shifts in climate change mitigation policy: a proposed three-step strategy. Climate Policy. 2019;19 doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.1528965. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

He J., Evans N.M., Liu H., Shao S. A review of research on plant-based meat alternatives: driving forces, history, manufacturing, and consumer attitudes. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020;19:2639–2656. doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12610. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Head, M., Sevenster, M., Croezen, H., 2011. Life Cycle Impacts of Protein-rich Foods for Superwijzer. Delft.

Heller, M.C., Keoleian, G.A., 2018. Beyond Meat's Beyond Burger Life Cycle Assessment: A Detailed Comparison Between a Plant-Based and an Animal-Based Protein Source, Report No. CSS18-10. Ann Arbor.

Herrera A., D'Imporzano G., Acién Fernandez F.G., Adani F. Sustainable production of microalgae in raceways: Nutrients and water management as key factors influencing environmental impacts. J. Clean. Prod. 2021;287 doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Heusala H., Sinkko T., Mogensen L., Knudsen M.T. Carbon footprint and land use of food products containing oat protein concentrate. J. Clean. Prod. 2020;276 doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122938. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Heusala H., Sinkko T., Sözer N., Hytönen E., Mogensen L., Knudsen M.T. Carbon footprint and land use of oat and faba bean protein concentrates using a life cycle assessment approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020;242 doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118376. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Hyland J.J., Henchion M., McCarthy M., McCarthy S.N. The role of meat in strategies to achieve a sustainable diet lower in greenhouse gas emissions: a review. Meat. Sci. 2017;132:189–195. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.04.014. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Ingram D.J., Coad L., Milner-Gulland E.J., Parry L., Wilkie D., Bakarr M.I., Benítez-López A., Bennett E.L., Bodmer R., Cowlishaw G., el Bizri H.R., Eves H.E., Fa J.E., Golden C.D., Iponga D.M., Minh N.V., Morcatty T.Q., Mwinyihali R., Nasi R., Nijman V., Ntiamoa-Baidu Y., Pattiselanno F., Peres C.A., Rao M., Robinson J.G., Rowcliffe J.M., Stafford C., Supuma M., Tarla F.N., van Vliet N., Wieland M., Abernethy K. Wild meat is still on the menu: progress in wild meat research, policy, and practice from 2002 to 2020. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2021;46:221–254. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-041020-063132. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Järviö N., Maljanen N.-L., Kobayashi Y., Ryynänen T., Tuomisto H.L. An attributional life cycle assessment of microbial protein production: a case study on using hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria. Sci. Total Environ. 2021;776 doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145764. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Jiang G., Ameer K., Kim H., Lee E.-J., Ramachandraiah K., Hong G.-P. Strategies for sustainable substitution of livestock meat. Foods. 2020;9 doi:10.3390/foods9091227. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Jungbluth, N., Eggenberger, S., König, A., Keller, R., Nowack, K., für Umwelt, B., Knuchel, R.F., 2016. Untersuchungen zur umweltfreundlichen Eiweissversorgung.

Kang D.-H., Louis F., Liu H., Shimoda H., Nishiyama Y., Nozawa H., Kakitani M., Takagi D., Kasa D., Nagamori E., Irie S., Kitano S., Matsusaki M. Engineered whole cut meat-like tissue by the assembly of cell fibers using tendon-gel integrated bioprinting. Nat. Commun. 2021;12 doi:10.1038/s41467-021-25236-9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Kemper J.A. Motivations, barriers, and strategies for meat reduction at different family lifecycle stages. Appetite. 2020;150 doi:10.1016/j.appet.2020.104644. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Khan, S., Dettling, J., Hester, J., Moses, R., 2019. Comparative Environmental LCA of the Impossible Burger with Conventional Ground beef Burger, Final Report. Lausanne, Switzerland.

Kim H.W., Bae H., Park H.J. Classification of the printability of selected food for 3D printing: development of an assessment method using hydrocolloids as reference material. J. Food Eng. 2017;215 doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2017.07.017. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Kim H.W., Setyabrata D., Lee Y.J., Jones O.G., Kim Y.H.B. Pre-treated mealworm larvae and silkworm pupae as a novel protein ingredient in emulsion sausages. Innovat. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2016;38:116–123. doi:10.1016/j.ifset.2016.09.023. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Kim T.-K., Lee M.H., Yong H.I., Jung S., Paik H.-D., Jang H.W., Choi Y.-S. Effect of Interaction between mealworm protein and myofibrillar protein on the rheological properties and thermal stability of the prepared emulsion systems. Foods. 2020;9 doi:10.3390/foods9101443. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Laroche M., Perreault V., Marciniak A., Mikhaylin S., Doyen A. Eco-efficiency of Mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) protein extracts. ACS Food Sci. Technol. 2022;2:1077–1085. doi:10.1021/acsfoodscitech.2c00014. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Lie-Piang A., Braconi N., Boom R.M., van der Padt A. Less refined ingredients have lower environmental impact – A life cycle assessment of protein-rich ingredients from oil- and starch-bearing crops. J. Clean. Prod. 2021;292 doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126046. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Lippi G., Mattiuzzi C., Cervellin G. Meat consumption and cancer risk: a critical review of published meta-analyses. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2016;97:1–14. doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2015.11.008. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Mastrandrea, M.D., Field, C.B., Stocker, T.F., Edenhofer, O., Ebi, K.L., Frame, D.J., Held, H., Kriegler, E., Mach, K.J., Matschoss, P.R., 2010. Guidance note for lead authors of the IPCC fifth assessment report on consistent treatment of uncertainties.

Mattick C.S., Landis A.E., Allenby B.R., Genovese N.J. Anticipatory life cycle analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015;49:11941–11949. doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b01614. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

McClements D.J., Grossmann L. A brief review of the science behind the design of healthy and sustainable plant-based foods. NPJ Sci. Food. 2021;5 doi:10.1038/s41538-021-00099-y. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

McClements D.J., Weiss J., Kinchla A.J., Nolden A.A., Grossmann L. Methods for testing the quality attributes of plant-based foods: meat- and processed-meat analogs. Foods. 2021;10 doi:10.3390/foods10020260. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Mejia A., Harwatt H., Jaceldo-Siegl K., Sranacharoenpong K., Soret S., Sabaté J. Greenhouse gas emissions generated by tofu production: a case study. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr. 2018;13 doi:10.1080/19320248.2017.1315323. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Mejia M., Fresán U., Harwatt H., Oda K., Uriegas-Mejia G., Sabaté J. Life cycle assessment of the production of a large variety of meat analogs by three diverse factories. J. Hunger. Environ. Nutr. 2020;15:699–711. doi:10.1080/19320248.2019.1595251. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Milford A.B., le Mouël C., Bodirsky B.L., Rolinski S. Drivers of meat consumption. Appetite. 2019;141 doi:10.1016/j.appet.2019.06.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Molitor B., Mishra A., Angenent L.T. Power-to-protein: converting renewable electric power and carbon dioxide into single cell protein with a two-stage bioprocess. Energy Environ. Sci. 2019;12 doi:10.1039/C9EE02381J. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Neville M., Tarrega A., Hewson L., Foster T. Consumer-orientated development of hybrid beef burger and sausage analogues. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017;5 doi:10.1002/fsn3.466. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Parodi A., Leip A., de Boer I.J.M., Slegers P.M., Ziegler F., Temme E.H.M., Herrero M., Tuomisto H., Valin H., van Middelaar C.E., van Loon J.J.A., van Zanten H.H.E. The potential of future foods for sustainable and healthy diets. Nat. Sustain. 2018;1:782–789. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0189-7. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Pietsch V.L., Bühler J.M., Karbstein H.P., Emin M.A. High moisture extrusion of soy protein concentrate: Influence of thermomechanical treatment on protein-protein interactions and rheological properties. J. Food Eng. 2019;251 doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2019.01.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Poore J., Nemecek T. Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science. 2018;360(1979):987–992. doi:10.1126/science.aaq0216. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Post M.J., Levenberg S., Kaplan D.L., Genovese N., Fu J., Bryant C.J., Negowetti N., Verzijden K., Moutsatsou P. Scientific, sustainability and regulatory challenges of cultured meat. Nat. Food. 2020;1 doi:10.1038/s43016-020-0112-z. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Postma P.R., ‘t Lam G.P., Barbosa M.J., Wijffels R.H., Eppink M.H.M., Olivieri G. Springer International Publishing; Cham: 2017. Microalgal Biorefinery for Bulk and High-Value Products: Product Extraction Within Cell Disintegration, in: Handbook of Electroporation. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Profeta A., Baune M.-C., Smetana S., Broucke K., van Royen G., Weiss J., Heinz V., Terjung N. Discrete choice analysis of consumer preferences for Meathybrids—findings from Germany and Belgium. Foods. 2020;10 doi:10.3390/foods10010071. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Putri S.L., Marbun C.v, Utama G.L. The potential of urban organic waste utilization as neo carbon food. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019;396 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/396/1/012007. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Ramedani Z., Alimohammadian L., Kheialipour K., Delpisheh P., Abbasi Z. Comparing energy state and environmental impacts in ostrich and chicken production systems. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2019;26 doi:10.1007/s11356-019-05972-8. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Rashid N., Selvaratnam T., Park W.-K. Elsevier; 2020. Resource Recovery From Waste Streams Using Microalgae: Opportunities and Threats, in: Microalgae Cultivation for Biofuels Production. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Rosi A., Mena P., Pellegrini N., Turroni S., Neviani E., Ferrocino I., di Cagno R., Ruini L., Ciati R., Angelino D., Maddock J., Gobbetti M., Brighenti F., del Rio D., Scazzina F. Environmental impact of omnivorous, ovo-lacto-vegetarian, and vegan diet. Sci. Rep. 2017;7 doi:10.1038/s41598-017-06466-8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Rubio N.R., Xiang N., Kaplan D.L. Plant-based and cell-based approaches to meat production. Nat. Commun. 2020;11:6276. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20061-y. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

S. Deoula M., el Kinany K., Huybrechts I., Gunter M.J., Hatime Z., Boudouaya H.A., Benslimane A., Nejjari C., el Abkari M., Badre W., el Feydi A.E., Afkir S., Abda N., el Rhazi K. Consumption of meat, traditional and modern processed meat and colorectal cancer risk among the Moroccan population: a large-scale case–control study. Int. J. Cancer. 2020;146 doi:10.1002/ijc.32689. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Saerens W., Smetana S., van Campenhout L., Lammers V., Heinz V. Life cycle assessment of burger patties produced with extruded meat substitutes. J. Clean. Prod. 2021;306 doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127177. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Saget S., Costa M., Santos C.S., Vasconcelos M.W., Gibbons J., Styles D., Williams M. Substitution of beef with pea protein reduces the environmental footprint of meat balls whilst supporting health and climate stabilisation goals. J. Clean. Prod. 2021;297 doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126447. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Sala A., Damalas D., Labanchi L., Martinsohn J., Moro F., Sabatella R., Notti E. Energy audit and carbon footprint in trawl fisheries. Sci. Data. 2022;9:428. doi:10.1038/s41597-022-01478-0. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Sala E., Mayorga J., Bradley D., Cabral R.B., Atwood T.B., Auber A., Cheung W., Costello C., Ferretti F., Friedlander A.M., Gaines S.D., Garilao C., Goodell W., Halpern B.S., Hinson A., Kaschner K., Kesner-Reyes K., Leprieur F., McGowan J., Morgan L.E., Mouillot D., Palacios-Abrantes J., Possingham H.P., Rechberger K.D., Worm B., Lubchenco J. Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate. Nature. 2021;592:397–402. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03371-z. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Samard S., Ryu G. A comparison of physicochemical characteristics, texture, and structure of meat analogue and meats. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019;99 doi:10.1002/jsfa.9438. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Sandmann M., Smetana S., Heinz V., Rohn S. Comparative life cycle assessment of a mesh ultra-thin layer photobioreactor and a tubular glass photobioreactor for the production of bioactive algae extracts. Bioresour. Technol. 2021;340 doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125657. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Santo R.E., Kim B.F., Goldman S.E., Dutkiewicz J., Biehl E.M.B., Bloem M.W., Neff R.A., Nachman K.E. Considering plant-based meat substitutes and cell-based meats: a public health and food systems perspective. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020;4 doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.00134. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Sasso A., Latella G. Dietary components that counteract the increased risk of colorectal cancer related to red meat consumption. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018;69:536–548. doi:10.1080/09637486.2017.1393503. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Schade S., Meier T. A comparative analysis of the environmental impacts of cultivating microalgae in different production systems and climatic zones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Algal. Res. 2019;40 doi:10.1016/j.algal.2019.101485. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Siegrist M., Hartmann C. Impact of sustainability perception on consumption of organic meat and meat substitutes. Appetite. 2019;132:196–202. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2018.09.016. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Sillman J., Uusitalo V., Ruuskanen V., Ojala L., Kahiluoto H., Soukka R., Ahola J. A life cycle environmental sustainability analysis of microbial protein production via power-to-food approaches. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020;25:2190–2203. doi:10.1007/s11367-020-01771-3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Smetana S., Aganovic K., Irmscher S., Heinz V. Springer; Cham: 2018. Agri-Food Waste Streams Utilization for Development of More Sustainable Food Substitutes, in: Designing Sustainable Technologies, Products and Policies; pp. 145–155. [Google Scholar]

Smetana S., Mathys A., Knoch A., Heinz V. Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015;20:1254–1267. doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0931-6. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Smetana S., Profeta A., Voigt R., Kircher C., Heinz V. Meat substitution in burgers: nutritional scoring, sensorial testing, and life cycle assessment. Future Foods. 2021;100042 doi:10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100042. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Smetana S., Sandmann M., Rohn S., Pleissner D., Heinz V. Autotrophic and heterotrophic microalgae and cyanobacteria cultivation for food and feed: life cycle assessment. Bioresour. Technol. 2017;245 doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.113. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Smetana S., Spykman R., Heinz V. Environmental aspects of insect mass production. J. Insects Food Feed. 2021;7:553–571. doi:10.3920/JIFF2020.0116. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Sinke P., Swartz E., Sanctorum H., van der Giesen C., Odegard I. Ex-ante life cycle assessment of commercial-scale cultivated meat production in 2030. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2023;28:234–254. [Google Scholar]

Thielemann A.K., Smetana S., Pleissner D. Cultivation of the heterotrophic microalga Galdieria sulphuraria on food waste: a life cycle assessment. Bioresour. Technol. 2021;125637 doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125637. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Tuomisto H.L., de Mattos M.J.T. Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011;45:6117–6123. doi:10.1021/es200130u. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Tuomisto H.L., Allan S.J., Ellis M.J. Prospective life cycle assessment of a bioprocess design for cultured meat production in hollow fiber bioreactors. Science of The Total Environment. 2022;851 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Upcraft T., Tu W.-C., Johnson R., Finnigan T., van Hung N., Hallett J., Guo M. Protein from renewable resources: mycoprotein production from agricultural residues. Green Chem. 2021;23 doi:10.1039/D1GC01021B. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Uwizeye A., de Boer I.J.M., Opio C.I., Schulte R.P.O., Falcucci A., Tempio G., Teillard F., Casu F., Rulli M., Galloway J.N., Leip A., Erisman J.W., Robinson T.P., Steinfeld H., Gerber P.J. Nitrogen emissions along global livestock supply chains. Nat Food. 2020;1:437–446. doi:10.1038/s43016-020-0113-y. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Vadlamani A., Pendyala B., Viamajala S., Varanasi S. High productivity cultivation of microalgae without concentrated CO₂ input. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2019;7 doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b04094. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

van der Weele C., Feindt P., Jan van der Goot A., van Mierlo B., van Boekel M. Meat alternatives: an integrative comparison. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019;88:505–512. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2019.04.018. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

van Mierlo K., Rohmer S., Gerdessen J.C. A model for composing meat replacers: Reducing the environmental impact of our food consumption pattern while retaining its nutritional value. J. Clean. Prod. 2017;165:930–950. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.098. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Willett W., Rockström J., Loken B., Springmann M., Lang T., Vermeulen S., Garnett T., Tilman D., DeClerck F., Wood A., Jonell M., Clark M., Gordon L.J., Fanzo J., Hawkes C., Zurayk R., Rivera J.A., de Vries W., Majele Sibanda L., Afshin A., Chaudhary A., Herrero M., Agustina R., Branca F., Lartey A., Fan S., Crona B., Fox E., Bignet V., Troell M., Lindahl T., Singh S., Cornell S.E., Srinath Reddy K., Narain S., Nishtar S., Murray C.J.L. Food in the anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet North Am. Ed. 2019;393:447–492. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Wiloso E.I., Sinke P., Muryanto, Setiawan A.A.R., Sari A.A., Waluyo J., Putri A.M.H., Guinée J. Hotspot identification in the Indonesian tempeh supply chain using life cycle assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2019;24 doi:10.1007/s11367-019-01617-7. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Wowra K., Zeller V., Schebek L. Nitrogen in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of agricultural crop production systems: comparative analysis of regionalization approaches. Sci. Total Environ. 2021;763 doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143009. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Xu X., Sharma P., Shu S., Lin T.-S., Ciais P., Tubiello F.N., Smith P., Campbell N., Jain A.K. Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nat. Food. 2021;2 doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00358-x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Zarrinmehr M.J., Farhadian O., Heyrati F.P., Keramat J., Koutra E., Kornaros M., Daneshvar E. Effect of nitrogen concentration on the growth rate and biochemical composition of the microalga, Isochrysis galbana. Egypt. J. Aquatic Res. 2020;46 doi:10.1016/j.ejar.2019.11.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Ziegler F., Nilsson K., Levermann N., Dorph M., Lyberth B., Jessen A.A., Desportes G. Local seal or imported meat? sustainability evaluation of food choices in greenland, based on life cycle assessment. Foods. 2021;10 doi:10.3390/foods10061194. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]