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
Generated Summary
This review article explores the public health, environmental, animal welfare, economic, and policy implications of plant-based meat substitutes and cell-based meats, comparing them to farmed meat production. The study employs a literature review approach, examining peer-reviewed academic literature, selected reports, and gray literature to address the research gap surrounding the potential benefits of meat alternatives. The review analyzes key public health, environmental, animal welfare, economic, and policy considerations 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. The scope includes the analysis of the implications of these meat alternatives on the food systems, and public health.
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. will shrink by 80-90% by 2035.
- Livestock production accounts for an estimated 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities.
- The estimated amount of land devoted to livestock production ranges from 2.5 to 3.7 billion ha.
- Animal foods account for only 18% of calories and 25% of protein in the global food supply.
- 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, peas and other pulses, respectively.
- The hypothetical GHG footprint of cell-based meat varied significantly more than that of plant-based substitutes, from 0.9 to 36.3 kg CO2e/100 g protein (median: 5.6 kg CO2e/100 g protein).
- 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 tofu, peas and other pulses, respectively.
- Conventional pork production resulted in six times greater eutrophication potential and required 3.4 times more fertilizer per unit of protein compared to a pea-based plant-based substitute.
Other Important Findings
- Interest in plant-based substitutes and cell-based meats has grown rapidly over the past decade.
- The review highlights concerns regarding farmed meat production, including environmental impacts, animal welfare issues, and public health risks.
- Plant-based substitutes may involve smaller environmental impacts compared to farmed meats, though the relative impacts differ depending on the products compared.
- Production of plant-based substitutes 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.
- Demand for both plant-based substitutes and cell-based meats may significantly reduce dependence on livestock to be raised and slaughtered for meat production.
- The study suggests that many of the purported environmental and health benefits of cell-based meat are largely speculative.
- Many plant-based substitutes contain comparable amounts of calories, protein, and iron as the meats they are intended to replace.
- The review also notes that plant-based substitutes, as ultra-processed foods, have relatively high amounts of sodium and may contain ingredients and additives including flavoring, coloring, and binding agents.
- The extent to which meat alternatives achieve these purported benefits depends on several factors, including the specific ingredients or inputs used to produce them.
- The global market for plant-based substitutes is projected to reach $85 billion (USD) by 2030, up from $4.6 billion (USD) in 2018 (Gordon et al., 2019).
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The review acknowledges that the research on cell-based meat is limited due to the fact that it is not yet commercially available.
- The study notes that existing research about cell-based meat production is based on a few anticipatory life cycle assessments (LCAs) which assumed hypothetical inputs, production processes, and technological advances.
- The authors recognize that potential benefits associated with meat alternatives would only occur if demand for those products offsets a share of farmed meat production, rather than simply adding to the combined total production of farmed meat and meat alternatives.
- The review notes that the studies underlying reviews about meat alternatives may be outdated given the influx of new plant-based substitutes into the market.
- The study acknowledges that consumer perceptions and acceptance of cell-based meats may also change.
- The review notes limitations and research debates about the use of the CO2e metric for measuring the impact of GHGs.
- The land use data for plant-based substitutes reflect global averages that include data from low-yielding countries, whereas the LCAs for plant-based substitutes likely assumed ingredients were sourced from more efficient production systems in industrialized countries.
Conclusion
The study concludes that plant-based substitutes and cell-based meats are gaining a foothold in global markets. The review emphasizes that while meat alternatives may offer benefits over some farmed meats, a cautious and nuanced approach is necessary, rather than assuming they will solve existing challenges without drawbacks. The review highlights the need for more research, especially in the areas of nutrition, chronic disease, and food safety implications. The article highlights the complexity of the issues at hand, calling for a more transparent approach to the products. The review emphasizes the importance of considering the impacts of meat alternatives on industry consolidation, farmers, farmworkers, and rural communities. The study highlights the potential for plant-based substitutes to create new jobs, particularly in urban areas and STEM fields, while acknowledging the potential for rural population loss and economic decline. The authors note the need to address industry consolidation, worker retraining programs, and support for farmers transitioning their farms. The review also suggests the importance of addressing systemic problems in the food system, requiring the collaboration of food processing industries, producers, and consumers, as well as the examination of existing deforestation trends. The study calls for independent and comprehensive multi-product environmental analyses and further research to understand how consumers are incorporating these products into their diets.