# data[].attributes.body
Consumers significantly influence demand for plant-based products like TVP, and inclusivity requires considering diverse needs and dietary preferences to ensure a diverse range of options.

# data[].attributes.body
Farmers and producers in TVP, including soybeans, lentils, and peas, are crucial to the supply chain, and sustainable farming practices are essential for long-term impact.

# data[].attributes.body
Food companies and manufacturers hold significant power in the food industry, influencing the direction of the industry by producing high-quality, ethically sourced and sustainable TVP products.

# data[].attributes.body
TVP is often made from soy, which requires less water and land compared to the production of animal proteins. Choosing TVP as a protein source contributes to resource efficiency, which is a key aspect of responsible consumption and production, as outlined in UNSDG 12. This, in turn, supports UNSDG 13's climate action goals.

T

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EAT-Lancet Commission Summary Report - EAT

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This report was prepared by EAT and is an adapted summary of the Commission Food in The Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets From Sustainable Food Systems.

# data[].attributes.body
There are some TVP products that are GMO-free recently. There are Bob's Red Mill, Elianni Veggie Cutlets as an example

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Whether you are a seasoned meatless monster, or just dabbling in plant-based foods, chances are you will find yourself craving something traditionally meaty at one time or another. Whether it's tacos, lasagna or sloppy Joes you're reminiscing about, the good news is that foregoing meat doesn't have to mean giving up these classic comfort foods altogether. Textured Vegetable Protein (or "TVP") is an easy and affordable way to give your favorite meals a facelift, without sacrificing on flavor or texture.
So what exactly is TVP?
TVP is a plant-based meat substitute made from high-protein, defatted soy flour that is pressure cooked and then dried. This versatile ingredient comes in a variety of shapes and sizes including chunks, strips, flakes and granules, with a texture similar to cooked beef or mincemeat. As well as being high in protein and fiber, it is low in fat and cholesterol free, making it a healthy alternative to its animal-based counterparts. TVP's long shelf life means that it can be kept on hand at all times, and simply re-hydrated as needed for each recipe.

If you're on the hunt for some tasty TVP, look no further. The following products are all 100% vegan.

Bob's Red Mill offer two varieties of TVP flakes, both of which are GMO-free, gluten-free, and certified kosher. Their Organic TVPcontains nothing but organic soy, and their High Protein TVPis made from defatted soy flour. No colors, preservatives or additives in sight! Both products are perfect for these Tacos Sin Carne or this Vegan Lasagna, and can be used as a savory filling in these Steamed Chinese Bao with Peanut Butter.
2. Elianni Veggie Cutlets
If it's hearty chunks of TVP you are after, Elianni Veggie Cutlets have got you covered. Made from a combination of non-GMO soy and pinto beans, these cutlets are low in sodium, high in protein, and contain no additives of any kind. Their size and texture make them an excellent filling for these Pineapple Jack BBQ Sandwiches, or as a gluten-free alternative to seitan on this Grilled "Cheesy Mac n' Rib" Pizza.

Butler Soy Curls are made from select, non GMO, whole soybeans, and nothing else. Butler Foods use a low drying temperature to preserve the nutritional quality of the whole soy bean. Their unique shape make them ideal for recipes that require strips of meat, like Fajitas, stir-fries, or this Vegan Chik'n Salad with Cranberries and Pistachios.

Betta Foods offer a wide range of TVP products to suit every mock-meat occasion. Their chicken chunks, Soyabeaf® chunks and minced Soyabeaf® are all free from chemical additives, flavors and preservatives, with no added salt or sugar. Perfect for adding texture and taking on flavors in any dish, these products make a great gluten-free substitute for seitan in this Bourguignon and this "Chicken" Green Chili, and Hominy Posole.
If you loved these recommendations, you can browse through some more amazing product recommendations here!
VegeUSA's Vegan Pork Shreds may not look the same as other conventional TVP varieties, but these wonderful little strips of soy and wheat protein can be prepared and used exactly the same way as regular TVP. With no added colors, flavors or chemical preservatives, Vegan Pork Shreds make an exciting addition to Asian-inspired salads, sandwiches and stir fries.

Help keep One Green Planet free and independent! Together we can ensure our platform remains a hub for empowering ideas committed to fighting for a sustainable, healthy, and compassionate world. Please support us in keeping our mission strong.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Low-down on Textured Vegetable Protein (with Product Picks and Recipes!)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whether you are a seasoned meatless monster, or just dabbling in plant-based foods, chances are you will find yourself craving something traditionally

# data[].attributes.body
The study found differences in consumer perceptions and acceptance of clean and plant-based meat products across the USA, China, and India, highlighting the influence of cultural, demographic, and attitudinal factors on consumer preferences and behavior.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom

The Good Food Institute, Washington, DC, United States

Center for Long Term Priorities, Hong Kong, China

Recent years have seen increasing interest in research on consumer acceptance of clean meat. Whilst some consumers are enthusiastic about the prospect of reducing the health risks, environmental harms, and animal welfare implications associated with conventional meat production, others have concerns about the product's taste, price, safety, and naturalness. Some evidence suggests that acceptance of clean meat will vary substantially across cultures, though there is currently a lack of quantitative research in Asia and country comparisons on this topic. Both are likely to be important areas given the forecasted increase in meat consumption in developing countries. Participants ( n = 3.030) were recruited through the research panel CINT to take an online questionnaire about clean meat and plant-based meat. The participants were representative of China, India, and the U.S. in terms of age and gender, though participants in India and China were disproportionately urban, high income, and well-educated. As well as clean meat, participants were asked about plant-based meat, a conceptually similar product with similar potential to displace demand for conventional meat. They also answered the Meat Attachment Questionnaire and the Food Neophobia Scale. We compared these variables between countries, and used regression models to identify which demographic and attitudinal factors predicted purchase intent toward both products. We found significantly higher acceptance of clean and plant-based meat in India and China compared to the USA. We also found significantly higher food neophobia and significantly lower meat attachment in India compared to China and the USA. We identified several demographic patterns of clean and plant-based meat acceptance as well as which beliefs were important predictors of acceptance within each country. In particular, higher familiarity predicted higher acceptance of plant-based and clean meat across all countries. We found high levels of acceptance of clean meat in the three most populous countries worldwide, and with even higher levels of acceptance in China and India compared to the USA. These results underline the importance of clean meat producers exploring new markets for their products, especially as meat consumption in developing countries continues to rise.

Introduction

Conventional meat produced by rearing animals is associated with a range of important global problems, including greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and freshwater consumption ( McMichael et al., 2007, p. 63). In recent years, there has been increasing interest in alternative ways of producing meat. Clean meat is produced by culturing animal cells in a suitable medium ( Post, 2012), whilst plant-based meat is made directly from plant materials ( Good Food Institute, 2018).

In the future, the wide scale production of clean meat without animals will help alleviate many of the ethical, environmental, and public health issues associated with meat production today ( Bryant and Barnett, 2018, p. 8). Similarly, plant-based meat is becoming an increasingly viable alternative to conventional meat as quality improves and these products become more mainstream ( Wild et al., 2014, p. 48). However, the benefits of these products will only be realized to the extent that they displace demand for conventional meat. With much of the forecast 73% rise in demand for meat by 2050 coming from developing countries ( Food and Agriculture Organization, 2011 p. 79), there is a concerning lack of research on consumer acceptance of clean and plant-based meat outside of the West.

In particular, China and India have been identified as prime countries in which to conduct consumer surveys on clean meat ( Bryant and Barnett, 2018, p. 16). Indeed, not only do these countries have the highest populations in the world, but rising economies mean that their meat consumption is likely to increase over the coming decades as more consumers can afford meat. Furthermore, substantial cultural differences from the West, where most consumer acceptance research has been conducted, mean that consumer acceptance in China and India may differ in character.

Limited research has explored consumer acceptance of clean meat in China. YouGov (2018) reported that 26% of Chinese consumers said they would eat clean meat, which was amongst the lowest rate of acceptance compared to other countries in Asia. This series of surveys yielded evidence of substantial differences between countries. For example, 34% of Thai consumers said they would eat clean meat and 52% of Vietnamese consumers said they would eat clean meat. India was not part of this survey, and very little is known about consumer perceptions of clean meat in India.

Other research has similarly explored cross-cultural variations in acceptance of clean meat. Surveygoo (2018)reported that, whilst 40% of US consumers said they would buy clean meat, the figure was just 18% for UK consumers. Likewise, (Hoek et al., p. 667) found significantly higher use of plant-based meats in the UK compared to the Netherlands. In a small study of graduate students, Bekker et al. (2017) explored responses to clean meat amongst Chinese, Ethiopian, and Dutch consumers. The authors found that Dutch consumers were more focused on research, development, and future expectations, whereas Chinese consumers were the only ones to discuss their own intentions toward clean meat. However, this study was qualitative in design, and the sample was limited to just 30 graduate students. Therefore, the findings are not generalizable to the total populations of these countries.

Whilst there have been many surveys on this question in the USA and various countries in Europe ( Eurobarometer, 2005; YouGov, 2013; Wilks and Phillips, 2017), the results of these are not necessarily comparable. Even within countries, different surveys can show wildly different rates of acceptance, based on variations in question design and terminology ( Bryant and Barnett, 2018, p. 15). Surveys that ask the same questions at the same time in different countries are far less common. Therefore, the present study can add significantly to the research by using the same surveys at the same time to directly compare consumer perceptions in potentially important countries.

The present study seeks to investigate the nature of consumer acceptance of clean meat in the U.S., India, and China. We also investigate consumer acceptance of a related technology, plant-based meat as well as two potentially relevant theoretical constructs: food neophobia ( Pliner and Hobden, 1992) and meat attachment ( Graça et al., 2015).

Materials and Methods

Participants

Participants were recruited online through the research panel, CINT, via the research agency Positly. Participants were members of a range of online CINT partner panels who have signed up to take surveys online. They were compensated with a range of incentives for their time (incentives vary across CINT partner panels). We aimed to recruit representative samples of 1,000 people in each country to achieve an acceptable margin of error within each country and be well-powered to detect differences between countries ( Cohen, 1992, p. 158; Kotrlik and Higgins, 2001, pp. 46-49).

We set quotas for age and gender for all three countries to ensure that the samples were representative of the general population with respect to these variables. Since internet access is limited among some groups in India and China, these samples were skewed toward higher income and more urban groups. However, this is likely to be representative of the population who will feasibly have access to clean meat in the near future.

We removed participants who were under 18, who did not consent to take part, who failed either of two attention check questions, or who were duplicates of other respondents. The total sample size was 3,030: 987 in the USA, 1,024 in India, and 1,019 in China.

Procedure

This study received ethical approval from the Psychology Research Ethics Committee at the University of Bath (REF 18-137). All participants used a checkbox on the questionnaire to indicate their informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Before beginning the survey, participants were given information about the study and were asked whether they consented to take part. Participants who did not give their consent were subsequently removed from the study.

First, participants answered questions about which animal products they ate at least occasionally. This data was used to classify participants as vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, or omnivore. They also indicated how many times they ate meat for each of three meals in an average week, which was used to classify participants as vegetarian, light meat eater (1-6 times a week in total), medium meat eater (7-13 times a week in total), or heavy meat eater (14 or more times a week in total).

Next, participants completed the Food Neophobia Scale ( Pliner and Hobden, 1992, p. 109) and the Meat Attachment Questionnaire ( Graça et al., 2015, p. 117). These were presented in a random order, and before any mention of clean or plant-based meat to avoid priming. After completing each of these measures, participants answered one of two simple multiple choice quality checks. These two questions were designed to be easy for humans to answer, while providing a mechanism for filtering out thoughtless or computer-assisted responses. Participants who answered these questions incorrectly were subsequently removed from the survey.

Next, participants rated their attitudes toward conventional meat on 16 different attributes using 5-point semantic differential scales (see section Materials). They then answered questions about clean meat and plant-based meat, with the order of these blocks of questions randomized to control for order effects. Participants were asked about their familiarity with, attitudes toward, and intentions toward, each type of meat.

They were then asked to consider a hypothetical future where clean, plant-based, and conventional meats are all widely available. They indicated which type of meat they preferred and what proportion of their diet they thought would come from each type of meat.

Participants were then asked for demographic information, including age, gender, education, political orientation, dwelling size, and household income. Finally, participants were invited to provide any final comments on clean and plant-based meat before being debriefed and thanked for their time.

Materials

The survey instrument was distributed in English in the USA and India, and was translated into Mandarin for distribution in China. In India, English is widely spoken, particularly amongst the urban population who are the most likely consumers of clean meat. Translation into Mandarin was done using back-translation, which is considered best practice for cross-country research to ensure that meaning is equivalent in the target language ( Johnson, 1998, p. 17).

Given the expanding research on clean meat nomenclature in English, we ran two pre-tests to determine which names would be appealing in Chinese. We worked with stakeholder groups to compile a list of potential names in Chinese, and then had a small sample of Chinese consumers ( N = 164) rank them for appeal and descriptiveness. Based on this data, we decided to use the term "纯净肉" (approximately translates to "purity meat") for clean meat and the term '蔬食肉' (approximately translates to "vegetable meat" or "plant-based meat") for plant-based meat in the Chinese survey instrument.

The questions in each survey were identical, apart from some demographic questions. We did not ask about political orientation in China due to a lack of cultural fit. Furthermore, the household income measures were adjusted to reflect local currencies and income strata. Questions about education, region, and ethnicity were also modified to reflect relevant variations between countries.

The Food Neophobia Scale contained minor modifications from the original measure ( Pliner and Hobden, 1992), asking about "foods from other countries" rather than "ethnic foods" to make it more relevant to participants in India and China. Measures of behavioral intentions toward clean and plant-based meat were adapted from Wilks and Phillips 2017, p. 6), and modified to address common concerns about product availability and taste. Participants answered these questions about how likely they were to try, purchase regularly, eat in place of conventional meat, and pay more for clean and plant-based meat on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all likely) to 5 (extremely likely).

We used the same set of attitudinal questions when asking about clean meat, plant-based meat, and conventional meat. Participants gave their opinions on each type of meat using the following five-point semantic differential items: "Unhealthy-healthy, unnatural-natural, bad for the environment-good for the environment, unethical-ethical, unappealing-appealing, not tasty-tasty, unsafe-safe, expensive-affordable, bad for animals-good for animals, unsustainable as a long term food source-sustainable as a long term food source, inconvenient-convenient, boring-exciting, not nutritious-nutritious, unnecessary-necessary, bad-good, disgusting-not disgusting."

The full survey instruments can be viewed in our OSF registration ( https://osf.io/gav7z/).

Results

Data cleaning and analysis was conducted in accordance with our pre-registered analysis plan ( https://osf.io/gav7z/). Where we deviated from the pre-registered plan for any reason, we have noted that in the following text. Data cleaning and analysis was conducted independently by two researchers and then compared to ensure accuracy.

Since we had age quotas, we did not specify a plan for removing participants who were under 18, but we found 7 of these in the Chinese sample. They were removed as well as one participant who entered their age as 200,023.

Descriptive Statistics

Tables showing the full demographic and acceptance data of each sample can be seen in the Supplementary Materials.

Demographics

We used quotas to ensure samples were representative of each country in terms of age and gender. The US sample was 47.7% male, 51.4% female, and 0.9% other genders; the mean age was 40.01 ( SD = 11.86). The China sample was 49.5% male, 50.3% female, and 0.2% other genders; the mean age was 37.29 ( SD = 9.26). The India sample was 50.5% male, 49.1% female, and 0.1% other genders; the mean age was 34.76 ( SD = 8.86).

Whilst the US sample was relatively representative across other factors, the China and India samples skewed toward more urban-dwelling, well-educated, and high income participants compared to the general population. This was a skew we anticipated, since rural populations are less likely to have internet access in these countries. Whilst this means that these samples were not fully representative of the countries overall, they likely were representative of the populations who are most likely to have access to plant-based and clean meat in the near future. Full details of this can be seen in the Supplementary Materials.

Familiarity

Both familiarity with and acceptance of clean meat were substantially higher in India and China compared to in the USA. In the USA, 57.3% were not at all familiar with clean meat; 31.9% were slightly or moderately familiar, and just 10.8% were very or extremely familiar. In China, 35.5% were not at all familiar; 34.6% were slightly or moderately familiar, and 29.9% were very or extremely familiar. In India, 25.5% were not at all familiar; 35.8% were slightly or moderately familiar, and 38.7% were very or extremely familiar.

We found a somewhat similar pattern with regards to plant-based meat. In the US, 36.4% were not at all familiar with plant-based meat; 44.5% were slightly or moderately familiar, and 19.1% were very or extremely familiar. In China, 34.1% were not at all familiar with plant-based meat; 36.1% were moderately or slightly familiar, and 29.9% were very or extremely familiar. In India, 28.6% were not at all familiar with plant-based meat; 31.6% were slightly or moderately familiar, and 39.9% were very or extremely familiar.

These figures are likely a reflection of the skewed sample: plant-based and clean meat are not widely available or reported on in China and India, and there are few companies working on these technologies there. It is possible that some respondents over-reported their familiarity with these products, though it may simply be a reflection of the urban well-educated samples. Although we were careful to develop and translate clear descriptions of the products, we also cannot rule out the possibility that some participants did not fully understand them.

Acceptance

We see a similar pattern with regards to purchase likelihood, which was also substantially higher in China and India compared to in the USA. In the USA, 23.6% were not at all likely to purchase clean meat; 46.6% were somewhat or moderately likely, and 29.8% were very or extremely likely. In China, 6.7% were not at all likely to purchase clean meat; 33.9% were somewhat or moderately likely, and 59.3% were very or extremely likely. In India, 10.7% were not at all likely to purchase clean meat; 32.9% were somewhat or moderately likely, and 56.3% were very or extremely likely.

A similar pattern emerged with regards to purchase likelihood of plant-based meat. In the USA, 25.3% were not at all likely to purchase plant-based meat; 41.8% were slightly or moderately likely, and 32.9% were very or extremely likely. In China, 4.4% were not at all likely to purchase plant-based meat; 33.2% were somewhat or moderately likely, and 62.4% were very or extremely likely. In India, 5.5% were not at all likely to purchase plant-based meat; 31.7% were somewhat or moderately likely, and 62.8% were very or extremely likely.

Cross Country Comparisons

We ran one-way ANOVAs (analyses of variance) to compare the different countries surveyed on measures of (a) likelihood of purchasing clean meat, (b) likelihood of purchasing plant-based meat, (c) food neophobia, and (d) meat attachment. All of these variables were measured on a 1-5 scale, where 5 represents higher purchase likelihood, higher food neophobia, and higher meat attachment.

Some of the assumptions of ANOVA were violated in this case, although we believe that this analysis is still valid. Firstly, each of the variables returned significant ( p < 0.001) values for the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality, indicating that they are not normally distributed (see Figures 1- 4). However, the distributions are not extreme, and ANOVA is generally regarded as being robust to this assumption being violated ( Schmider et al., 2010). Secondly, Levene's test indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was also violated ( p < 0.001). Therefore, we ran a Welch ANOVA, which does not require the homogeneity of variance assumption, and obtained extremely similar results. On this basis, we proceeded with ANOVAs.

All of the ANOVAs returned significant results ( p < 0.05). This was the case for likelihood of purchasing clean meat [ F(2, 3027) = 132.51, p < 0.001], likelihood of purchasing plant-based meat [ F(2, 3027) = 180.96, p < 0.001], food neophobia [ F(2, 3027) = 6.15, p < 0.01], and meat attachment [ F(2, 3027) = 132.10, p < 0.001].

Table 1 shows the mean score and standard deviation in each country. Pairwise comparisons were assessed using LSD post hoc tests in accordance with the data analysis plan. Within rows, mean values which are significantly different are denoted using different superscript letters. Values which share a superscript letter are not significantly different. For example, in the first row, the result in the US is significantly different from China and India, as shown by the differing superscript letters "a" in the US, and "b" in China and India. China and India, which are not significantly different, both share the superscript letter "b."

As shown here, we find significantly higher likelihood of purchasing clean meat and plant-based meat in China and India compared to the USA ( p < 0.01). We also find significantly lower meat attachment ( p < 0.01), and significantly higher food neophobia ( p < 0.01) in India compared to China and the USA.

The composite measure for meat attachment achieved good levels of reliability in the USA (α = 0.92), China (α = 0.80), and India (α = 0.88), but the results regarding food neophobia should be interpreted with greater caution. Although this composite measure was reliable in the US (α = 0.88), it was less reliable in China (α = 0.62) and India (α = 0.64). Whilst Nunnally (1978) has argued that α > 0.6 is an acceptable level of internal consistency, α > 0.7 is more commonly used ( Churchill, 1979), and therefore this measure may be questionable in India and China. This may be due, in part, to the presence of items asking about both new food and food from different cultures. Whilst these form part of a coherent measure of food neophobia in the West, the concepts may be more distinct in China and India. Indeed, mean responses to items mentioning food from different cultures were amongst the most different from the overall scale mean in China and India.

To rule out the possibility that the higher rate of vegetarianism in India accounted for these latter two differences, we conducted further unplanned analyses in which we excluded vegetarians. We found that, when focusing on omnivores only, India still has a significantly lower meat attachment compared to China and the USA [ F(2, 2757) = 48.68, p < 0.01]. When focusing on meat-eaters only, USA also has a significantly higher meat attachment than China ( p < 0.01). The differences in food neophobia are still significant, also [ F(2, 2757) = 3.25, p = 0.04]. India is significantly higher than the USA ( p = 0.02) and China ( p = 0.04).

Within Country Regressions

Next, we built linear regression models to identify demographic and attitudinal predictors of clean and plant-based meat acceptance within each country. Within each country, we ran two sets of regressions: one for clean meat ( Table 2) and one for plant-based meat ( Table 3). For clean meat models, likelihood of purchasing clean meat was the dependent variable; for plant-based meat models, likelihood of purchasing plant-based meat was the dependent variable.

Linear regression models were built in three iterations. In the first iteration, the models included nine demographic variables: gender, age, diet, meat consumption frequency, education, politics (except in China), population density, income, and familiarity with the product. We then identified which of these were significant predictors of purchase likelihood, and dropped variables which were not significant predictors iteratively until all predictors were significant.

In the second iteration, we added Food Neophobia and Meat Attachment. We observed the change in R ², and proceeded if the change was significant at p < 0.05. Again, we dropped insignificant variables iteratively until all remaining variables were significant. However, in each iteration, we kept all variables from the previous iteration regardless of significance (i.e., we kept diet in the model, even though it lost significance when accounting for Food Neophobia in the second iteration). The only exception to this was gender in the clean meat model in the USA-in the first iteration, those identifying as other genders were significantly less likely to purchase compared to males. However, this was a small group of just 9 people, and this difference lost its significance in subsequent iterations. We therefore removed gender from the model to prevent overfitting.

In the third iteration, we added the 16 attitude variables (see section Materials) relating to clean or plant-based meat, as relevant. Again, we proceeded where the R ² change was significant at p < 0.05, and dropped insignificant variables iteratively. Our final models therefore included significant demographic as well as attitudinal predictors. This enabled us to identify which demographic groups are most likely to purchase clean meat, and what attitudes are key drivers of purchase intent within each country.

Clean Meat

With respect to clean meat, the final regression models were as follows:

In the USA, we find that those who follow pescatarian, vegetarian, or vegan diets are significantly less likely to purchase clean meat compared to omnivores. Purchase intention is also higher for those who are left-leaning politically, and for those who are more familiar with clean meat. Predictably, low food neophobia was a predictor of purchase intent; indeed, this was a predictor of purchase intent for clean meat and plant-based meat in every country. Whilst higher disgust predicted lower purchase likelihood, perceived appeal and goodness were predictors of higher purchase likelihood.

In China, we found that women were significantly more likely than men to buy clean meat. Purchase likelihood was also higher for meat-eaters (compared to vegetarians), and for those who ate more meat. Again, those more familiar with the concept were more likely to purchase it. We also found higher food neophobia predicted lower purchase likelihood, whilst higher meat attachment predicted higher purchase likelihood. Attitudinal predictors of purchase intent included perceived healthiness, appeal, excitement, nutrition, necessity, and goodness.

We find in India that omnivores and those who eat more meat are significantly more likely to purchase clean meat. We also find that those in higher income brackets, those who are more politically liberal, and those who are more familiar with the concept are more likely to purchase clean meat. Again, higher meat attachment and lower food neophobia are predictive of purchase intent. People were also more likely to purchase clean meat when they perceived it as ethical, appealing, and necessary.

Plant-Based Meat

With respect to plant-based meat, the final regression models were as follows:

In the USA, we found that more politically liberal people and those more familiar with the product were more likely to buy it. Meat attachment was found to be negatively predictive of acceptance, indicating that those who are especially attached to meat are relatively unlikely to buy plant-based meat. Attitudinal predictors of purchase intent included appeal, excitement, and low disgust.

In China, we again find that women are more likely than men to buy plant-based meat. Meat eaters are significantly more likely than vegetarians and vegans to buy plant-based meat, and higher meat attachment predicts higher purchase likelihood. Again, higher familiarity and lower food neophobia are predictive of purchase intent. The key attitudinal predictors of purchase intent were perceived healthiness, appeal, tastiness, and sustainability as a long term food source.

In India, we find omnivores and those who eat more meat are again more likely to eat plant-based meat. Higher income groups in India expressed more interest in plant-based meat, as did more educated and more politically liberal consumers. Familiarity with the products was strongly predictive of purchase intent, and food neophobia predicted lower purchase intent. In terms of attitudes, perceived sustainability, excitement, necessity, and goodness were predictors of plant-based meat purchase intent in India.

Discussion

The most consequential finding of this study is the significantly higher likelihood of urban, well-educated and high income consumers in India and China purchasing clean meat and plant-based meat compared to consumers in the USA. Most consumer research thus far has focused disproportionately on the West, leaving emerging markets relatively unexplored ( Bryant and Barnett, 2018, p. 16). Our findings indicate that these markets represent high-value opportunities for plant-based and clean meat producers, most of which are US-based. In the case of China, there is reason to believe that the government is supportive of advanced agricultural technology for its environmental, food safety, and food security benefits, though the reporting doesn't offer insight on whether this specifically extends to clean meat ( Reuters, 2017).

Furthermore, these markets may represent especially good opportunities to displace demand for conventional meat. The findings in India and China indicate that those who eat more meat, and are more attached to meat, are more likely to purchase plant-based and clean meat. In terms of reducing the impact of conventional meat on the environment and animal suffering, aiming at markets in China and India may have particularly high potential.

We cannot ignore, however, the large skew toward more urban, more educated, and higher income populations in our China and India samples compared to the general population. This was partly by design. As we discuss in our pre-registration documentation, affluent educated city-dwellers are the population most likely to have access to clean and plant-based meat. Moreover, whilst these are characteristics that have been associated with higher acceptance of clean meat in the West ( Flycatcher, 2013, p. 18; Tucker, 2014, p. 174), this may not be the case in China and India. Indeed, these characteristics rarely emerged as predictors in our regression models. Furthermore, we see some commonly observed demographic trends such as higher acceptance amongst men compared to women ( Bryant and Barnett, 2018, p. 12) reversed in China. Therefore, the effect of this skewed data is unclear, and is unlikely to account for all of the large differences observed.

Other limitations include a variety of issues commonly associated with self-reported data. As well as poor recollection (e.g., of foods consumed) and poor ability to predict one's own future behavior (e.g., with regard to clean meat), it is likely that respondents will have exhibited a degree of social desirability bias (i.e., an inclination to give answers that make them look good). These are perennial issues with respect to self-reported survey responses, though we have tried to mitigate them by informing participants in the briefing that they should answer as honestly as they can.

Moreover, we do not know the extent to which participants' answers will have been affected by earlier questions. For example, participants' answers about clean and plant-based meat may have been affected by answering earlier questions about their attitudes to conventional meat and new food in general. We have tried to control for such priming effects by partially randomizing the order of question blocks and questions within blocks. However, some questions always come before others, and in this case, we cannot rule out the possibility that participants were primed by earlier questions when answering the key variables.

Finally, it is possible that people in different countries answer survey questions differently in general. For example, Faunalytics (2018) observed that survey respondents in China were more likely to acquiesce to statements and were more likely to give responses in the middle of scales than respondents in the U.S. Whilst it is difficult to assess whether such patterns represent differences in survey answering styles or real differences in attitudes, we tried to minimize such differences in this study by ensuring that the China survey instrument was back-translated and had equivalent meaning in China as in the U.S.

Different Strategies for Different Markets

Differences between regression models imply that different market strategies may be appropriate in US, Chinese, and Indian markets.

In the USA, we find that meat-eaters are most likely to express interest in purchasing clean meat, replicating the finding of Wilks and Phillips (2017, pp. 10-11). We also found that meat attachment predicted lower purchase likelihood of plant-based meat, but not of clean meat. This implies that plant-based and clean meat could cater to different markets in the US: whilst plant-based meats may be appealing to those low in meat attachment, clean meat may play a crucial role in displacing demand for conventional meat amongst those who do not find plant-based meat appealing.

We also found that disgust was a significant predictor of plant-based and clean meat acceptance, a finding which was unique to the USA. Disgust is commonly discussed as a mechanism for rejection in clean meat research amongst Western consumers ( Verbeke et al., 2015, p. 52; Siegrist et al., 2018, p. 217), though it is interesting that this was not the case in India and China. This has implications for marketers in the USA, where disgust is an important reaction to overcome.

In China, we see an interesting reversal of a commonly observed demographic variation in the West with respect to clean meat acceptance: gender. Whilst it is common to observe higher acceptance amongst men compared to women in the West ( Bryant and Barnett, 2018, p. 12), this data shows higher purchase intent amongst women compared to men in China. It is not entirely clear why this is the case, though Nath (2011) has posited that Western construals of masculinity might account for higher willingness to eat unfamiliar foods in the West.

We also find an interesting set of attitudinal predictors for both plant-based and clean meat acceptance in China: perceived healthiness predicted higher purchase intent for plant-based and clean meat, and perceived nutritional value also predicted higher acceptance of clean meat. This implies that modifications to increase health and nutrition profiles compared to conventional meat (such as decreasing saturated fat content or increasing omega fatty acids) may be particularly welcome in China. Excitement as well as perceived goodness and necessity also predicted purchase likelihood of clean meat, indicating that some consumers will find clean meat appealing as a novel solution to problems of conventional meat.

In India, perceived necessity was again a predictor of both plant-based and clean meat acceptance, whilst perceived sustainability predicted plant-based meat acceptance and perceived ethicality predicted clean meat acceptance. This seems to suggest that consumers in India, who had the lowest levels of meat attachment, are most cognizant of the environmental and ethical issues with conventional meat. Messages about the environment and animal welfare may be more effective marketing strategies in India compared to China and the USA.

Whilst there were substantial differences between countries in terms of demographic and attitudinal predictors of plant-based and clean meat acceptance, several factors recurred consistently across countries. Firstly, lower food neophobia and higher familiarity predicted acceptance of both plant-based and clean meat in every country. This is good evidence confirming the idea that increased familiarity with these new food technologies will likely cause increased willingness to eat them ( Bryant and Barnett, 2018, p. 12). This seems to be the case across cultures, and likely means that acceptance will increase over time, as consumers become more familiar with the products.

Political orientation was also a consistent predictor of purchase likelihood across countries. We did not ask about political orientation in China, but in the USA and India, we consistently found that more liberal people reported a higher likelihood of purchasing plant-based and clean meat. This may be a result of left-leaning people placing higher value on universalism and benevolence, and a lower value on conformity and tradition ( Caprara et al., 2006, p. 16). It may also reflect the correlation between political conservatism and disgust sensitivity ( Inbar et al., 2012, pp. 539-540).

Conclusion

This study was the first to quantitatively compare consumer acceptance of plant-based and clean meat between the USA and Asia. Some research has compared acceptance across countries ( Surveygoo, 2018) and amongst Chinese consumers ( Bekker et al., 2017), though the studies were very limited in scope. As an exploration of consumer demand in China and India overall, the present study is limited by a highly skewed sample. However, as an exploration of consumer demand in the markets which will have access to plant-based and clean meat, this is the most comprehensive study to date exploring market demand in India and China.

There is room for more research exploring consumer acceptance of plant-based and clean meat in different countries. As we note, most surveys have differed in their question wording, response options, and terminology, so their outcomes are often not comparable between countries. For this reason, future studies aiming to compare acceptance in unexplored countries might consider using the same survey instruments as previous studies, or distributing the same survey instrument in the USA for comparison. Given the high acceptance in China and India, further investigation into consumer acceptance there may be warranted.

Future research could also address the ways social and policy context might affect consumer attitudes toward clean and plant-based meat. One example is exploring how consumer perceptions change as clean meat products come to market, and come out of the shadows of being perceived as a mysterious future technology. This could also be a fertile area for research exploring what role regulation plays in individuals' judgements of food safety. Research might also explore the extent to which clean meat enthusiasts are "reluctant omnivores"-i.e., consumers who recognize the moral arguments for vegetarianism, but still want to eat meat regardless. Given that clean meat is most appealing to meat-eaters, this may likely be the case.

Whilst there are a multitude of unexplored factors which could affect consumer acceptance of clean and plant-based meat, this study has demonstrated the importance of China and India as potential future markets. All three markets are substantial, with consumers in China and India showing even more initial interest than the US. These findings indicate that consumer demand in the three most populous countries will be ready when producers begin supplying these markets.

Data Availability

The data generated for this study can be found at the OSF: https://osf.io/gav7z/.

Author Contributions

CB, KS, NP, and VD: conceptualization and funding application; CB, KS, NP, VD, and BT: research design and survey instrument; CB: ethics application and writing manuscript; BT: translation; KS: data collection; NP and CB: data analysis; KS, NP, and VD: editing manuscript.

Funding

Funding for this project was granted by the Animal Advocacy Research Fund, which aims to support research that contributes to an understanding of effective animal advocacy. The researchers are funded by the Economic and Social Research Council CB and The Good Food Institute KS and VD.

Conflict of Interest Statement

CB is the Director of Social Science at the Cellular Agriculture Society, which aims to promote cellular agriculture. KS (Senior Consumer Research Scientist), VD (Managing Director for India), and NP (Research Fellow) are employed by/associated with The Good Food Institute, which aims to promote plant-based and clean meat. BT is a Research Fellow at The Good Food Institute, and consults for the Open Philanthropy Project.

Acknowledgments

We would also like to thank Maria Chen of the University of British Columbia for her help with translations, and Jo Anderson of Faunalytics for her help with analysis advice.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00011/full#supplementary-material

References

Johnson, T. P. (1998). Approaches to equivalence in cross-cultural and cross-national survey research. ZUMA-Nachrichten Spezial 3, 1-40.
Google Scholar
Kotrlik, J. W., and Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research: determining appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research. Inform. Technol. Learn. Perform. J. 19, 43-50.
Google Scholar
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Wild, F., Czerny, M., Janssen, A. M., Kole, A. P. W., Zunabovic, M., and Domig, K. J. (2014). The evolution of a plant-based alternative to meat. From niche markets to widely accepted meat alternatives. Agro Food Ind. Hi Tech. 25, 45-49.
Google Scholar
Wilks, M., and Phillips, C. J. (2017). Attitudes to in vitro meat: a survey of potential consumers in the United States. PLoS ONE 12:e0171904. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171904

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Survey of Consumer Perceptions of Plant-Based and Clean Meat in the USA, India, and China

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Recent years have seen increasing interest in research on consumer acceptance of clean meat. Whilst some consumers are enthusiastic about the prospect of reducing the health risks, environmental harms, and animal welfare implications associated with conventional meat production, others have concerns about the product's taste, price, safety, and naturalness.

# data[].attributes.headline
TVP and Responsible Consumption (SDG 12)

# data[].attributes.subject
TVP and Responsible Consumption (SDG 12)

# data[].attributes.body
While SDG 12 directly addresses responsible consumption and production patterns, which includes reducing food waste and promoting sustainable practices, the use of TVP in a diet aligned with sustainable and responsible consumption.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sergiy Smetana, a,⁎ Dusan Ristic, a, b Daniel Pleissner, c, d Hanna L. Tuomisto, e, f, g Oleksii Parniakov, h and Volker Heinz a

Highlights

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.

Keywords: Meat substitutes, Meat alternatives, Alternative protein sources, Environmental impact, Life cycle assessment, LCA

Abstract

The modern food system is characterized with high environmental impact, which is in many cases associated with increased rates of animal production and overconsumption. The adoption of alternatives to meat proteins (insects, plants, mycoprotein, microalgae, cultured meat, etc.) might potentially influence the environmental impact and human health in a positive or negative way but could also trigger indirect impacts with higher consumption rates. Current review provides a condensed analysis on potential environmental impacts, resource consumption rates and unintended trade-offs associated with integration of alternative proteins in complex global food system in the form of meat substitutes. We focus on emissions of greenhouse gases, land use, non-renewable energy use and water footprint highlighted for both ingredients used for meat substitutes and ready products. The benefits and limitations of meat substitution are highlighted in relation to a weight and protein content. The analysis of the recent research literature allowed us to define issues, that require the attention of future studies.

Keywords: Meat substitutes, Meat alternatives, Alternative protein sources, Environmental impact, Life cycle assessment, LCA

Graphical abstract

1. Introduction

Food production is one of the most environmentally impactful fields of human activities, with farming activities responsible for 61-81% of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE), 79% of acidification and 95% of eutrophication of food-related impacts ( Poore and Nemecek, 2018). The need to nourish 10 billion people by 2050 and increase calorific energy supply from 30 to 45 exajoules ( Bodirsky et al., 2020) challenges the conventional high-calorie diets of high-income countries, which considerably rely on highly processed and animal-derived products ( Clark et al., 2018). Further reliance on the business-as-usual approach for feeding the world population would result in the exhaustion of natural resources and almost double overweight and obesity rates ( Bodirsky et al., 2020). Meat production is often accused of a large share of environmental impacts (e.g., livestock emits 65 Tg N yr −1, equivalent to one-third of current human-induced N emissions ( Uwizeye et al., 2020). In case the tendencies of meat consumption remain, it is also predicted that by 2030 it will be responsible for 37% and 49% of the GHG budget allowable under the 2°C and 1.5°C targets, respectively ( Harwatt, 2019). Therefore, it is envisioned that in order to keep within the sustainability targets, diets should change in the direction of meat reduction by more than 50% and plant food consumption increasing by more than 100% ( Willett et al., 2019). Such extreme conclusions are associated with the high environmental impacts of animal production chains. Even thought, animal-derived products supply only 17% of global food and around 40-58% of proteins ( González et al., 2020), animal production is responsible for an unproportionally large share of environmental impacts. Animal agriculture occupies 77% of all agricultural lands, 30% of all water resources, and 12-20 % of human-induced GHGE ( González et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2021). Furthermore, animal manure is responsible for the eutrophication impacts, which are especially deterministic on a regional scale ( Wowra et al., 2021).

Despite having a high environmental impact, animal-derived products play an important economic and cultural role in society ( Cheah et al., 2020; Milford et al., 2019). According to the statistical and market analysis data, the value of the global market is approximated to be more than 1 trillion USD, with the US market covering the biggest part of 838 million USD1 and the value of the meat industry is expected to grow 20% more till 2025. Besides traditional and economic reasons, meat is a highly valuable source of nutrients ( de Smet and Vossen, 2016; Hyland et al., 2017). The importance of meat in current diets is hard to overestimate. Meat is a major source of proteins (28 g of protein per capita daily) and calories (30%) in the current diet of Europeans ( Bonnet et al., 2020). It is also demonstrating a rather rapid increase in consumption rates in the last 20 years. However, such a rapid increase would risk exposing the future generations to serious consequences of resource depletion and environmental destruction. Vegetarian and vegan diets, indicated as less environmentally impacting ( Fresán and Sabaté, 2019; Rosi et al., 2017), are becoming more popular. However, vegetarians and vegans represent only about 5% of the global population, while the biggest part considers themselves flexitarians, who occasionally consume meat ( Kemper, 2020).

Meat products play an important role in society delivering proteins, essential amino acids and microelements ( Bohrer, 2017). Meat and animal-derived products play a determining role in the sustainability of diets, challenging the need for future diets to have low environmental impacts ( Willett et al., 2019). The major problem of meat consumption is connected not with the fact of consumption itself, but rather with the tremendous rates of overconsumption. Consumption of meat, especially processed red meat, has been clearly correlated with cancerogenic risks and metabolic diseases ( Domingo and Nadal, 2017; Lippi et al., 2016; Deoula et al., 2020). It should be indicated that type of meat and type of processing (red versus white, more processed versus less processed), as well as human lifestyle, clearly influence the health risks associated with meat product consumption ( Domingo and Nadal, 2017; Lippi et al., 2016). For example, there are quite a lot of synergetic and antagonistic effects between consuming meat products and nutrients. Thus, consumption of foods rich in fiber, vitamins C, D, and E, calcium, and selenium could offset the negative carcinogenic impacts of meat production ( Sasso and Latella, 2018). In many cases, reducing the amount of consumed red meat to 25-70 g per day should eliminate these risks ( González et al., 2020; Sasso and Latella, 2018). Currently, people in Western countries are consuming five times more meat than 20 years ago, with consumption rates being eight times higher than in developing countries ( González et al., 2020). Such rates of overconsumption and overproduction not only lead to obesity, high blood pressure, and increased carcinogenic risks but also to increased environmental impacts. In order to transform the food system into a healthy state (both in terms of nutrition and environmental impact), consumers seek more and more options to enjoy the taste of meat without negative environmental and health consequences.

Meat substitution as a concept is still rather blurry, which might relate to the historical development of the need to supply proteins and later to substitute meat. It is necessary to outline the terms used for the substitutes for meat products. "Meat alternative" is a general term, indicating any source of protein (plant, animal, fungi, or microalgae) that can be used as a replacement for the meat in the meal ( Clark and Bogdan, 2019). The term is closely related to the term "alternative protein" and refers mostly to the need to supply proteins and does not include the requirements for precisely mimicking all the nutritional and textural properties ( Grossmann and Weiss, 2021). "Meat analog" or "meat substitute" is a more precise term, referring to the products that mimicking meat functionality in terms of processing, nutritional, and sensory attributes ( Dekkers et al., 2018; McClements and Grossmann, 2021). Meat analogs are often attributed only to plant biomass as a structural basis and texturized vegetable protein (TVP) technologies, leading to the assumption that such products have beneficial compositions of essential amino acids, low saturated fat, and are cholesterol-free ( Samard and Ryu, 2019). However, such attribution does not cover several meat analogs on the market (insect, microalgae, and other meat-based) ( Grossmann and Weiss, 2021). "Meat analog" is therefore determined as a quite complex range of products, which should be further differentiated according to the product's intended application (processing functionality) into: (1) meat analogs mimicking whole muscle tissue, (2) meat preparation analogs mimicking fragmented whole muscle tissue (e.g., minced meat); and (3) processed meat analogs mimicking processed meat products (e.g., sausage) ( McClements et al., 2021). This review will account for the potential variations in the level of processing of meat substitutes but will rely on "meat analogs" and "meat substitute" as interchangeable terms referring to physically, enzymatically, or biologically structured meat imitates composed of proteins, fats, carbohydrates, and other substances originated from non-animal sources and less common animal species.

Historically, the substitution of different protein sources for meat followed a few main criteria. The first criterion is associated with local or regional abundance; however, this factor was already considered important prior to the progress of globalization. Availability of local biomass, rich in proteins, resulted in the development of tofu, tempeh, fermented breadfruit products, jackfruit, oncom, seitan, mushrooms (e.g., Fistulina hepatica, Laetiporus, Lyophyllum decastes, known as meat mushrooms), paneer, parmesan and other protein cheeses, and insects as products substituting for less available and more expensive meats ( Fig. 1 ). However, globalization increased the availability of meat in many regions of the world, rising the concern about the need to have lower meat consumption and a more balanced diet. Meat availability triggered new criteria for meat substitutes concerning replicability of texture and imitation of meat taste, along with the requirements for improved sustainability. Such requirements triggered the development of new processing technologies aiming for the mimicking of meat texture ( Grossmann and Weiss, 2021; McClements et al., 2021; McClements and Grossmann, 2021) and even the replication of meat itself in controlled conditions ( Kang et al., 2021). And while the criteria associated with abundance, economic, social feasibility, and techno-functional soundness are well assessed and described in scientific literature e.g., ( Dekkers et al., 2018; Siegrist and Hartmann, 2019; van der Weele et al., 2019), assessments of the sustainable impacts (especially environmental) of meat alternatives from a holistic perspective are rather sporadic. Therefore, the aim of the review is to systematize the latest available knowledge on the resource demands and environmental footprints of meat substitutes and analogs.

2. Methods

As the review was oriented on the analysis of recent research trends, it was conducted using the Google Scholar database for the studies published last decade (till 2022). However, a few other studies were also included as they were crucial for the development of some aspects of the research trends. The search of the papers was structured into two phases using two different sets of keywords. The first was aimed at the determining studies dealing with meat substitutes (including production of raw materials) and the second set of selected articles dealt with Life Cycle Assessment, environmental impact, and footprint.

Studies, dealing with meat substitutes, were selected by applying the keywords "meat" and "protein" plus "substitute", "analog". Such a search yielded around 3800 articles. Further inclusion of terms such as "LCA" or "life cycle assessment" or "environmental impact" or "carbon footprint" further limited the number of studies to around 100, from which only 81 studies were published in the last decade.

The review was limited to the original studies published in scientific journals and available in English. Further the title, abstract, and results sections of the articles were analyzed for the availability of quantified data on resource demand and environmental footprints. The analysis narrowed down the articles used in this review to 64 sources, but it also included additional highly referenced studies from older periods. The information was then retrieved for further analysis in the review.

3. Environmental impact and resource use of alternative protein sources

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 ( Grossmann and Weiss, 2021). Electrospinning is another potential technology for the formulation of textures on nanofiber level ( Fonmboh et al., 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 ( Pietsch et al., 2019), proteins and hydrocolloid mixtures ( Kim et al., 2017), and shear cell technology ( Cornet et al., 2021). It should be noted that the last technologies currently are mostly applicable on pilot scale only ( He et al., 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 CO ₂eq. kg −1 for grains (beans) and flours; 0.7-3.3 kg CO ₂eq. kg −1 for protein concentrates; 1.8-13.0 kg CO ₂eq. kg −1 protein for isolates (and proteins) ( Table 1 ). Land use impacts also demonstrate similar tendency: 2.0-5.5 m ², 3.2-20.8 m ², and 5.8-34.7 m ² 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 ( Heusala et al., 2020b; Saerens et al., 2021; Smetana et al., 2021).

Table 1

Product categories

Impact categories

Grains (raw materials)

Flour

Concentrates

Isolates and proteins

Cereals (wheat, oats)

GHGE, kgCO ₂ eq.

0.3-1.0 1,2

0.5 ¹

3.3 1,2

2.1-8.8 1,2

LU, m ² a

2.0-5.5 1,2

2.0 ¹

3.2 1.2

8.6-33.5 1,2

Legumes (soy, pea, lupin)

GHGE, kgCO ₂ eq.

0.2-0.6 ²

0.7-2.1 3,*

1.1-2.0 ²
0.7-1.6 ³

1.8-13.0 1,2
1.8-5.8 ³

LU, m ²

3.0 ²

n/a

8.0-20.8 ²
8.2-11.2 ³

13.3-34.7 ²
5.8-12.6 ³

Legumes are the most frequently used raw material for the formation of meat substitute structures ( Curtain and 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 ( Fresán et al., 2019; Heusala et al., 2020b; Lie-Piang et al., 2021). Similarly, water and fossil energy demand can be reduced to 0.7-10.2 % if mild fractionation methods are applied ( Heusala et al., 2020b; Lie-Piang et al., 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 ( Fulton et al., 2019), and it can be expected that the GHGE impacts of nut-based products will be in the range of 2.1 kg CO ₂eq. kg −1 ( Fresán et al., 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 CO ₂eq. kg −1 protein ( Heusala et al., 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 CO ₂eq. kg −1 ( Fresán et al., 2019) then the addition of animal-derived products (e.g., eggs) increases the impact to 2.7 kg CO ₂eq. kg −1 ( Fresán et al., 2019). However, the increase in impact would depend on the amount added ( Table 2 ). 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 CO ₂eq. kg −1, energy use to 53.98 MJ kg −1, land use to 1.6-3.7 m ²a eq. kg −1, water footprint to 9.73 liter eq. kg −1 ( Heller and Keoleian, 2018; Khan et al., 2019). "Impossible burger" (based on soy protein concentrate) has increased water consumption to 106.8 liter eq. kg −1 ( Khan et al., 2019). Even higher rates of water footprint are indicated for the average plant-based meat substitute in scope of 3.8 m ³ kg −1, which might be connected with the use of isolates, which are reported to have high water footprint (38.95 m ³ kg −1) ( Berardy et al., 2015). Therefore, the impact of meat substitutes is determined by the impact of the main ingredients in the matrix mixtures.

Table 2

Impact categories

GHGE, kgCO2eq.

LU, m²

WF, L

NRE, MJ

Impact values

2.1 ¹
3.1-4.0 ⁴
1.3-2.4 ⁶
2.0-13.0 ⁷
1.5-2.8*, 7
22.4 ⁸
0.5-1.7 9,10
7.0 ¹¹

1.6-3.7 ⁴
2.5-6.5 ⁹
0.4-3.9 ¹⁰
3.5 ¹¹

9.7 ⁴
106.8 ⁴
3800.0-38950.0 5,*
12100.0 ⁸
17.0-70.0 ⁹
180.0 ¹¹

54.0 ⁴
384.4 ⁸
6.8-15.8 ⁹
4.4-17.7 ¹⁰

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 CO ₂eq. per kg of product ( Mejia et al., 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 CO ₂eq. kg −1 product or 4.3-8.0 kg CO ₂eq. kg −1 protein ( Detzel et al., 2021), as well as ready for consumer handling tofu: 2-13 kg CO ₂eq. kg −1 protein ( Mejia et al., 2018). 1 kg of cooked pea meatballs produced in Germany were characterized with 22.35 kg CO ₂eq., 1,698.6 points land use, 384.42 MJ energy use, 12.1 m ³ deprived water scarcity, and 0.013 kg Peq. freshwater eutrophication kg −1 protein ( Saget et al., 2021), with major impact on resource use (31-85% depending on the category) coming from consumer's cooking. Van Mierlo et al. in their study ( van Mierlo et al., 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 kgCO ₂eq./kg for climate change; 2.52-6.51 m ² per year and kg for land use; 0.017-0.07 m ³ 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 ( Smetana et al., 2021) and designing similar production conditions ( Saerens et al., 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 CO ₂eq. (pea-based from supermarket), 0.19 kg CO ₂eq. (soy-based from supermarket), 0.06-0.1 kg CO ₂eq. (pilot produced soy-based), 0.08-0.1 kg CO ₂eq. (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 m ²org.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 CO ₂eq. kg −1, water use: 0.18 m ³ kg −1 and land use: 3.5 m ²org.arable kg −1 ( Goldstein et al., 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 ( Goulding et al., 2020; Hadjikakou et al., 2019). A recent study ( Fiala et al., 2020) indicated that red meat (beef) can be sustainably replaced by local wild red deer (6.9 kg CO ₂eq. 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 CO ₂eq. kg −1 of meat ( Fiala et al., 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 CO ₂eq and 2.1 kg CO ₂eq. kg −1 meat respectively) ( Ziegler et al., 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. ( Ingram et al., 2021). At the same time, the removal of wild animals from the food system (often interlinked with rural areas ( Bélanger and Pilling, 2019)) and their replacement with conventionally produced meat could result in tremendous negative environmental consequences associated with land use change and biodiversity loss ( Booth et al., 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 CO ₂eq. kg −1 meat or 51.4-83.2 kg CO ₂eq. kg −1 protein ( Cesari et al., 2018; Jiang et al., 2020), while ostrich farming could be less impactful than poultry production (impact of 1.68 kg CO ₂eq. kg −1) ( Ramedani et al., 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 CO ₂eq. kg −1 protein) is similar to that of poultry meat (∼59 kg CO ₂eq. kg −1 protein) ( Poore and 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 et al., 2020). However, if the impact of bottom trawling is considered, then the impact increases dramatically due to the increased demand for energy ( Sala et al., 2022) and impact on habitat change ( Sala et al., 2021).

Dairy-based texturized meat substitutes (e.g., "Valess"), while on the market, are poorly assessed in environmental studies. The LCA study of Smetana et al., the only relatively recent study with dairy-based meat substitute ( Smetana et al., 2015), indicates the impact in the scope of 4.38-4.95 kg CO ₂eq. kg −1 and 3.32-3.41 m ² kg −1 year −1, 48.8-59.1 MJ kg −1, which corresponds well to older approximations of 3.8-6.3 kg CO ₂eq. kg −1, 2.9-3.8 m ² kg −1 year −1, 55.5 MJ kg −1 ( Blonk et al., 2008; Head et al., 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 ( Post et al., 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 ( Smetana et al., 2015), whereas other studies are based on the currently commonly used cell-culturing systems ( Mattick et al., 2015; Sinke et al., 2023; Tuomisto et al., 2022). Smetana et al. ( Smetana et al., 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 ( Kang et al., 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; Mattick et al., 2015). Mattick et al. ( Mattick et al., 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 ( Mattick et al., 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 ( Alexander et al., 2017; Rubio et al., 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 ( Caporgno and Mathys, 2018; Postma et al., 2017). Advantages of microalgal cultivation such as reduced use of arable land ( Postma et al., 2017), use of waste streams as nutrient sources ( Rashid et al., 2020), high productivity ( Vadlamani et al., 2019) and control of algal biomass composition ( Zarrinmehr et al., 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 ( Schade and Meier, 2019), as well as the source of nutrients, are considerably influencing the environmental impact ( Smetana et al., 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" ( Schade and 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 et al. 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) ( Smetana et al., 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 ( Thielemann et al., 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 et al. investigated the environmental impact of C. vulgaris and Arthrospira platensis biomass production under different culture configurations ( Deprá et al., 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 CO ₂eq., respectively. The production of A. platensis in the raceway pond resulted in 100.9 kg CO ₂eq. The second largest contribution to the environmental impact comes from the applied nutrients (N and P). For instance, Herrera et al. 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 ( Herrera et al., 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 et al. investigated a system where Clostridium ljungdahli first converted CO ₂ into acetate under strict anaerobic conditions, coupled with a conversion of acetate and a nitrogen compound under aerobic conditions into Saccharomyces cerevisiae biomass ( Molitor et al., 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 H ₂, O ₂ and CO ₂ 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 CO ₂eq. kg −1 of dried product, which in combination with other impacts is 53-100% lower than animal-based protein sources ( Järviö et al., 2021). It has also been shown by Putri et al. that urban organic waste can be utilized as a nitrogen source in this approach ( Putri et al., 2019). Sillman et al. carried out a LCA to analyze environmental sustainability ( Sillman et al., 2020). In their LCA, they examine production as a nitrogen source, CO ₂ 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 CO ₂eq. and in the worst case to be around 4.7 kg CO ₂eq. 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 et al. 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 et al. reported a protein production of 1-2 g per L and day in their C. ljungdahli / S. cerevisiae system ( Rashid et al., 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 et al., ( Jungbluth et al., 2016) the processing and distribution of mycoprotein products doubles the environmental impact, especially the carbon footprint (from 2.44 to 4.99 kg CO ₂eq. per portion). Similar or even higher rates of impact are found in earlier studies. Study of ( Smetana et al., 2018, 2015) also indicated similar rates of impacts 5.55-6.15 kg CO ₂eq. 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 CO ₂eq., 4.4 m ² arable land and 2.2 m ³ water consumed ( Upcraft et al., 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 CO ₂eq. kg −1 proteins ( Upcraft et al., 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 ( Kim et al., 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 ( Kim et al., 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 ( Choi et al., 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 CO ₂eq. kg −1 protein extract ( Laroche et al., 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 ( Neville et al., 2017; Profeta et al., 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 ( Caparros Megido et al., 2016). Impacts of plant-meat hybrids range in the scope of 23.24-26.73 kg CO ₂eq. kg −1 proteins for GHGE; 180-232.4 MJ kg −1 proteins for non-renewable energy use (NRE); 23.2-26.7 m ²a kg −1 proteins for land use (LU) ( Baune et al., 2021), while the impacts of insect-plant and mycoprotein-plant hybrids range in the scope of 5.24-7.14 kg CO ₂eq. kg −1 proteins for GHGE; 46.74-83.8 MJ kg −1 proteins for NRE; 5.9-18.56 m ²a kg −1 proteins for LU ( Smetana et al., 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.

4. Comparative analysis of conventional and alternative protein sources impacts on environment

Plant-based foods in the human diet have twice as low GHGE (4,963 TgCO ₂eq.) as animal-based foods (9,923 TgCO ₂eq.) ( Xu et al., 2021). Furthermore, literature analysis reveals that on a protein basis, animal-based proteins have a considerably higher GHGE than proteins incorporated in plant-based meat substitutes: farmed fish (34%); poultry meat (43%), pig meat (63%), farmed crustaceans (72%), beef from dairy herds (87%), and beef from beef herds (93%). Therefore, it can be tempting to conclude that all plant-based proteins always lower the environmental impact of the meat substitutes as compared to different types of meat. However, processed plant-based meat substitutes have 1.6-7 times higher environmental impact than less processed plant protein sources (e.g., tofu, pulses, and peas) ( Santo et al., 2020). Detzel et al. in their research conducted in the scope of the Protein2Food project, identified that extruded plant-based meat substitutes in certain conditions could have a carbon footprint very similar to that of chicken meat, and in terms of resource demand (land, energy, and water), it could be even higher ( Detzel et al., 2021). The analysis of the recent literature confirmed such outcomes for most impact categories. Impacts of both animal and plant-based ingredients can vary widely, and there is a range in which results of impact assessment overlap, so it is difficult to set a base case that would be used for comparison in all cases ( Fig. 2 ). Beef is typically considered a product with a high environmental impact, higher than most meat substitute ingredients. Still, for some protein sources like microalgae, the analysis shows that, based on a weight basis, the GHGE and NRE demand of microalgae can be much higher than those of beef and other plant raw materials. When used as meat substitute ingredients, cell-based cultures and insects also tend to have greater environmental impact. On the basis of protein comparisons, it was identified that for most categories (except for water footprint) the range from most impactful to least impactful can be drawn: beef, microalgae, cell meat, poultry meat, insects, plants. Water footprint is not indicative, with results being different in a few orders, which could relate to the application of different assessment methodologies.

The incorporation of raw materials into ready-to-consume products shifts the relative impacts of meat substitutes. Plant-based extrudates (intermediate products) demonstrate low GHGE: 7.7-7.9 kg CO ₂eq. kg −1 having impact in lower range compared to chicken meat protein 7.7-11.3 kg CO ₂eq. kg −1 ( Detzel et al., 2021). Plant-based meat substitutes at the same time are significantly lower in GHG footprint (2-22.35 kg CO ₂eq. kg −1 protein) ( Detzel et al., 2021; Mejia et al., 2018; Saget et al., 2021) than hypothetical cultured meat (average 56 kg CO ₂eq kg −1 protein) ( Santo et al., 2020), however cultured meat has a potential to have lower impact than beef and farmed crustaceans ( Poore and Nemecek, 2018). Accounting for the land use change impact can increase the impact of chicken meat to 26.7-46.7 kg CO ₂eq for 1 kg of proteins ( Detzel et al., 2018). Similarly, a few-fold improvement potential was observed in several categories (terrestrial eutrophication, acidification, photochemical oxidant formation, particulate matter, ozone depletion) for plant fiber products compared to chicken meat. However, in categories of cumulative energy demand, blue water consumption, aquatic eutrophication, and land use - no statistical differences were observed ( Detzel et al., 2018).

Pea-based meatballs are demonstrated to be more environment beneficial on a weight basis (cooked product) and with the inclusion of nutritional properties in the comparative (functional) unit in all the impacting categories compared to beef meatballs ( Saget et al., 2021). The difference in environmental impact was at least two times lower for pea meatballs (for both weight and nutritional functional units) ( Fig. 3 ).

Meat-based foods had a higher environmental impact in terms of GHGE and land use than most products, with only a few cases falling in the upper impact ranges of mycoproteins and pea-based foods ( Fig. 3 ). Such differences are not that obvious when NRE and water footprints are compared. For the last two categories, mycoprotein and plant-based meat substitutes could have a higher impact than meat products on a kg basis. It is necessary to indicate that the meat-based category included pork and poultry impacts.

The analysis of the impacts of meat substitutes on a protein basis did not define the significant difference between plant- and mycoprotein-based products in all categories. It was not possible to draw conclusions due to the limited data available in some categories (NRE and water footprint). The availability of comparable data on the meat substitutes, which are often based on alternative and novel proteins (cultured meat), is quite limited. While some sources are well covered ( Fig. 4 ), such sources as microbial protein, cell meat, pea protein, nuts and microalgae are not well covered, and the spread of data for such sources is of low agreement.

5. Recommendations for further research

Meat analogs (substitutes) are the products of the co-evolution of consumer demand and processing technologies. Among the alternative proteins, meat analogs are among the most advanced products, relying on decades of research and development for the successful recreation of meat texture, taste, and appearance ( Grossmann and Weiss, 2021). Despite the extensive research and advances in processing technologies, there is a growing scope for the basic research associated with a wide range of alternative proteins coming on the market. While the environmental impacts of meat analogs are well documented for plant-based substitutes, they are frequently unknown or understudied for other sources (microalgae, mycoproteins, single-cell proteins, cultured meat). Further research covering a wide spectrum of data on the production and processing of alternative proteins, as well as any potential trade-offs between environmental, social and economic aspects, is urgently needed. Moreover, there is a need for holistic studies dealing with the clarification of potential trade-offs and synergies between the environmental impact and nutritional properties of meat substitutes. It is especially important because both aspects are not linearly dependent on each other. They also influence human health in direct (supply of nutrients and potential health risks) and indirect (impact on human health through the change of environmental properties) ways. Such complexities call for further studies dealing not only with characterization of environmental and health impacts of meat substitutes but also with relevant comparison with different animal-based products and meats.

Multiple food system analyses currently available ( Brouwer et al., 2020) do not provide a reliable model for higher-level system modelling. Some studies successfully reflect on indirect environmental, economic, and social factors, as well as resource and environmental impact trade-offs. A further model, based on interaction between the actors of a complex food system and able to define the second and third order impacts (e.g., rebound effects), would be required to predict the influence and role of meat substitutes in future diets and potential shifts with the inclusion of other protein alternatives.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The study is partially supported by the funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 861976 project SUSINCHAIN. This document reflects only the author's views and the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. It is also partially funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), in the frame of FACCE-SURPLUS/FACCE-JPI project UpWaste, grant numbers 031B0934 and Era-Net Cofund FOSC-ERA PRogram (Project Climaqua 2821ERA12).

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

References

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Vadlamani A., Pendyala B., Viamajala S., Varanasi S. High productivity cultivation of microalgae without concentrated CO[ ₂ input. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2019;7 doi: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.8b04094. [ CrossRef] Google Scholar]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meat substitutes: Resource demands and environmental footprints

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The modern food system is characterized with high environmental impact, which is in many cases associated with increased rates of animal production and overconsumption. The adoption of alternatives to meat proteins (insects, plants, mycoprotein, microalgae, ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Consumers' response to buying TVP (9/17)

# data[].attributes.subject
Consumers' response to buying TVP (9/17)

# data[].attributes.body
While ethical and environmental concerns drive consumers to accept more sustainable food options, such as plant-based substitutes, they may not necessarily translate into widespread acceptance of cultured meat. It appears that the environmental advantages of cultured meat alone may not be a strong enough motivator to outweigh the perceived risks or feelings of disgust associated with this novel technology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ethical concerns drive embrace of plant-based proteins — but not cultivated meat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ultimate success of cell-cultured meat depends on consumer acceptance. What factors are driving, or hindering, uptake? Consumer studies indicated at

# data[].attributes.body
Cultured meat production faces issues related to the culture medium, as fetal bovine serum is currently used, raising ethical concerns. Reproducing the taste and texture of traditional meat cuts remains a challenge, limiting variety. Furthermore, there are concerns about potential health effects, such as metabolic abnormalities and cancerous properties, due to rapid cell multiplication.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cell-based meat, also known as cultured meat, lab-grown meat, or clean meat, refers to meat produced from animal cells grown in a laboratory. It is widely believed that cell-based meat production is more environmentally friendly, ethical, and sustainable than traditional methods that involve raising and slaughtering animals. A 2021 report by United States-based analytics firm MarketsandMarkets estimated that the global cell-based meat market will reach $214 million by 2027 at a compound annual growth rate of 61.4 per cent. The report cites increasing concerns over animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and the growing demand for protein-rich foods as key drivers of market growth. The firm recently received approval from Singapore Food Agency for its 'chicken bites' made from cultured meat. It is a significant step toward the future of food.

Lab-grown meat is designed to appeal to meat eaters. As it becomes more widely available on the market, people will be able to consume meat without having to worry about the ethical and environmental implications of commercial farming.

Keeping health as a priority, there is a growing interest among nutrition researchers to evaluate the safety, sustainability, and nutritional quality of this 'unnatural' meat. Scientists are still learning about the subject. Let's look at what we know about cultured meat and its possible effect on the environment and human health.

What good we are getting?

A recent study published by Switzerland-based research publisher Frontiers mentions the environmental impacts of cell-based meat production. According to the study, it could reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by up to 78 per cent and land use by up to 99 per cent. Another study by ACS Publications said that cell-based meat production could reduce GHG emissions by up to 96 per cent and land use by up to 99 per cent compared to traditional beef production.

Since cell-based meat is produced in a controlled environment, it carries a much lower risk of pathogen contamination than traditional meat. A team of researchers published a report in ScienceDirect in 2018, which says that cell-based meat production could reduce the risk of contamination by bacteria such as E. coli and Salmonella. This would largely be due to the elimination of animal slaughter and reliance on antibiotics in animal husbandry. Additionally, cell-based meat can be produced with lower levels of saturated fat, making it a healthier option. Moreover, producing cultured meat requires little to no land and water, making it sustainable as well.

Lab-grown meats are free of growth hormones as well. Commercial livestock factories use these hormones to expedite the growth of farm animals. Their excess use has harmful health outcomes. A European Union-appointed research committee examined six growth hormones used in raising cattle. It concluded that the growth hormones had "developmental, neurobiological, genotoxic, and carcinogenic effects."
Also read: Lab grown, planet-friendly meat is here. But are we ready for it?
Potential challenges

The possible negative health effects of cultured meat and its lack of variety present a multi-faceted challenge. Most consumers prefer natural products and reject foods derived from unnatural sources.

Researchers say that coming up with the appropriate culture medium for producing lab-grown meat remains a challenge. Fetal bovine serum is currently used as the culture medium. But that is derived from the blood of a dead calf, which is expensive and the process contradicts the ethical standards of lab-grown meat. Scientists have not yet developed true muscle with an organised network of blood vessels. Consequently, consumers have difficulty enjoying different cuts of meat. We're still a long way from reproducing the original flavour and taste of meat derived from different species.

Lab-grown meats are new, and the health outcome is still unknown. In a recent review, Sghaier Chriki and Jean-François Hocquette mentioned that due to rapid cell multiplication, dysregulation - a type of metabolic abnormality - can develop in the cell linings of cultured meat. The authors pointed out that these cell linings might possess cancerous properties, and consuming them may have negative consequences on the human body, with the exact effects remaining unknown.

Cultured meat can be the food of the future. It is free of antibiotics, germs, and doesn't emit GHGs. If commercialised effectively, it can feed the masses. The nutritional profile of these meats can also be tweaked to a healthier version. However, their success depends on developing new cell lines and optimising growth conditions to produce meat that is more similar in texture, flavour, and nutritional composition to traditional meat.

Safety is the second most important criterion to consider. Hazards related to disrupted cell linings could cost human health. Rigorous testing and regulatory oversight are needed to meet high safety standards. While there is no doubt that cell-based meats will use fewer resources than traditional meat production, effective waste management is crucial to ensure true sustainability. Consumer acceptance will ultimately determine the success of cell-based meats. There will be a need to educate consumers about it and address all their concerns about safety, quality, and sustainability.
Subhasree Ray is Doctoral Scholar (Ketogenic Diet), certified diabetes educator, and a clinical and public health nutritionist. She tweets @DrSubhasree. Dr. Shoba Suri is a Senior Fellow with ORF's Health Initiative. Shoba is a nutritionist with experience in community and clinical research. Views are personal.
(Edited by Humra Laeeq)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is consuming lab-grown meat ethical, nutritious, safe? What the evidence says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lab-grown meats are new, and the health outcome is still unknown. Most consumers prefer natural products and reject foods derived from unnatural sources.

# data[].attributes.body
TVP is especially high in copper, folate, thiamin and magnesium. They'll be able to get 135 percent of their DV for copper, which your body needs for energy production and iron metabolism. It also has quite high protein.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In This Article

Textured vegetable protein, or TVP, is often used as a meat replacement in vegetarian dishes. TVP is made of soybeans, but it is processed and usually sold as a dehydrated mix. It is also available to purchase in ready-to-eat blocks.

This meat alternative, as its' name suggests, is high in protein and provides dietary fiber. That being said, including TVP in the diet may not be ideal for some people.

Warning

TVP offers protein and fiber as well as other important vitamins and minerals, but you may want to avoid it if you have an allergy to soy.

In reference to soy protein, "texturized" means that the protein has been altered so that it has a similar texture to meat when eaten, according to the Food and Agriculture Association of the United Nations. TVP is made from defatted soy flour, which is a byproduct of soybean oil production.

How TVP tastes depends on how you prepare it. TVP must first be rehydrated with hot water or another cooking liquid like broth. You can add spices and sauces to TVP to your liking. It takes little time to cook, and it's a great addition to recipes such as spaghetti sauce and chili.

According to the USDA, a 1/4-cup serving of TVP will give you:

​​​Total fat​​: A quarter cup of TVP has 0 grams of total fat

​​​Carbohydrates​: A quarter of TVP has 9 grams of carbs, which includes 5 grams of fiber and 2 grams of naturally occurring sugars.

​​​Protein​​: A quarter of TVP has 13 grams of protein.

Vitamins, Minerals and Other Micronutrients

A 1/4-cup serving of fine-grain TVP has:

1. It Has Important Vitamins and Minerals

TVP is especially high in copper, folate, thiamin and magnesium. You'll get 135 percent of your DV for copper, which your body needs for energy production and iron metabolism, per the National Institutes of Health (NIH.)

You'll get 23 percent of your DV for folate, which is needed for brain and nervous system health, per the NIH. A serving of TVP will give you 18 percent of your DV for thiamin, which is used by the body for cellular energy, according to the NIH.

Magnesium, a trace mineral, is used by the body for muscle and nerve function, and it helps regulate blood sugar levels and blood pressure, per the NIH. You'll get 17 percent of your DV for magnesium from TVP.

Including TVP in your diet will give you more potassium, as a 1/4-cup serving has 643 milligrams, which is 14 percent of your DV. The body needs potassium for kidney and heart function, muscle contraction and nerve transmission, according to the NIH.

You'll also get some i ron, with the same serving 15 percent of your DV. Iron is used to make hemoglobin, a protein found in blood cells that transports oxygen from the lungs to all other parts of the body, per the NIH.

TVP serves as a rich source of carbohydrates: One serving has 9 grams of total carbs. Carbs break down to provide energy for the body, and the nutrient plays a role in your brain, muscles and kidney health, according to the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

According to the USDA 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 45 to 65 percent of your daily calories should come from carbs. What's more, TVP has 5 grams of fiber, which helps regulate blood sugar levels and aids digestion, according to the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

TVP is a good source of protein, providing 13 grams, or 26 percent of your DV. Nearly every tissue and organ in the body uses protein to function, including your muscles and skin, according to the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Adults over age 30 should aim to eat 46 to 56 grams of protein per day, per USDA guidelines.

4. It's Associated With a Lower Disease Risk

Many people wonder if eating TVP can help prevent cancer or lower the risk of other conditions. TVP is made from soy protein, which has been linked to a lower risk of breast cancer, according to the Mayo Clinic.

Still, more research is needed to determine whether TVP can affect breast cancer risk.

Eating soy has also been associated with a lower risk of heart disease, per May 2017 research in the ​European Journal of Preventative Cardiology.​ A diet rich in soy has also been associated with lower cholesterol and triglyceride levels, according to a December 2016 review in the journal ​Nutrients​.

Can TVP Be Bad for You?

Though TVP is plant-based, it's not necessarily good for everyone. For example, TVP poses health risks for people who are allergic to soy, as soy is the main ingredient.

According to the Mayo Clinic, soy allergies are common, and may cause:

Tingling in the mouth

Hives, itching or scaly skin (eczema)

Swelling of the lips, face, tongue and throat, or other body parts

Wheezing, a runny nose or difficulty breathing

Abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea or vomiting

Skin redness (flushing)

In severe cases, anaphylaxis

Many people also wonder if TVP is bad for you because it has MSG in it. Some people have anecdotally reported symptoms like gas, diarrhea and bloating from eating MSG. But, no definitive evidence has shown a correlation between MSG and these or any other symptoms or health conditions, according to the Mayo Clinic.

Plain TVP does not have added flavors or colorings and can be stored in an air-tight container for up to a year. Dry TVP must be reconstituted in water before use, according to Bob's Red Mill, a manufacturer of TVP.

1. Boil 1 cup of water or broth and

2. Combine your boiled liquid with 1 cup of dry TVP.

A cup of dry TVP should yield 2 cups of meat substitute. You can add TVP to recipes like:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP) Healthy? Everything You Need to Know | Livestrong.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Textured vegetable protein, or TVP, is used as a meat substitute in recipes. TVP may have benefits, but there are also health risks for those allergic to soy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Expectations of reduced environmental pollution by TVP

# data[].attributes.subject
Expectations of reduced environmental pollution by TVP

# data[].attributes.body
There is relatively less environmental pollution caused by TVP intake than environmental pollution caused by killing animals for meat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HEALTH

Energy: texturized vegetable protein is good for / helps aid digestion, improve irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), improve symptoms of menopause, reduce blood sugar levels

Longevity: texturized vegetable protein is good for / helps improve bone density, lower cholesterol, lower high blood pressure, reducing the risk of developing breast cancer

Appearance: texturized vegetable protein is good for / helps build muscle, weight loss

Texturized vegetable protein is...

ENVIRONMENT

Water footprint: likely low, it takes 2,145 liters of water to produce 1 kilogram of soybeans / 257 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of soybeans

Carbon footprint: low, 2.0 kg CO2e to produce 1 kilogram or 2.2 pounds of soybeans, a car driving equivalent of 5 miles or 8 kilometers

Destruction: moderate, the two top producing soya producing countries are the US and Brazil, together they produce about 64% of the world's supply, soya is Brazil's biggest export by value, there are serious concerns about how much of it is behind deforestation in the Amazon and surrounding regions, however most of the world's soya is fed to livestock, only 6% of it is eaten directly by humans, eating soy is much better for the environment than eating animal products, soya may also be planted on Amazon land previously deforested for cattle, be sure to buy organic, as pesticides contaminate soil, water, air, etc., for soy it is best to buy products sustainably grown and not products of Brazil

Texturized vegetable protein is...

Sustainable, unless soy is a product of Brazil (Amazon)

ANIMALS

Kills: none, texturized vegetable protein production does not require any animals to be killed

Harms: none, texturized vegetable protein production does not require any animals to be used

Indirectly kills or harms: none, no animals are indirectly killed or harmed from texturized vegetable protein production as long as toxic chemicals have not been used, be sure to buy Non-GMO/organic, as pesticides harm and kill wildlife and ecosystems by contaminating soil, water, air and plants that animals eat

Texturized vegetable protein is...

Harmful to wildlife and ecosystems unless organic

LABORERS

Health and safety: varies, overall, agriculture continues to be one of the most dangerous industries, farmworkers may be subject to dehydration, heat stroke, unprotected exposure to harmful, toxic chemicals and pesticides, unsafe machinery and clean drinking water may not always accessible

Living conditions: varies, laborers are often exploited, they may face tough working conditions including long hours in the sun and heat performing physically exhausting tasks, labor laws and rights may or may not be in place, even if worker protection exists, employer violations may go unreported, refugees and migrant workers are especially vulnerable to abuse and mistreatment, fearing consequences of job loss or deportation

Wages: varies, generally farmworkers earn meager wages, there are many cases of underpaid agricultural workers, wage theft and no overtime payment or benefits

Texturized vegetable protein...

May involve worker exploitation, laborer issues, human rights concerns

Is TVP nutritious?

Yes! TVP is high in protein, iron and contains all nine of the essential amino acids the human body needs to function.

Where is most TVP from?

Worldwide, the United States produces the most soy followed by Brazil, Argentina, China, India, Paraguay, Canada and Ukraine. In the United States Iowa reported the largest number of acres planted to certified organic soybeans followed by Minnesota and Michigan. 98% percent of soybean meal is used for animal feed (poultry, hogs and cattle mostly) and only 1% is used to produce food for people. Around 70% of soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef and aquaculture.

Other names for TVP are texturized vegetable protein, textured soy protein, TSP, soy meat and soya chunks.

TVP is gluten free.

Is TVP gluten free? Yes, TVP is gluten free. TVP does not contain gluten.

While celiac disease may not be as rampant as many marketing trends lead us to believe, you may have a gluten sensitivity...

Celiac and gluten sensitivity symptoms are similar and may include:

recurring abdominal pain

chronic diarrhea

constipation

tingling

numbness in hands and feet

chronic fatigue

joint pain

unexplained infertility

low bone density (osteopenia or osteoporosis)

There are hundreds of potential symptoms, many of which are also symptoms of other conditions.

Going gluten-free easier than ever with this: Gluten and Gluten Free Foods List

TVP is a common food allergen: soy.

Is TVP a common food allergen? Yes, TVP is a common food allergen: soy. Many people experience allergic reactions to TVP.

A group of the eight major allergenic foods, AKA the Big-8, include:

These foods account for about 90% of all food allergies in the United States.

Severe food allergies can be life threatening. Following ingestion of a food allergen, a person with food allergies can experience a severe, life-threatening allergic reaction called anaphylaxis.

Persons may still be allergic to and have serious reactions to foods other than the eight foods identified by the law.

Be aware of common dietary restrictions and food allergens with this: The Big 8 Most Common Food Allergens List

TVP likely has a low water footprint.

Does TVP have a high or low water footprint? TVP likely has a relatively low water footprint compared to other foods.

What is the water footprint of TVP? It takes 2,145 liters of water to produce 1 kilogram of soybeans / 257 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of soybeans (TVP is defatted soy flour).

Did you know that water is a finite, non-renewable resource?

We must do what we can to conserve fresh water and a major way to reduce needless water consumption is to change the way we eat. That's not to say we need to reduce our water intake...quite the opposite. It's important for our health to drink lots of water and eat foods that hydrate. The kind of water conservation we're talking about here is behind the scenes.

How much water does it take to produce an apple? A serving of rice? A steak dinner?

We need to be aware of "water footprinst". That is, the amount of fresh water utilized in the production or supply of goods we consume. As it turns out it takes significantly more water to yield foods that come from animals than foods that come from plants. Imagine how much water a cow needs to consume to generate a piece of beef. Not only how much water a single cow drinks, rather all the water that went into producing the crops that the cow ate.

Find out how much water your food consumes with this: Water Footprints of Foods and Ingredients List

TVP has a low carbon footprint.

Does TVP have a high or low carbon footprint? TVP likely has a relatively low carbon footprint compared to other foods.

What is the carbon footprint of TVP? It takes around 2.0 kg CO2e to produce 1 kilogram or 2.2 pounds of soybeans, a car driving equivalent of 5 miles or 8 kilometers.

Food not only has a water footprint but also a carbon footprint, known as CO2e, which stands for carbon dioxide equivalent. Since carbon measurements are a bit more difficult to comprehend, it is common to equate CO2e to the distance which a car drives in miles or kilometers.

When calculating carbon emissions, some factors may include...

farm equipment

animal feed production

hothouses (greenhouses)

food processing

packaging

transport

refrigeration

freezing

package waste and more

There are a number of steps we can take to reduce energy output. According to Oxford Martin School researchers, if the world went vegan, eliminating animal-derived products, it could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two thirds and avoid climate damages of $1.5 trillion.

But that's not all!

It's best to keep the following in mind when grocery shopping:

shopping locally reduces transportation emissions

food without packaging reduces waste as well as the carbon footprint

refrigerated and frozen foods increase carbon emissions

seasonal foods reduce carbon emissions from hothouses (greenhouses)

growing plant-based foods at home is the most environmentally sustainable method with zero carbon footprint

Find out how much carbon your food emits with this: Carbon Footprints of Foods and Ingredients List

TVP is sustainable (unless soy is from Brazil).

Overall, is TVP eco friendly? Is TVP sustainable?

TVP production is relatively sustainable unless soy is from Brazil.

Be sure to buy non GMO/organic, as toxic, chemical pesticides contaminate air, water, soil, etc. when using regenerative practices.

A 2018 Oxford University study - which is the most comprehensive analysis to date of the damage farming does to the planet - found that 'avoiding meat and dairy is the single biggest way to reduce your impact on Earth' as animal farming provides just 18% of calories but takes up 83% of our farmland.

Consuming animal products and byproducts is not environmentally friendly and is one of the worst things for the Earth. Not only is meat production wasteful, it causes enormous amounts of pollution. The industry is one of the biggest causes of climate change.

A 2010 United Nations report said that a global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world the worst impacts of climate change.

TVP is vegan.

Is TVP vegan? Yes, TVP is vegan. Texturized vegetable protein is made from soybeans and not an animal product or byproduct, therefore making it a vegan food.

Animals of factory farming are suffering. They live in horrific conditions that often include confinement, physical abuse and unnatural environments...so much so that they need to receive antibiotics to keep from getting ill or spreading disease. Growth hormones allow all kinds of animals to become fatter faster and live short lives.

Because we cannot see for ourselves how these animals live and what they endure does not mean it isn't happening. The meat, poultry and dairy industries do everything they can to distance us from knowing how our food comes to be in order to keep us in the dark about what we support each time we buy animal derived products and byproducts.

Go vegan for animals!

It's the best way to help animals and it's not as difficult as you may think. Speak for animals with your actions, for they cannot speak at all.

Going vegan is easier than ever, at a glance with this: Vegan and Non Vegan Foods List

tvp may have labor issues and human rights concerns.

Is TVP a product with laborer concerns?

At this time there have been no major concerns with soy production but that doesn't mean it isn't happening!

It's important to stay aware of human rights concerns and worker exploitation that may come with specific brands.

Did you know the single largest employer in the world is agriculture? The labor involved behind each and every product cannot go unrecognized.

Sadly, many labor concerns exist around the world in both developed and developing countries. We must be vigilant to ensure what we buy is not contributing to industries that are unfair to their valuable workers. Some known problems include workplace health and safety, child labor, gender inequality, inadequate pay, wage theft and exploitation. Workers can even experience harassment, humiliation and violence and unfair employers often fail to provide laborers with access to shade, drinking water, restrooms and breaks. Consequently, laborers can face nausea, dizziness, heat exhaustion, dehydration and heat stroke -the leading cause of farmworker death!

Such mistreatment is like modern day slavery. Workers are often afraid to report issues because they fear it will result in losing their jobs or deportation.

Fair trade organizations fight to ensure better social, environmental and economic standards.

We can improve people's lives with foods we eat every day simply by buying products that are certified fair trade.

Sources:
high protein textured vegetable protein Soy, Soy Foods and Their Role in Vegetarian Diets - NCBI Science Direct: texturized vegetable protein

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TVP | Texturized Vegetable Protein Benefits + Side Effects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Texturized vegetable protein benefits + side effects on health, environment, animals, laborers. Is TVP vegan? Sustainable? See pros and cons.

# data[].attributes.body
More than 345 million people face high levels of food insecurity in 2023. That is more than double the number in 2020. (file:///C:/Users/lee04084/Downloads/INSEA2023002.pdf )

# data[].attributes.headline
Our Global Diet and Its Impact on the Environment 

# data[].attributes.subject
Our Global Diet and Its Impact on the Environment 

# data[].attributes.body
The Lancet delves into the connections between food systems, diets, and environmental sustainability. It discusses the environmental benefits of plant-based diets and their potential to contribute to food security.

# data[].attributes.body
Many soybeans used for TVP are genetically modified (GMO). Some consumers prefer non-GMO or organic products, and TVP made from conventional soy may not meet these preferences.

# data[].attributes.body
Soy, a common source of TVP, is a top allergen. Individuals with soy allergies should avoid TVP made from soy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Textured vegetable protein, also known as TVP, is a meat substitute featured in many vegetarian products. You may also have noticed it on the shelves of supermarkets or health food stores.

Its unique texture and mild flavor make it a great addition to sauces, plant-based chili mixes, and veggie burgers. It's also used to bulk up and add extra protein to meat-based dishes.

Still, despite its widespread use, you may be unsure exactly what TVP is and how it may impact your health.

This article takes a look at what TVP is, how it's made, and whether it's good for you.

Despite what its name implies, textured vegetable protein is typically made from soybeans rather than vegetables.

It's produced during the process of making soybean oil. Once the oil is extracted from the soybeans, a high protein paste remains. This paste is pushed through a hot nozzle to form different shapes - such as nuggets, strips, or flakes - and then dehydrated.

Although TVP is most commonly made from soy, it can also be made from other ingredients, including:

Before using TVP, you need to rehydrate it with hot water or broth. Then, it's easy to use as a plant-based alternative to ground meat in dishes like meatballs, burgers patties, or chili.

Even if you don't follow a plant-based diet, you can still add TVP to your meals to add texture and nutrients.

Summary
TVP is typically made from soybeans during the process of making soybean oil. Rehydrate it before use and add to both vegetarian and meat recipes.

TVP is low in calories and rich in important nutrients like protein and fiber.

It also contains several other essential nutrients, including:

A 1/4-cup (17-gram) serving of dry TVP contains ():

TVP is loaded with copper, a mineral that plays a central role in iron metabolism and brain health ().

It's also high in folate, which is a water-soluble vitamin necessary for the production of DNA ().

Plus, it provides a hearty dose of magnesium in each serving, a mineral involved in more than 300 enzymatic reactions in your body ().

Summary
TVP is low in calories but high in protein, fiber, and several important vitamins and minerals.

Thanks to its impressive nutrient profile, TVP may offer several health benefits.

Rich in protein

TVP is a great source of protein, packing 9 grams into each 1/4-cup (17-gram) serving of the dry product ().

Protein plays a crucial role in many aspects of your health. It's especially important for ():

What's more, it can benefit weight loss, as it helps regulate your appetite and keeps you feeling full for longer ().

TVP can be particularly useful for those following a vegan and vegetarian diet who have difficulty getting enough plant-based protein ().

Good source of fiber

With 3 grams of fiber in every serving, TVP is an excellent way to bump up your fiber intake when added to your diet ().

Fiber slows the absorption of sugar in your bloodstream. This can help stabilize your blood sugar levels after you eat ().

It can also promote regularity, decrease your appetite, and help keep your cholesterol levels in check to support heart health ().

Additionally, fiber can enhance the health of your gut microbiome - the healthy bacteria in your gut - which can impact everything from digestive health to immune function ().

May support heart health

TVP is typically made from soybeans, which have long been studied for their speculated heart health benefits.

In particular, soy protein has been shown to reduce cholesterol and triglyceride levels, both of which are risk factors for heart disease ().

In fact, a review of 17 studies linked regular consumption of soy with a lower risk of heart disease and stroke ().

In another review, eating at least 25 grams of soy protein per day was found to decrease blood pressure levels in postmenopausal women ().

Summary
TVP is high in protein and fiber and could help support heart health.

Although TVP can be made from several different ingredients, it's typically made from soy.

Soy is one of the most common allergens. If you have a soy allergy, consuming soy-based products can cause serious side effects, including anaphylaxis, which can be life threatening ().

It's also worth noting that the majority of soy grown in the United States is genetically modified ().

Studies show that genetically modified foods are safe to eat. Still, some people choose to limit their intake of genetically modified ingredients due to concerns about the potential long-term effects on health ().

So, while it's fine to enjoy TVP from time to time, aim to pair it with other nutritious protein sources in your diet.

Summary
TVP is often made from soy, a crop that's often genetically modified and is a common allergen. Aim to pair TVP with other sources of protein in your diet.

TVP is a product made from soybeans. It's often used to enhance the texture and nutritional content of dishes.

In addition to being highly nutritious and rich in fiber and protein, it could also support heart health and protect against heart disease and stroke.

However, it's not suitable for those with an allergy to soy products and - like all other foods - should be enjoyed as part of a balanced, varied diet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article answers the question "What is TVP", also known as textured vegetable protein. You'll also learn about its benefits and downsides.

# data[].attributes.body
TVP contains phytic acid, which can inhibit the absorption of minerals like calcium, iron, and zinc. Some people may experience digestive discomfort when consuming TVP, particularly if it's not prepared properly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The effect of texturized vegetable protein from soy on nutrient digestibility compared to beef in cannulated dogs - PubMed

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Texturized vegetable protein from soy (TVP) is widely used in canned dog foods, but its nutritional value remains in doubt. This study compared apparent prececal and total intestinal digestibility when four canned diets containing reciprocal proportions of protein from TVP (0 to 57%) and from beef (…

# data[].attributes.body
TVP is rich in essential nutrients, including protein, fiber, vitamins, and minerals. It provides protein without the saturated fat and cholesterol found in animal products. Protein is crucial for tissue repair, immune function, and overall growth and development.
The fiber content in TVP can aid in digestive health, maintain healthy cholesterol levels, and contribute to the prevention of various chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Comprehensive Review
on the Role of Plant Protein
As a Possible Meat Analogue: Framing the Future of Meat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Animal proteins from meat and goods derived from meat
have recently
been one of the primary concerns in the quest for sustainable food
production. According to this perspective, there are exciting opportunities
to reformulate more sustainably produced…

# data[].attributes.body
TVP is a source of plant-based protein that can contribute to food security. It can be used as a meat substitute, providing protein in diets without relying on animal agriculture, which can have environmental and resource implications.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Goal 2 | Department of Economic and Social Affairs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

# data[].attributes.body
Plant-based alternatives are gaining momentum due to consumers tendency to reduce or avoid the consumption of animal-based products in their diets for environmental, ethical, or/ and health motives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About ScienceDirect
Shopping cart
Contact and
supportTerms and
conditionsPrivacy policy

# data[].attributes.body
It is anticipated to reach USD 2,697.3 million By 2032 at CAGR of 7.06% during the forecast period.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pune, April 13, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- According to a recent market study by Quince Market Insights, the global textured vegetable protein market size was valued at USD 1,375.1 million in 2022, and is anticipated to reach USD 2,697.3 million By 2032 at CAGR of 7.06% during the forecast period. The textured vegetable protein market includes the global trade of TVP and related products, including its production, distribution, and consumption. The production of TVP is mostly concentrated in countries such as the US, China, and India. These countries are major producers of soybean and wheat, which are the primary sources of TVP. The distribution of TVP products is facilitated by a well-established network of distributors and suppliers, including supermarkets, hypermarkets, and online retailers. In contrast, the consumption of TVP products is increasing, as customers seek healthy and sustainable protein alternatives to meat. The growing popularity of vegan and vegetarian diets is also fueling the development of the TVP market.

Download Sample PDF Brochure of Textured Vegetable Protein Market Size - and Global Analysis with Strategic Insights at: https://www.quincemarketinsights.com/request-sample-68886
The TVP market has been divided based on type, source, form, application, nature, end user, and region.
Find Out Further Industry Insights: Textured Vegetable Protein Market Some Significant Market Developments Considered in the Report:

September 2022: ADM, a global leader in alternative protein and nutrition products and solutions, increased production of textured soy protein at its extrusion facility in Serbia. The factory is set up to generate non-GMO soy proteins that are highly sought-after not only in Europe but also internationally.

September 2022: Cargill, a textured vegetable manufacturer introduced a new product to improve functioning and achieve a more meat-like texture: plant protein TEX PW80 M made from wheat and pea.
COVID-19 Impact on the Global Textured Vegetable Protein Market
As per the QMI team, the demand for textured vegetable protein has been moderate post the COVID-19 recovery. It is anticipated to grow at a high rate during the analysis period.

Many countries across the globe have enforced strict lockdown norms to control the spread of the pandemic, which is hampering all kinds of business activities. The COVID-19 pandemic had a mixed impact on the textured protein market. The pandemic had led to a boom in demand for plant-based food items, as consumers became more health-conscious and opted for protein-rich and plant-based food options, which had led to huge demand for textured protein as a meat substitute.
Global Textured Vegetable Protein Market Analysis by Region
The textured vegetable protein market is geographically segmented into North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, the Middle East and Africa, and South America. Among these regions, North America is projected to experience the highest growth rate during the forecast period. The rising number of vegan and vegetarian restaurants, as well as the increasing availability of vegan and vegetarian goods in supermarkets and grocery stores, has increased the demand for TVP. In North America, the West Coast of the US has the largest market for plant-based products. The Northeast also has a strong market, with New York being a significant player. In Canada, the industry is more evenly distributed, with the two largest markets being Ontario and Quebec.
Some Major Findings of the Textured Vegetable Protein Market Report Include:

Major global market trends and forecasts analysis along with a country-specific market analysis for up to 25 countries

An in-depth Textured Vegetable Protein Market analysis by the segments, along with an analysis of trend-based insights and factors

The major market players operating in the global textured vegetable protein market include Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (U.S), Cargill Inc (U.S), and Axiom Foods, Inc (U.S) among others.

Competitive benchmarking, product offering details, and growth strategies adopted by the leading market players, along with their major investments in the last five years

Key impact factor analysis across regions includes analysis, along with the drivers, restraints, opportunities, and challenges that are prevailing in the global textured vegetable protein market

Impact of COVID-19 on the global textured vegetable protein market

Inquiry Before Buying: https://www.quincemarketinsights.com/enquiry-before-buying/enquiry-before-buying-68886 Leading Companies & Their Analysis
The global textured vegetable protein market is highly competitive owing to a large number of industry players. The market provides various opportunities for new entrants due to changing consumer preferences and the easy availability of raw materials. Furthermore, major players engage in competitive strategies such as new product launches, joint ventures, strengthening of online presence, and capacity expansions.

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (Us)

Cargill Inc. (us)

Axiom foods, inc. (us)

Mgp ingredients (us)

Foodchem international corporation (china)

Dacsa group(spain)

Shandong yuxin biotechnology co., ltd. (china)

Linyi shansong biological products co., ltd (china)

Sotexpro (france)

Puris foods (u.s)

Dsm (netherlands)

Ingredion (u.s)

Roquette (france)

The scoular company (u.s)

Beneo (germany)

Sonic biochem (india)

Crown soya protein group company (china)

Gushen biotechnology group co. Ltd (china)

Living foods (india)

Blattmann (switzerland)

Market Segmentation Browse More Reports:
Meat Substitutes Market By Type (Textured Vegetable Protein, Tofu And Tofu Ingredients, Soya Products, Quorn, Seitan, Tempeh, Pea-Protein, Vales, Lupi, Risofu), By Source (Mycoprotein, Wheat Based, Soy Based, Others), By Category (Frozen, Refrigerated), By Region (North America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East, Rest of the World) - Market Size & Forecasting (2016-2028)

Global GMO Testing Market by Technology (Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), Immunoassay), by Trait (Stacked, Herbicide Tolerance, Insect Resistance), by Crop Tested (Potato, Corn, Soy, Cotton, Sugar Beet and Others), by Processed Food Tested (Food Additives, Confectionery & Bakery, Meat & Meat Products, Snacks & Breakfast Cereals and Others), by Region (North America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia Pacific, Middle East, Rest of the World) - Market Size & Forecasting (2016-2028)

Soy Protein Concentrate Market, by Form (Dry, Liquid), Function (Nutrients, Emulsifier, Fat and Water Absorption, Others), Application (Animal Feed, Meat Processing, Bakery and Confectionery, Others), and Regional (North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa, South America) Forecast, 2021-2030
About Quince Market Insights
Quince Market Insights is a global market research and consulting company publishing syndicate studies as well as consulting assignments pertaining to markets that promise high growth opportunities in strategic future. We analyse emerging trends in relatively nascent markets that promise high growth opportunities in future. We focus towards, precision research practices that provide accurate market estimations and forecasts. This helps our clients to make proper estimations with regards to demand analysis, regional growth, major competitors, and dynamics of the market.
Contact: Quince Market Insights Pune, Maharashtra 411028 Phone: APAC +91 706 672 4848 / US +1 208 405 2835 / UK +44 1444 39 0986 Follow US On Twitter | LinkedIn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP) Market Size Worth USD 2,697.3 million By 2032, Revenue Growth at 7.06% CAGR- Report by Quince Market Insights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The major market players operating in the global textured vegetable protein market include Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (U.S), Cargill Inc (U.S), and...

# data[].attributes.body
The number of chemicals used, high pressure and heat involved in the process of creation makes TVP a thermoplastic substance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP) or Textured Soy Protein (TSP) was one of the first commercially available meat alternatives for vegans across the globe. But what is TVP? Is it healthy? What does it taste like? Where can you buy it? How can you cook with it? Totally Vegan Buzz brings you the ultimate guide.
What is Textured Vegetable Protein?
TVP, also known as soy meat, chunks or granules, is a fat trimmed soy flour produced as a by-product from extracting soybean oil.

It is often used as a meat substitute as it is cost-effective, has a similar texture to animal meat and has the ability to absorb flavours easily.

The high protein content of TVP makes it a nutritious addition to a vegan or vegetarian diet.
What is the history of TVP?
TVP was invented by Archer Daniel Midland, an agricultural commodities and food processing company, in the year 1960. The company still owns the TVP name trademark.

Initially, TVP was created in rod shapes. However, it was not commercially successful at first.

By the year 1968 though, TVP's popularity started to rise, and begun being used in a variety of dishes. A further boost came when it was approved in school food lunch programs in 1971.
How is TVP made?
TVP is mostly factory-produced from soy flour, but is sometimes made from cotton seeds, wheat and oats.

The soy version is made with soybeans that are dehulled, grounded and then have the oil extracted.

Water is mixed with soy flour before heating at high temperatures and pressure inside an extruder.

The opening of the extruder varies, but in general is a plate with holes.

The heated mixture comes out of the holes, which is cut into small pieces by blades. The small pieces start to puff up as the pressure drops outside the extruder. These pieces of TVP are then either dried or baked.
What are the benefits of TVP?
Health benefits of TVP include

Fat free and offers complete protein
Is TVP healthy?
Easy to find in health stores and online

Comes is a variety of sizes, shapes and flavours

Affordable and has a long shelf life

TVP is considered a healthy option as it is made from soy, which is high in protein and other nutrients.

Many researches on soy products suggest that it helps reduce blood sugar levels in people with diabetes.

Also, consumption of TVP is linked to improvement of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), helpful in kidney diseases and in controlling high blood pressure, according to research.

TVP is also considered helpful in reducing the risk of developing breast cancer in some women.
What are the possible side-effects?
Since TVP is cheap, easy to cook and has a variety of health benefits, the global demand is on the rise.

According to a report by Future Market Insights, the global TVP market is projected to grow at a CAGR of 4.9% in the period 2018-2028.
How to cook with TVP?
Even though TVP is likely a safe food product, some argue it is unhealthy as it is not a natural product and is made through excessive processing.

The number of chemicals used, high pressure and heat involved in the process of creation makes TVP a thermoplastic substance.

TVP is a versatile ingredient that can be used as a meat replacement in a variety of vegan dishes like chili, tacos, burgers and burritos.

TVP is also used as a meat replacement in many dishes as a low cost high nutrition addition. Soy chunks and granules can be rehydrated by adding hot water and soaking to allow TVP to absorb the liquid.

Image: Kalhh / Pixabay

Where can you buy Textured Vegetable Protein?
As a rule of thumb, the larger the pieces, more water and more soaking time is needed for rehydration before usage.

TVP is nearly indistinguishable from animal meat post cooking & thus used as a meat replacement.

Image: Betta Foods

Would you eat Textured Vegetable Protein as a meat substitute? Tell us in the comments below!
TVP is sold in most health food stores in packaged form. It comes in either chunks or granules and the color ranges from golden brown to beige.

Some popular brands include Bob's Red Mill, Hoosier Hill Farm, Betta Foods, Wholesome Provisions and Clearspring Organic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP)? Everything you need to know about TVP | Totally Vegan Buzz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP) or Textured Soy Protein (TSP) was one of the first commercially available meat alternatives for vegans across the globe. But what is TVP? Is it healthy? What does it taste like? Where can you buy it? How can you cook with it? Totally Vegan Buzz brings you the ultimate guide.

# data[].attributes.body
Fat free and offers complete protein

Easy to find in health stores and online

Comes is a variety of sizes, shapes and flavours

Affordable and has a long shelf life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP) or Textured Soy Protein (TSP) was one of the first commercially available meat alternatives for vegans across the globe. But what is TVP? Is it healthy? What does it taste like? Where can you buy it? How can you cook with it? Totally Vegan Buzz brings you the ultimate guide.
What is Textured Vegetable Protein?
TVP, also known as soy meat, chunks or granules, is a fat trimmed soy flour produced as a by-product from extracting soybean oil.

It is often used as a meat substitute as it is cost-effective, has a similar texture to animal meat and has the ability to absorb flavours easily.

The high protein content of TVP makes it a nutritious addition to a vegan or vegetarian diet.
What is the history of TVP?
TVP was invented by Archer Daniel Midland, an agricultural commodities and food processing company, in the year 1960. The company still owns the TVP name trademark.

Initially, TVP was created in rod shapes. However, it was not commercially successful at first.

By the year 1968 though, TVP's popularity started to rise, and begun being used in a variety of dishes. A further boost came when it was approved in school food lunch programs in 1971.
How is TVP made?
TVP is mostly factory-produced from soy flour, but is sometimes made from cotton seeds, wheat and oats.

The soy version is made with soybeans that are dehulled, grounded and then have the oil extracted.

Water is mixed with soy flour before heating at high temperatures and pressure inside an extruder.

The opening of the extruder varies, but in general is a plate with holes.

The heated mixture comes out of the holes, which is cut into small pieces by blades. The small pieces start to puff up as the pressure drops outside the extruder. These pieces of TVP are then either dried or baked.
What are the benefits of TVP?
Health benefits of TVP include

Fat free and offers complete protein
Is TVP healthy?
Easy to find in health stores and online

Comes is a variety of sizes, shapes and flavours

Affordable and has a long shelf life

TVP is considered a healthy option as it is made from soy, which is high in protein and other nutrients.

Many researches on soy products suggest that it helps reduce blood sugar levels in people with diabetes.

Also, consumption of TVP is linked to improvement of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), helpful in kidney diseases and in controlling high blood pressure, according to research.

TVP is also considered helpful in reducing the risk of developing breast cancer in some women.
What are the possible side-effects?
Since TVP is cheap, easy to cook and has a variety of health benefits, the global demand is on the rise.

According to a report by Future Market Insights, the global TVP market is projected to grow at a CAGR of 4.9% in the period 2018-2028.
How to cook with TVP?
Even though TVP is likely a safe food product, some argue it is unhealthy as it is not a natural product and is made through excessive processing.

The number of chemicals used, high pressure and heat involved in the process of creation makes TVP a thermoplastic substance.

TVP is a versatile ingredient that can be used as a meat replacement in a variety of vegan dishes like chili, tacos, burgers and burritos.

TVP is also used as a meat replacement in many dishes as a low cost high nutrition addition. Soy chunks and granules can be rehydrated by adding hot water and soaking to allow TVP to absorb the liquid.

Image: Kalhh / Pixabay

Where can you buy Textured Vegetable Protein?
As a rule of thumb, the larger the pieces, more water and more soaking time is needed for rehydration before usage.

TVP is nearly indistinguishable from animal meat post cooking & thus used as a meat replacement.

Image: Betta Foods

Would you eat Textured Vegetable Protein as a meat substitute? Tell us in the comments below!
TVP is sold in most health food stores in packaged form. It comes in either chunks or granules and the color ranges from golden brown to beige.

Some popular brands include Bob's Red Mill, Hoosier Hill Farm, Betta Foods, Wholesome Provisions and Clearspring Organic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP)? Everything you need to know about TVP | Totally Vegan Buzz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP) or Textured Soy Protein (TSP) was one of the first commercially available meat alternatives for vegans across the globe. But what is TVP? Is it healthy? What does it taste like? Where can you buy it? How can you cook with it? Totally Vegan Buzz brings you the ultimate guide.

# data[].attributes.body
TVP is mostly factory-produced from soy flour, but is sometimes made from cotton seeds, wheat and oats.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP) or Textured Soy Protein (TSP) was one of the first commercially available meat alternatives for vegans across the globe. But what is TVP? Is it healthy? What does it taste like? Where can you buy it? How can you cook with it? Totally Vegan Buzz brings you the ultimate guide.
What is Textured Vegetable Protein?
TVP, also known as soy meat, chunks or granules, is a fat trimmed soy flour produced as a by-product from extracting soybean oil.

It is often used as a meat substitute as it is cost-effective, has a similar texture to animal meat and has the ability to absorb flavours easily.

The high protein content of TVP makes it a nutritious addition to a vegan or vegetarian diet.
What is the history of TVP?
TVP was invented by Archer Daniel Midland, an agricultural commodities and food processing company, in the year 1960. The company still owns the TVP name trademark.

Initially, TVP was created in rod shapes. However, it was not commercially successful at first.

By the year 1968 though, TVP's popularity started to rise, and begun being used in a variety of dishes. A further boost came when it was approved in school food lunch programs in 1971.
How is TVP made?
TVP is mostly factory-produced from soy flour, but is sometimes made from cotton seeds, wheat and oats.

The soy version is made with soybeans that are dehulled, grounded and then have the oil extracted.

Water is mixed with soy flour before heating at high temperatures and pressure inside an extruder.

The opening of the extruder varies, but in general is a plate with holes.

The heated mixture comes out of the holes, which is cut into small pieces by blades. The small pieces start to puff up as the pressure drops outside the extruder. These pieces of TVP are then either dried or baked.
What are the benefits of TVP?
Health benefits of TVP include

Fat free and offers complete protein
Is TVP healthy?
Easy to find in health stores and online

Comes is a variety of sizes, shapes and flavours

Affordable and has a long shelf life

TVP is considered a healthy option as it is made from soy, which is high in protein and other nutrients.

Many researches on soy products suggest that it helps reduce blood sugar levels in people with diabetes.

Also, consumption of TVP is linked to improvement of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), helpful in kidney diseases and in controlling high blood pressure, according to research.

TVP is also considered helpful in reducing the risk of developing breast cancer in some women.
What are the possible side-effects?
Since TVP is cheap, easy to cook and has a variety of health benefits, the global demand is on the rise.

According to a report by Future Market Insights, the global TVP market is projected to grow at a CAGR of 4.9% in the period 2018-2028.
How to cook with TVP?
Even though TVP is likely a safe food product, some argue it is unhealthy as it is not a natural product and is made through excessive processing.

The number of chemicals used, high pressure and heat involved in the process of creation makes TVP a thermoplastic substance.

TVP is a versatile ingredient that can be used as a meat replacement in a variety of vegan dishes like chili, tacos, burgers and burritos.

TVP is also used as a meat replacement in many dishes as a low cost high nutrition addition. Soy chunks and granules can be rehydrated by adding hot water and soaking to allow TVP to absorb the liquid.

Image: Kalhh / Pixabay

Where can you buy Textured Vegetable Protein?
As a rule of thumb, the larger the pieces, more water and more soaking time is needed for rehydration before usage.

TVP is nearly indistinguishable from animal meat post cooking & thus used as a meat replacement.

Image: Betta Foods

Would you eat Textured Vegetable Protein as a meat substitute? Tell us in the comments below!
TVP is sold in most health food stores in packaged form. It comes in either chunks or granules and the color ranges from golden brown to beige.

Some popular brands include Bob's Red Mill, Hoosier Hill Farm, Betta Foods, Wholesome Provisions and Clearspring Organic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP)? Everything you need to know about TVP | Totally Vegan Buzz

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP) or Textured Soy Protein (TSP) was one of the first commercially available meat alternatives for vegans across the globe. But what is TVP? Is it healthy? What does it taste like? Where can you buy it? How can you cook with it? Totally Vegan Buzz brings you the ultimate guide.

# data[].attributes.body
One of the cheaper ways to extend hamburger and other ground meat products

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP) was a mainstay of 1970s and 1980s vegetarian cooking, and it's still commonly available at most natural foods stores.

# data[].attributes.body
Textured Vegetable Protein

# data[].attributes.body
TVP is dehydrated soy protein that typically comes in granular form, is sandy in color, and is unflavored.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TVP (or Textured Vegetable Protein) is a common, easy-to-cook protein that's a staple in the vegetarian kitchen. Here's how to use it!

What is textured vegetable protein?

Textured Vegetable Protein (TVP, or Textured Soy Protein) is dehydrated soy protein that typically comes in granular form, is sandy in color, and is unflavored. Like tofu and tempeh, it has tons of uses because it takes on whatever flavor it is cooked in. This vegan powerhouse is packed with protein and reasonably priced (win-win!). It's also gluten-free, making it a great plant-based protein for those on gluten-restricted diets!

How is TVP Made?

TVP is made by a process which extracts the proteins from the soy bean. After the elements are separated and while the soy paste is still hot, it is compressed into various shapes (such as flakes, chunks, nuggets, and strips). After it cools, the final step is for the vegetable protein to be dehydrated.

Types of TVP

Textured vegetable protein can be purchased online or in stores. It is often found in a bag and does not need to be refrigerated until it is rehydrated. TVP comes in two main forms - granules and chunks.

Granules: Granules work great for making things that resemble minced meat, like in vegan ground beef or vegan sloppy joes!

Chunks: Chunks are my preferred option as they give your meal more chew. They can be mixed and cooked with any sauce you like, tomato sauce, soy sauce, or anything else yummy! (I especially love chunks in this vegan breakfast sausage!)

Where to Buy TVP

You can usually buy TVP in the flour or baking aisle of your grocery store (Bob's Mill is the most popular seller). It can also be found online here!

Storage

TVP can be stored indefinitely if kept in a cool, dry place. Once you rehydrate it or cook with it, leftovers should be enjoyed within 5 days.

How to cook textured vegetable protein

Cooking a protein that comes in a shelf stable bag? Sounds intimidating, but its not! TVP is basically just dehydrated, so it usually needs to be rehydrated before you can enjoy it.

1. Stir: Place 1.5 parts TVP into a bowl and cover with 1 part boiling water or broth

2. Sit: Let it sit for 10 minutes until hydrated. At this point the TVP can be used as a meat replacement (like sautéed, roasted, or mixed up as ground "meat)!

Textured vegetable protein health risks

While TVP is plant based and does has quite a bit of nutritional value, because it is soy based it is a health risk to folks allergic to soy. This can result in typical allergy symptoms like a rash, sneezing, and a tight throat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Comprehensive Guide to TVP (Textured Vegetable Protein)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TVP (or Textured Vegetable Protein) is a common, easy-to-cook protein that's a staple in the vegetarian kitchen. Here's how to use it!