Abstract
Over the past decade, there has been growing interest in the development and production of plant-based and cell-based alternatives to farmed meat. Although promoted for their capacity to avoid or reduce the environmental, animal welfare, and, in some cases, public health problems associated with farmed meat production and consumption, little research has critically evaluated the broader potential public health and food systems implications associated with meat alternatives. This review explores key public health, environmental, animal welfare, economic, and policy implications related to the production and consumption of plant-based meat substitutes and cell-based meats, and how they compare to those associated with farmed meat production. Based on the limited evidence to date, it is unknown whether replacing farmed meats with plant-based substitutes would offer comparable nutritional or chronic disease reduction benefits as replacing meats with whole legumes. Production of plant-based substitutes, however, may involve smaller environmental impacts compared to the production of farmed meats, though the relative impacts differ significantly depending on the type of products under comparison. Research to date suggests that many of the purported environmental and health benefits of cell-based meat are largely speculative. Demand for both plant-based substitutes and cell-based meats may significantly reduce dependence on livestock to be raised and slaughtered for meat production, although cell-based meats will require further technological developments to completely remove animal-based inputs. The broader socioeconomic and political implications of replacing farmed meat with meat alternatives merit further research. An additional factor to consider is that much of the existing research on plant-based substitutes and cell-based meats has been funded or commissioned by companies developing these products, or by other organizations promoting these products. This review has revealed a number of research gaps that merit further exploration, ideally with independently funded peer-reviewed studies, to further inform the conversation around the development and commercialization of plant-based substitutes and cell-based meats.
Generated Summary
This review article, published in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, explores the potential public health, environmental, animal welfare, economic, and policy implications of plant-based meat substitutes and cell-based meats. The study compares these implications to those associated with farmed meat production. The authors employ a literature review methodology, drawing on peer-reviewed academic literature, selected reports, and other gray literature to synthesize the current understanding of these alternative protein sources. The review examines the potential impacts of meat alternatives across various dimensions, aiming to provide a comprehensive overview of their broader implications on food systems and public health. The review encompasses the production and consumption of plant-based substitutes and cell-based meats, including seafood alternatives, comparing them to the impacts associated with the production and consumption of farmed meats.
Key Findings & Statistics
- The global market for plant-based substitutes is projected to reach $85 billion (USD) by 2030, up from $4.6 billion (USD) in 2018.
- Demand for beef and dairy products in the U.S. is estimated to shrink by 80-90% by 2035.
- Global meat production (in tonnage) has increased over 4.5-fold from 1961 to 2018.
- The median GHG footprint of plant-based substitutes was 34, 43, 63, 72, 87, and 93% smaller than those of farmed fish, poultry meat, pig meat, farmed crustaceans, beef from dairy herds, and beef from beef herds, respectively, per 100 grams protein.
- Plant-based substitutes were 1.6, 4.6, and 7.0 times more GHG-intensive than tofu, pulses, and peas, respectively.
- The hypothetical GHG footprint of cell-based meat varied from 0.9 to 36.3 kg CO2e/100 g protein (median: 5.6 kg CO2e/100 g protein).
- The median GHG footprint per 100 grams protein of cell-based meat was 17, 62, and 78% lower than those of farmed crustaceans, beef from dairy herds, and beef from beef herds, respectively.
- The median land use footprint of plant-based substitutes was 41, 77, 82, 89, and 98% smaller than that of farmed fish, poultry meat, pig meat, beef from dairy herds, and beef from beef herds, respectively, per 100 grams protein.
- The median blue water footprint of plant-based substitutes was 21 and 42% smaller than that of farmed pig meat and pond-raised aquatic animals, respectively.
- The production of plant-based substitutes releases 85–94% less reactive nitrogen per unit of protein than producing seafood or conventional meat.
- Conventional pork production involved 1.6 times more pesticide use per unit of protein compared to the production of a pea-based plant-based substitute.
- The cost of animal-free growth medium is still around 50 times higher than what it would need to be cost-competitive with farmed meat.
Other Important Findings
- Interest in plant-based and cell-based meats has grown rapidly in the past decade, driven by concerns about the environmental, animal welfare, and public health impacts of farmed meat.
- Plant-based substitutes aim to replicate the texture, flavor, and nutrient profiles of farmed meat using ingredients derived from plants, while cell-based meats are grown from animal stem cells.
- Western dietary patterns high in animal products have been linked to chronic diseases, and red/processed meat consumption is associated with increased risks of heart disease, diabetes, stroke, and certain cancers.
- Meat alternatives may involve smaller environmental impacts compared to farmed meats, though impacts vary based on the product and production methods.
- Demand for meat alternatives could reduce dependence on livestock farming, but cell-based meats require technological advancements to remove animal-based inputs entirely.
- The review highlights the potential for cell-based meat to be “healthier, safer, and disease-free” compared to farmed meat.
- The use of “conventional meat” excludes more agroecological alternatives.
- The industry is seeing significant investment in the research and development of meat alternatives.
- Plant-based substitutes are often marketed as ultra-processed foods, with high sodium content.
- The FDA and USDA agreed to jointly regulate human food products derived from the cultured cells of livestock and poultry.
- The use of the term “meat” on plant-based substitutes is a key point of contention for some.
- In some cases, plant-based substitutes may offer comparable nutritional or chronic disease reduction benefits to those associated with replacing meats with whole legumes.
- The review underscores the need for more research, ideally independently funded.
- The adoption of meat alternatives depends on consumption patterns and how consumers incorporate them into their diets.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The review acknowledges the limited research critically evaluating the public health and food system implications of meat alternatives.
- The environmental impacts of meat alternatives are often compared to beef, which has the largest environmental impacts among animal products.
- The review notes that the research on cell-based meat production is largely based on anticipatory life cycle assessments (LCAs) which assume hypothetical inputs, production processes, and technological advances.
- The review points out that many of the studies underlying reviews may be outdated.
- The review notes the challenges in accurately assessing the nutritional content of cell-based meats due to the early stage of development.
- The review highlights the need for more research on the specific ingredients and inputs used in the production of meat alternatives.
- The review acknowledges that the environmental impacts depend on consumption patterns and what farmed meats are being replaced.
Conclusion
The widespread adoption of plant-based substitutes and cell-based meats has the potential to transform the global food market and mitigate some of the negative impacts associated with traditional meat production. However, a nuanced approach is critical, as the benefits and drawbacks vary depending on the specific alternative, production methods, and consumption patterns. The authors state, “From an environmental perspective, plant-based substitutes can provide substantial benefits over farmed beef, to which they are most often compared by industry and media.” The review highlights the complexities of the issues and stresses the need for independent, comprehensive, and multi-product environmental analyses as technologies and commercial operations for meat alternatives develop and scale. From an animal welfare perspective, the authors state that, “if meat alternatives replace even a small share of farmed meat production, this could substantially reduce the number of animals raised and killed for human protein consumption, demonstrating the ethical appeal of these products.” However, cell-based meat still has technological hurdles to overcome, especially regarding animal-based inputs like fetal bovine serum. Regarding public health, the authors indicate the limited research on the nutritional aspects, chronic disease risks, and food safety implications of consuming meat alternatives. The authors also emphasize the need for policy considerations about how new ingredients in the food supply are approved and labeled, noting the joint regulatory role of the FDA and USDA for cell-based meat. They conclude by stating, “There is no silver bullet solution to addressing the myriad public health, environmental, and animal welfare challenges associated with protein consumption.” The future research should focus on consumer behavior and the environmental and socioeconomic implications of these protein sources. The authors suggest that the industry consolidation, the economic impact on producers, the affordability of meat alternatives, and their accessibility are critical factors for further study, along with the potential benefits regarding climate change, land use, and water footprint.