REGISTRO DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.11130598
Autores:
Tiago Negrão de Andrade;
Cynthia Macedo Brant Ribeiro;
Guilherme Ayres Rossini;
Adriano Gonçalves Caceres;
Luciane Maria Rodrigues;
Bruna Fernanda Damasceno Ramirez;
Jean Pontara;
Paloma de Lucena Lima;
Abstract:
The escalating demand for protein due to population growth has intensified the focus on sustainable alternatives to traditional meat. In the context of environmental sustainability, protein sources such as plant-based meat analogs, edible insects, and cultured meat are gaining traction. Systematic reviews and evaluations have highlighted that while traditional livestock-derived proteins offer high palatability and nutrition, they pose significant sustainability challenges due to extensive land, water, and resource usage. Despite the potential of alternative proteins to address food security and environmental concerns, there remain substantial gaps in their widespread acceptance and technological development. The high-tech alternatives often face limitations in sustainability due to intensive processing requirements. There is a need for enhanced coordination and integration within food systems to leverage the sustainability benefits fully. This research aims to evaluate the sustainability impacts of various meat alternatives, focusing on their environmental, social, and economic dimensions. The study introduces novel insights into optimizing these alternatives to better align with sustainable food system goals.
The research adopts a comparative observational design, analyzing the environmental impact, consumer acceptance, and nutritional content of traditional meat versus alternative protein sources. Methods include lifecycle assessment, consumer surveys, and nutritional analysis to provide a comprehensive understanding of each protein source’s benefits and drawbacks.
Preliminary findings indicate that while plant-based meat analogs and cultured meat offer lower greenhouse gas emissions and reduced water usage compared to traditional meat, issues such as energy consumption during processing and nutrient bioavailability remain challenges. Consumer acceptance varies significantly with demographic factors and exposure to information.
The research underscores the necessity of multi-disciplinary approaches to enhance the acceptance and efficiency of meat alternatives. It recommends increased investment in R&D to improve the sensory and nutritional profiles of these products. Strategic communication and policy interventions are also critical to facilitating a shift towards more sustainable consumption patterns. Ultimately, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of how alternative proteins can be integrated into a sustainable food system.
Keywords: Meat Alternatives; Sustainability; Plant-based Proteins; Consumer Acceptance; Environmental Impact.
Introduction
The central theme of this article, the transition from traditional meat consumption to the utilization of plant-based meat analogs, is increasingly significant in today’s context due to growing environmental concerns and health awareness. The burgeoning global demand for meat, coupled with its significant environmental impact—including high greenhouse gas emissions and substantial water and land use—has led to an urgent need for sustainable alternatives. Historically, as Williams and Hill (2017) highlight, meat played a crucial role in human evolution due to its dense protein and lipid content. However, the current meat production paradigm is unsustainable, as evidenced by studies like Steinfeld et al. (2006), which underscore the extensive resource requirements of traditional meat production.
This field has evolved from basic awareness of meat’s impact to sophisticated technological interventions aimed at creating viable plant-based alternatives. Notable milestones in this trajectory include advancements in understanding plant protein’s potential and developing technologies to enhance their taste and texture to more closely mimic meat, as discussed by Kyriakopoulou, Dekker, and Van der Goot (2019). The current state of research focuses on refining these alternatives to offer comparable sensory experiences and nutritional profiles, addressing issues such as the completeness of protein profiles and the textural fidelity to real meat, which Mistry et al. (2020) elaborate on.
Plant-based meat analogs, such as those produced by Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, represent a significant advancement over earlier vegetarian options by closely replicating the taste, texture, and appearance of animal meat. These products not only address the sustainability issues but also cater to the growing consumer demand for healthier and ‘cleaner’ dietary choices. Despite these advancements, there remain considerable challenges in achieving the desired sensory qualities and nutritional equivalency to traditional meat, necessitating ongoing research and development.
This article aims to explore these developments in depth, offering a critical comparison of the nutritional qualities and environmental impacts of plant-based proteins versus traditional meat. It will address the challenges of enhancing the sensory appeal of plant-based meat and discuss the broader implications of a shift towards these alternatives for global health and environmental sustainability. By doing so, the article seeks to contribute to a nuanced understanding of the potential of plant-based meat analogs as a crucial component of future dietary practices, potentially leading to a significant reduction in the environmental footprint of human diets.
Meat Consumption, Health, and Environmental Sustainability
Historically, meat has been deemed an essential component of the human diet. Its consumption was likely crucial for human evolution, providing a robust source of proteins and lipids, the latter being vital for brain development and growth (Williams, Hill, 2017). Over time, the burgeoning global population and industrial advancements have spurred a massive demand for animal protein and increased food production. However, animal-derived products, especially meat, significantly impact the environment through greenhouse gas emissions, extensive water and land use, and high energy consumption (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Meat production also necessitates substantial amounts of plant proteins; for instance, it takes 7 kg of plant feed to produce just 1 kg of meat for human consumption, based on the feed conversion rates of ruminants (Aiking, 2011). Additionally, extensive animal product production has led to severe biodiversity loss over time. Recent data indicate that globally, 30% of land is utilized for animal product production; this has led to increased deforestation to expand livestock production areas and soil erosion in deforested areas due to overgrazing (Stoll-Kleemann, O’Riordan, 2015).
As the global population continues to rise, so does the need for reliable protein sources. While meat is recognized as a high-quality protein source, it is not sustainable. In Western countries, there is a shift toward diets with reduced meat consumption requiring healthy and tasty meat-free products. In response, the market has turned towards plant proteins, such as legumes, wheat gluten, and soy protein, processed into meat-like products, also known as meat analogs (Kyriakopoulou, Dekker, Van der Goot, 2019).
Meat analogs are gradually transitioning from niche products to mainstream ones. These products are gaining popularity due to the growing consumer demand for plant-based products as “better for you” and “better for the planet” alternatives. Despite significant improvements in the flavor and texture of plant-based meat analogs, the food industries still face challenges in delivering the right sensory experience, and there is an increasing demand for sustainable, nutritious, and clean-label ingredients. To shape the future of plant-based meat analogs, the primary driver is sustainable nutrition, through further improvements in protein functionality (pre/post-processing), health (combining plant proteins with tailored nutritional compositions and reducing salt content), and processing to find solutions for their processed and ultra-processed nature. Moving forward, meat analog companies will continue to push boundaries to mimic the meat experience (enhancing flavor and healthiness), as well as to reduce product price and increase convenience (Boukid, 2021).
Furthermore, Meat Analogs, also known as fake meat or vegetarian meat, are made from non-animal proteins and mimic the appearance, taste, and texture of red meat (Mistry et al., 2020). Various plant proteins have been reformed to replicate meat’s texture and taste, although it has been noted that some of these proteins are incomplete, lacking essential amino acids, and thus cannot be classified as meat substitutes. Based on nutritional qualities, soy, quinoa, chia, and hemp possess complete protein profiles and could be utilized in preparing alternative meats (Mistry et al., 2020). The new generation of Alternative Meats, including brands like Beyond Meat, Impossible Burgers, and Gardein, are examples of successful productions of these proteins. The plant-based meat market is projected to grow from $4.6 billion in 2018 to $85 billion by 2030, with a milestone of reaching $30.9 billion by 2026 (Sha, Xiong, 2020). Consequently, plant-based meat alternatives, substitutes, or replacements represent a primary sector in this rapidly evolving and emerging industry. Consumer health and food safety are paramount to the food industry. Both scientists and the food industry are actively seeking plant proteins to replace animal proteins.
Plant proteins feature a well-balanced amino acid composition and exhibit significant potential to replace meat through the development of healthy, high-protein, low-saturated fat, cholesterol-free, and nutritionally similar meat-like products. Generally, meat analog formulations are specifically designed, and processing conditions are optimized to achieve the texture and bite of real animal meat.
Product safety awareness and consumer acceptance are also discussed. Challenges and prospects for future research related to meat-free products are presented. From a human nutrition and health standpoint, various studies report that consuming plant proteins reduces body weight, hypertension, and blood cholesterol levels, which has decreased the prevalence of heart disease and strokes (Bodai, Tuso, 2015).
The Plant-Based Diet, spearheaded by Campbell (1986), compares dietary patterns and food cultures of meat-based, dairy-based, starchy, and processed food diets in North America with Western diets in rural Chinese communities, focusing on a diet comprising cooked vegetables, rice, and fish. This comparison, illustrated through graphical representations of clinical blood test results, shows the reduction of metabolic syndrome risks in Western diets. This American dietary pattern has globalized with capitalist expansion, making fast foods and industrialized foods a worldwide trend. It is known that dietary patterns featuring ultra-processed foods high in saturated fats are associated with public health issues.
Heart failure syndrome was first described as an emerging epidemic about 25 years ago. Today, due to population growth and aging, the total number of heart failure patients continues to rise.
Cardiac Health Evolution in the Context of Dietary Choices
While the incidence of heart failure appears to be stabilizing and may even be decreasing in some populations, alarming opposite trends have been observed among relatively young individuals, likely linked to an increase in obesity. Moreover, there has been a notable shift towards heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Although this shift is partly artificial, due to improved recognition of heart failure across the entire spectrum of left ventricular ejection fraction, it can be linked to the rising burden of obesity-related diseases and an aging population. Similarly, evidence suggests that the number of heart failure patients may be increasing in low-income countries struggling with the dual burden of communicable diseases and conditions associated with Western-style lifestyles (Groenewegen, 2020).
Heart disease remains the leading cause of death worldwide over the last 20 years. However, it is now killing more people than ever before. The number of deaths from heart diseases has increased by more than 2 million since 2000, reaching nearly 9 million in 2019. This ailment now accounts for 16% of all-cause mortality. Over half of the additional 2 million deaths occurred in the Western Pacific region of the WHO. Conversely, the European region has seen a relative decline in heart disease, with deaths decreasing by 15% (WHO, 2020).
Thus, meat production and consumption significantly contribute to the depletion of global natural resources and the prevalence of death and human diseases. A concerted action plan and effort by the Food Industry, Governments, and relevant bodies are essential for environmental awareness of this issue, proposing solutions and joint actions for changes in collective health habits, dietary choices, and lifestyle.
Science of Meat: Marbling and Quality Grades
Marbled meat, particularly red meat, contains varying amounts of intramuscular fat, giving it a marbled appearance (Zobell, 2005). A quality grade is an assessment comprised of factors affecting meat palatability (tenderness, juiciness, and flavor). These factors include carcass maturity, firmness, lean meat texture and color, and the quantity and distribution of marbling in lean meat. The grading of beef carcass quality is based on marbling and maturity grades (Wheeler, Cundiff, Koch, 1994).
Key Terms Defined for Assessing Meat Quality
Quality Grades
A quality grade is an assessment comprised of factors that influence meat palatability (tenderness, juiciness, and flavor). These include carcass maturity, firmness, texture, and color of the lean meat, and the amount and distribution of marbling. Beef carcass quality grading is based on marbling and maturity grades.
Marbling (Intramuscular Fat)
Marbling is the mixing or dispersion of fat within the lean mass. Graders assess the quantity and distribution of marbling in the loin eye muscle at the surface of the cut after the carcass has been ribbed between the 12th and 13th ribs. The degree of marbling is the primary determinant of the quality grade.
Maturity
Refers to the physiological age of the animal rather than its chronological age. Since chronological age is virtually never known, physiological maturity is used; indicators are bone characteristics, cartilage ossification, color, and texture of the loin eye muscle. The cartilage becomes ossified, the lean color darkens, and the texture thickens with age. Emphasis is given to cartilage and bone maturity because lean color and texture can be influenced by other post-mortem factors.
Meat Yield Grades
In beef, yield grades estimate the amount of boneless, closely trimmed retail cuts from the high-value parts of the carcass – round, loin, rib, and chuck. They also show differences in the overall yield of retail cuts. A YG 1 carcass is expected to have the highest percentage of boneless, closely trimmed cuts, or the greatest cutting yield, while a YG 5 carcass would have the lowest percentage of such cuts or the least cutting yield. USDA Yield Grades are numerically ranked from 1 to 5. Yield Grade 1 denotes the highest yielding carcass, and Yield Grade 5, the lowest.
Enhancing Meat Palatability
Enhancing and predicting meat palatability is crucial for remaining competitive in the beef industry since sensory quality, consisting of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor, plays a significant role in consumer preference (Madhusankha, Thilakarathna, 2020). The overall palatability of cooked meat depends on the primary components of skeletal muscle; however, these muscular components affect the quality attributes in different ways (Ba, 2019). Intramuscular fat or marbling is one of the important components contributing to feeding quality, especially regarding tenderness and flavor (Andaya, 2019). Moreover, consumers in the United States, South America, Japan, and Korea tend to prefer highly marbled beef, believing that the eating quality of highly marbled meat is superior to that of low-marbled meat (Andaya, 2019).
Quality grading of meat is a composite assessment of factors that affect palatability and are valuable to consumers. Thus, marbling is an integral part of beef quality grading systems in many countries. The USDA grading system also considers surface grains and size, and the best grades, such as prime, are required to have a higher marbling score and surface texture. According to the Japanese grading system (JMGA, 1988), firmness and texture are used in addition to marbling as important standards in determining beef quality grades.
Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: The Brazilian Perspective
In Brazil, renowned meat scientists are present, as are their counterparts in Argentina and Uruguay. Major companies interested in innovation, such as The Good Food Institute – GFI, have representatives in Brazil and show a keen interest in the sensory knowledge of these scientists in attempting to formulate plant-based meat alternatives. These plant formulations aim to mimic the physical, chemical, and sensory characteristics and properties of animal-derived products (Boukid, 2021; Lee, 2020).
Scientists at Impossible Foods, recognizing the importance of iron in the meat matrix, synthesized this nutrient from non-animal sources in the lab. They selected the molecule “leghemoglobin” found naturally in the roots of soy plants and began producing it using genetically modified yeast through a fermentation process similar to beer fermentation, receiving FDA approval in 2017 and 2018 (Dança, 2017).
The use of plant proteins, such as legume proteins, in foods is challenging due to persistent off-tastes that can be perceived by consumers (Rackis et al., 1979). These off-flavors are commonly attributed to the peroxidation of unsaturated fatty acids initiated by lipoxygenase (MacLeod and Ames, 1988) and are primarily related to the source of the raw materials, processing, and/or storage. Flavor profiles may lead to the identification of approaches that eliminate these problematic undesirable flavors rather than attempting to mask them.
The expansion of the functionality and range of texturizing agents, fats, flavorings, and coloring agents are necessary for the development of alternative protein products. Consequently, more research and development of non-protein additives are essential for consumer acceptance and the continued growth in demand for plant-like meat products or foods (Boukid, 2021).
The use of water and oil-binding texturizers improves the slicing ability by providing filling, extension, and intensity to the texture of the meat analog, in addition to the gelling property of the finished product (El-Iraki et al., 2021). Alkaline methylcellulose (reaction of methyl chloride and alkaline cellulose) is an additive that contributes to the gelling process (Bakhsh, 2021). The use of starch enhances fillers and increases texture through its ability to bind and retain moisture. When heated in the presence of water, gelatinization occurs and starch granules swell, trapping the released water (breaking process of bonds) from textured protein or other formula components (Joly, Anderstein, 2009).
Fiber ingredients contribute to the initial viscosity and cohesiveness to set the product matrix and maintain handling and shaping (Bakhsh, 2021; Kausar, 2019). Fats contribute to the perceived tenderness and juiciness of the product and assist in the retention and release of flavor, as well as in the appearance of marbling (Kausar, 2019).
To obtain traditional meat flavors and aromas, certain amino acids such as those containing sulfur (cysteine, cystine, and methionine), nucleotides, reducing sugars (such as glucose, fructose), vitamins (thiamine), and other amino acids (proline, lysine, serine, methionine, and threonine) are added to vegetable meats, commonly used as ingredients in alternative protein processing (Moon et al., 2011; Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019).
Lastly, colorants in vegetable meats provide the pinkish-red hue when raw and brown when cooked. For these products, a combination of heat-unstable colorants and reducing sugars (Hamilton, Ewing, 2000), such as thermally unstable pigments like betanin contained in beet powder or juice, is used. The reducing sugars used in plant-based products are xylose, arabinose, galactose, mannose, dextrose, lactose, ribose, and maltose (Hamilton, Ewing, 2000), which can undergo a Maillard-type reaction with the amino group of proteins during cooking, producing brown color pigments. Heat-stable pigments or their combinations, such as annatto, saffron, turmeric, carotene, cumin, caramel color, paprika, red yeast rice powder, canthaxanthin, and astaxanthin, are often used to achieve the desired color, as the red color does not degrade during heating. Most heat-stable and heat-labile colorants have an optimal pH range to express superior quality colors; therefore, some level of pH adjustment with an acidulant (acetic acid, citric acid, and/or lactic acid) is necessary in the final product formulations. However, the use of acidulants is not always possible, as they can negatively affect the texture and flavor of the product (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019).
One of the goals of plant-based meat production is to make consumers perceive that they are eating meat products, by mimicking the structure, composition, appearance, and flavor of animal protein products. The complex structure of meat is difficult to replicate with plant ingredients. Therefore, the search for plant proteins that provide similar nutritional and functional properties to animal proteins continues at an increasing pace. Furthermore, food technologists developing protein products are continuously focusing on processing/structuring techniques with plant proteins that offer desirable sensory characteristics in 100% vegetable products, as well as providing appearances and food sensations similar to meat (Joseph, 2020).
Traditional plant-based alternative protein products are produced using simple processing techniques, such as fermentation, chemical-based protein coagulation, pressing, heating, steaming, cooling, and washing (Malav et al., 2015). Extrusion, cell shearing technology, and 3D printing are recently developed processing techniques, continually improving and exploring other applicable protein processing technologies (Boukid, 2021).
The global demand for protein is expected to continue growing. Differences in quality and functionality between animal and plant proteins remain. The science and technology used in the supply chain of various protein products must keep up with the exponential increase in demand for new protein sources. To meet consumer demand and the desired food experience, the expansion of options and functionality of non-protein ingredients is crucial for product development and manufacturing (Hwang, 2020; Estell, 2021).
Nutritional Formulation of Modern Meat Analogs
In this perspective, Bohrer (2019) reported on the formulation and nutritional composition of modern meat analog products, evaluating which ingredients are used in these products and classified as ultra-processed foods.
List of Ingredients of Various Meat Analog and Traditional Products
Meat Analog Products:
The Beyoung Burger (Beef Burger Simulate): Water, pea protein isolate, pomace-pressed canola oil, refined coconut oil, rice protein, natural flavors, cocoa butter, mung bean protein, methylcellulose, potato starch, sunflower oil, apple extract, salt, potassium chloride, vinegar, lemon juice concentrate, sunflower lecithin, pomegranate fruit powder, beet juice extract (for color). The Beyoung Foods, USA
Impossible Burger (Beef Burger Simulate): Water, soy protein concentrate, coconut oil, sunflower oil, natural flavors, 2% or less of: potato protein, methylcellulose, yeast extract, cultured dextrose, modified food starch, soy leghemoglobin, salt, soy protein isolate, mixed tocopherols (Vitamin E), zinc gluconate, thiamine hydrochloride (Vitamin B1), sodium ascorbate (Vitamin C), niacin, pyridoxine hydrochloride (Vitamin B6), riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12. Impossible Foods, USA
Traditional Meat Products:
Ground Beef (93% Lean, 7% Fat): Beef. USDA Food Composition Database
McDonald’s Beef Burger: 100% pure beef, grilling seasoning includes: salt, spices (pepper), sunflower oil (used as a processing aid). McDonald’s Corp., USA
The protein ingredients used in the manufacturing of meat analogs are undoubtedly one of the most crucial components for the product’s identity and differentiation. Proteins have important structure-function relationships in terms of hydration and solubility, interfacial properties (emulsification and foaming), flavor binding, viscosity, gelation, texturizing, and mass formation (Van der Weele, 2019).
Furthermore, physical, chemical, and nutritional changes induced by processing occur in proteins and are dependent on the source (Mistry, George, Thomas, 2020). From a nutritional perspective, the impact of additional processing on the nutritional quality of proteins is certainly an immature area of research. In a review article presented by Meade et al. (2005), processing conditions such as heat treatment, high pressure, pH change, protein fractionation, enzymatic reaction, milling, pressing, and fermentation were all described as conditions that provoke significant nutritional effects on proteins, specifically the nutritional availability of amino acids.
For the purpose of this review, the focus was to investigate the ingredients and macronutrient composition; however, future research efforts are needed to account for the nutritional effects on proteins caused by processing and preparation.
There are several plant protein sources currently used in the manufacture of meat analogs. The focus for the remainder of this section is to provide basic information about each of these protein sources and investigate the nutritional implications of using them either singly or in combination.
Animal-derived products contain a complete source of protein, which is defined as an adequate proportion of each of the nine indispensable amino acids to the human diet and an acceptable digestibility of these amino acids. Previous research efforts have established that, although some plant food sources contain a complete source of protein, many lack or are limited in one or more indispensable amino acids (Thilakarathna, 2020). Furthermore, the digestibility of plant protein is often compromised by a variety of different factors, which is generally not the case with animal-derived protein (Lee, 2020).
Soy protein is historically the most common protein used in meat analog products. Various research studies have been used to form comprehensive reviews on the positive and health-enhancing effects of soy protein consumption improving lipid metabolism and cardiovascular health (Kausar, 2019).
Nutritionally, processed soy protein (i.e., soy protein isolate and soy protein concentrates) has shown to have greater availability of indispensable amino acids compared to unprocessed or minimally processed soy protein (Hwang, 2020). This has allowed processed soy protein to achieve Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Scores (PDCAAS) of 1.00, which is the highest PDCAAS score achieved and is comparable to animal-derived foods like meat, eggs, and dairy products (McCarthy, Otis, Hu, 2019). However, soy protein generally contains lower values for many amino acids compared to animal-derived products, particularly for the indispensable amino acids methionine and lysine (He, 2020). Functionally speaking, soy protein isolates and concentrates are more advantageous compared to unprocessed or minimally processed soy protein due to improvements in color (minimally processed soy protein generally darkens meat products) and flavor (minimally processed soy protein generally imparts a bitter taste) (Groenewegen, 2020).
Another consideration that manufacturers should consider when selecting a soy protein to use in a meat analog formulation is the advantages that textured soy protein can offer. Malav et al. (2015) speculate that most manufacturers would use a combination of textured and untextured soy protein when formulating meat analogs (Godfray, 2018).
However, the majority of current literature encourages the presence of additional protein sources beyond just soy ingredients when formulating meat analogs – both for nutritional and functional purposes (Fiorentini, Nolden, 2020).
Lipid Ingredients in Meat Analogs
Meat analogs have traditionally been low in lipids; however, modern meat analog products contain a considerably higher lipid content compared to traditional meat analogs. In fact, the lipid content of modern meat analog products is approximately equivalent to that of traditional meat-based products. Similar to the strategy used with protein ingredients, a variety of lipid ingredients (fats/oils) are typically used in the formulation of meat analogs. Lipid ingredients used in modern meat analogs include canola oil, coconut oil, sunflower oil, corn oil, sesame oil, cocoa butter, and many other sources of vegetable oils and fats. As a previous review by Kyriakopoulou et al. (2019) discussed, the role of fats and oils in meat analog formulations is to contribute to the juiciness, tenderness, mouthfeel, and flavor release of the product, but significant consideration must be centered on the effect of fats and oils during processing and preparation to avoid excessive greasiness and stickiness (Van der Weele, 2019; Fiorentini, Nolden, 2020).
Nutritionally, the healthiness of fats and oils in the human diet is highly debated. Generally, nutritionists, dietitians, and governmental organizations (such as the American Heart Association) recommend dietary patterns that limit the consumption of saturated fats and trans fats; and promote the consumption of unsaturated fats (Bakhsh, 2021). The link between saturated and trans fats with increased levels of bad cholesterol (low-density lipoprotein) and reduced levels of good cholesterol (high-density lipoprotein) is the reason behind these recommendations.
However, recent literature suggests that the link between the consumption of animal-source saturated fats and increased levels of bad cholesterol may not be as strong as previously perceived (Godfray, 2018). The debate on whether saturated and trans fats are healthy or unhealthy is beyond the scope of this review. Therefore, this review will focus on the composition of the aforementioned fats/oils used in modern meat analog products and how they compare to traditional meat products.
Cocoa butter is not a typical ingredient found in meat analogs or processed meat products; however, cocoa butter is included in the most recent recipe (as of September 2019) for the Beyond Burger. The fatty acid composition of cocoa butter (NBD ID: 04501) consists of 59.70 g of saturated fat/100 g of product, 32.90 g of monounsaturated fat/100 g of product, 3.00 g of polyunsaturated fat/100 g of product, and 0.00 g trans fat/100 g of product (He, 2020). The main fatty acids that make up the fatty acid composition of cocoa butter are long-chain fatty acids. Specific fatty acids found in large quantities in cocoa butter are palmitic acid (C 16:0), stearic acid (C 18:0), and oleic acid (C 18:1).
The fatty acid composition of fats and oils certainly varies between sources and manufacturing methods. It is possible, and indeed very likely, that refining techniques such as pressing, fractionation, and isomerization can alter the fatty acid composition of vegetable fats and oils used in modern meat analog products. However, using what is known about the general composition of the fats and oils used in modern meat analog products, the breakdown of fatty acids in terms of saturated vs. unsaturated fats in modern meat analog products and traditional meat products is comparable. The major difference is the introduction of short-chain and medium-chain saturated fatty acids with some of the vegetable oils that are used in meat analogs, namely coconut oil and corn oil. Further research is certainly necessary to determine whether the incorporation of short-chain and medium-chain saturated fatty acids is positive or negative in terms of nutritional health and well-being.
Sustainability Gains and Challenges in Meat Alternatives
The expected sustainability gains from meat alternatives vary widely. The processing and transformation of proteins tend to limit the sustainability of high-tech options. Complex social coordination is required to enable disruptive meat alternatives. The priority given to high-tech meat alternatives is based on a partial framing of the problem. Meat alternatives with higher sustainability potential receive very little attention (Van der Weele, 2019).
There is no doubt that traditional meats and their livestock-derived products are the best protein sources, offering excellent palatability and widespread consumption. However, changes in consumer perceptions and the value of land/water resources and environmental sustainability will lead to the development of meat alternatives. Consequently, to conserve the limited supply of traditional meat, alternatives, including plant-based meat analogs, edible insects, and cultured meat, will play significant roles, depending on the degree of their technical development and consumer acceptance, while maintaining a complementary relationship with traditional meat (Lee, 2020).
This evolving scenario underscores the need for a balanced approach in the development and promotion of meat alternatives. While the technological innovation in creating such alternatives offers exciting prospects, it is imperative to assess their long-term sustainability impacts comprehensively. Furthermore, the integration of traditional and alternative protein sources could provide a more sustainable pathway that respects both ecological limits and cultural dietary preferences.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the study highlights the environmental and health challenges associated with traditional meat consumption and underscores the potential of plant-based meat analogs as sustainable alternatives. The evolution of meat analogs from niche to mainstream products reflects a growing consumer demand for plant-based options that are both healthful and environmentally friendly. Despite challenges in mimicking the sensory experience of meat, advancements in food technology are progressively enhancing the flavor, texture, and nutritional profile of these products. As the global population continues to grow, meat analogs offer a promising solution to meet protein needs sustainably, aligning with shifts towards healthier diets and reduced environmental impact. The continued development and acceptance of meat analogs will play a crucial role in shaping future dietary patterns and achieving a more sustainable food system.
References
AIKING, Harry. Future protein supply. Trends in Food Science & Technology, v. 22, n. 2-3, p. 112-120, 2011.
ALEXANDRINO, T. D.; FERRARI, R. A.; DE OLIVEIRA, L.A.M.; ORMENESE, R.C.S.; PACHECO, M.T.B. Fractioning of the sunflower flour components: Physical, chemical and nutritional evaluation of the fractions. LWT-Food Sci.Technol, 84: 426-432, 2017.
AMANDA GOMES ALMEIDA SÁ, DANIELE CRISTINA DA SILVA, MARIA TERESA BERTOLDO PACHECO, YARA MARIA FRANCO MORENO, BRUNO AUGUSTO MATTAR CARCIOFI. Oilseed by-products as plant-based protein sources: Amino acid profile and digestibility. Future Foods, v.3, 100023, 2021, ISSN 2666-8335, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2021.100023 .
ANDAYA, Andrei E. et al. Meat marbling scoring using image processing with fuzzy logic based classifier. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res, v. 8, n. 08, p. 1442-1445, 2019.
ANGUS, Alison; WESTBROOK, Gina. Top 10 global consumer trends. Euromonitor International: London, UK, 2019.
ASCHEMANN-WITZEL, Jessica; PESCHEL, Anne Odile. Consumer perception of plant-derived proteins: the value of source transparency for alternative protein ingredients . Food Hydrocolloids, v. 96, p. 20-28, 2019.
BA, Hoa V. et al. Live weights at slaughter significantly affect the meat quality and flavor components of pork meat. Animal Science Journal, v. 90, n. 5, p. 667-679, 2019.
BAKHSH, Allah et al. A new approach to adjust the physicochemical, textural and sensory characteristics of meat analogues of vegetable origin with different levels of methylcellulose concentration. Food, v. 10, no. 3, p. 560, 2021.
BECK, Valentin; LADWIG, Bernd. Ethical consumerism: veganism. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, vol. 12, no. 1, p. e689, 2021.
BODAI, Balazs I.; TUSO, Phillip. Breast cancer survivorship: a comprehensive review of long-term medical issues and lifestyle recommendations. The Permanente Journal, v. 19, n. 2, p. 48, 2015.
BOHRER, Benjamin M. An investigation of the formulation and nutritional composition of modern meat analogue products. Food Science and Human Wellness, v. 8, n. 4, p. 320-329, 2019.
BOUKID, Fatma. Plant-based meat analogues: from niche to mainstream. European Food Research and Technology, vol. 247, no. 2, p. 297-308, 2021.
BOUKID, Fatma. Plant-based meat analogues: From niche to mainstream. European Food Research and Technology, v. 247, n. 2, p. 297-308, 2021.
BRASIL. Resolução RDC nº 12, de 2 de janeiro de 2001. Aprova o “Regulamento técnico sobre padrões microbiológicos para alimentos”. Órgão emissor: ANVISA – Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Disponível em <www.anvisa.gov.br>
BROAD, Garrett M. Making meat better: the metaphors of vegetable and cell-based meat innovation . Environmental Communication, v. 14, no. 7, p. 919-932, 2020.
BRYANT, Christopher et al. A survey of consumer perceptions of clean meat and vegetables in the US, India and China. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, v. 3, p. 11, 2019.
BURGNER, E.; FEINBERG, M. Determination of mono – and disaccharides in foods by interlaboratory study: Quantitation of Bias components for liquid chromatography. Journal of AOAC International, v. 75, n. 3, p. 443-464, 1992.
CAMPBELL, T. Colin; CAMPBELL, Thomas M. The China Study. Inter-University Consortium for Political Research, 1968.
CARVALHO, Gisandro Reis de et al. Textured soy protein, collagen and maltodextrin as extenders to improve the physicochemical and sensory properties of beef burger. Food Science and Technology, v. 37, p. 10-16, 2017.
CAVALHEIRO, Carlos Pasqualin et al. Seed wastes and byproducts: reformulation of meat products. In: Valorization of Agri-Food Wastes and By-Products. Academic Press, 2021. p. 347-369.
CHO, Eunjin et al. Influence of physicochemical characteristics of flour on pancake quality attributes. Journal of food science and technology, v. 56, n. 3, p. 1349-1359, 2019.
CONSUMER GOODS & FMCG›FOOD & NUTRITION, Consumption of vegetable oils worldwide from 2013/14 to 2020/2021, by oil type Source: USDA, 2020
CURTAIN, Felicity; GRAFENAUER, Sara. Vegetable substitutes for meat in the flexitarian era : an audit of products on supermarket shelves. Nutrients, e.g. 11, no. 11, p. 2603, 2019. (CURTINA, 2019)
DA SILVA ALVES, Eloize et al. Vegetable Proteins as Functional Foods-Review. Brazilian Journal of Development, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 5869-5879, 2020.
DANCE, Amber. Designing the animal from animal products. Nature Biotechnology, v. 35, no. 8, p. 704-708, 2017.
DAVIS, Samuel. Plant-based ground beef alternatives in comparison to ground beef of various fat percentages. 2021. Doctoral Thesis.
DE MARCHI, Massimo et al. Detailed characterization of plant-based burgers. Scientific reports, v. 11, n. 1, p. 1-9, 2021.
DELIENS, Tom; MULLIE, Patrick; CLARYS, Peter. Padrões alimentares baseados em plantas em adultos flamengos: uma análise de tendência de 10 anos. European Journal of Nutrition , p. 1-5, 2021.
DELIENS, Tom; MULLIE, Patrick; CLARYS, Peter. Plant- based dietary patterns in Flemish adults: a 10-year trend analysis. European Journal of Nutrition, p. 1-5, 2021.
EL-DASH, A. A.; ELDASH, A. Standardized mixing and fermentation procedure for experimental baking test. Web of Science: 4. EUA: [s.n.]. Disponível em: https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-0039899171&origin=inward#>, 2020
EL-IRAKI, Samir M.; ESHRA, Dalia H. Biological vs. Non-Biological Texturizing of Meat Patties. Alexandria Science Exchange Journal, vol. 42, no. 3, p. 761-771, 2021.
ESTELL, Madeline; HUGHES, Jaimee; GRAFENAUER, Sara. Vegetable proteins and vegetable -based meat alternatives: Attitudes and perceptions of consumers and nutrition professionals. Sustainability , v. 13, no. 3, p. 1478, 2021.
FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation on Protein and Amino acid Requiments in Human Nutrition. WHO Techinical Report Series Nº 935. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. (2007).
FEHÉR, András et al. A Comprehensive Review of the Benefits of and the Barriers to the Switch to a Plant-Based Diet. Sustainability, v. 12, no. 10, p. 4136, 2020. FEHÉR, 2020
FIORENTINI, Martina; KINCHLA, Amanda J.; NOLDEN, Alissa A. Role of sensory assessment in consumer acceptance of plant-based meat analogues and meat extenders: a scope review. Food, v. 9, n. 9, p. 1334, 2020.
FOOD INGREDIENTS SOUTH AMERICA; Food Connection. Plant based. Cenário e perspectivas no Brasil, 2020.
GODFRAY, H. Charles J. et al. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science, v. 361, n. 6399, 2018.
GRASSO, Simona; JAWORSKA, Sylvia. Part meat and part plant: are hybrid meat products fad or future?. Foods, v. 9, n. 12, p. 1888, 2020.
GROENEWEGEN, Amy et al. Epidemiology of heart failure. European journal of heart failure, v. 22, n. 8, p. 1342-1356, 2020.
GUO, Shuangshuang; GE, Yan; JOM, Kriskamol Na. A review of phytochemistry, metabolite changes, and medicinal uses of the common sunflower seed and sprouts (Helianthus annuus L.). Chemistry Central Journal, v. 11, n. 1, p. 1-10, 2017.
HARTMAN, L. & LAGO, R. C. A. Rapid preparation of fatty acid methyl esters from lipids. Lab. Pract., V. 22 N. 8, P.494-495, 1973.
HE, Jiang et al. A review of research on plant – based meat alternatives: Driving forces, history, manufacturing, and consumer attitudes. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, vol. 19, no. 5, p. 2639-2656, 2020.
HOLZHAUSER, Thomas. Protein or no protein? Opportunities for DNA-based detection of food allergens. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 66, no. 38, p. 9889-9894, 2018.
HU, Frank B.; OTIS, Brett O.; MCCARTHY, Gina. Can vegetable meat alternatives be part of a healthy and sustainable diet?. Jama , v. 322, no. 16, p. 1547-1548, 2019.
HWANG, Jihee et al. Factors that affect consumers’ purchase intentions for alternative meat : Vegetable meat alternative and cultivated meat . Sustainability , v. 12, no. 14, p. 5662, 2020.
IBOPE, O consumidor brasileiro e o mercado plant-based, 2021 <disponível em: < https://gfi.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/O-consumidor-brasileiro-e-o-mercado-plant-based.pdf>
JMGA Japan Meat Grading Association, Tokyo. New beef carcass grading standards. 1988. <disponível em: https://www.scirp.org/(S(lz5mqp453edsnp55rrgjct55))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=958335>
JONES, Martin et al. Feast: Why humans share food. Oxford University Press, 2007.
JOSEPH, Poulson et al. Alternative proteins: Market research on consumer trends and emerging scenario. Meat and Muscle Biology, vol. 4, no. 2, 2020.
KAUSAR, Tahreem et al. A review on functional ingredients in red meat products. Bioinformation, v. 15, no. 5, p. 358, 2019.
KORTETMÄKI, Teea; OKSANEN, Markku. Is there a compelling case for climate veganism? Agriculture and Human Values, v. 38, no. 3, p. 729-740, 2021.
KUMAR, Satish et al. Vegetable proteins as healthy, sustainable and integrative alternatives to meat. In: Veganism-a Fashion Trend or Food as a Medicine. IntechOpen, 2020.
KYRIAKOPOULOU, Konstantina; DEKKERS, Birgit; VAN DER GOOT, Atze Jan. Plant-based meat analogues. In: Sustainable meat production and processing. Academic Press, 2019. p. 103-126.
LEE, Hyun Jung et al. Status of meat alternatives and their potential role in the future meat market – A review. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Sciences, vol. 33, no. 10, p. 1533, 2020.
MADHUSANKHA, G. D. M. P.; THILAKARATHNA, R. C. N. Meat tenderization mechanism and the impact of plant exogenous proteases: A review. Arabian Journal of Chemistry, p. 102967, 2020.
MARUYAMA, Sara; STRELETSKAYA, Nadia A.; LIM, Juyun. Clean label: Why this ingredient but not that one?. Food Quality and Preference, v. 87, p. 104062, 2021.
MCMANUS, KD, What is a plant-based diet and why you should give it a try? Harvard Health Publishing, Harvard Medical School: Boston, MA, USA, 2018; Available online: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-is-a-plant-based-diet-and-why-should-you-try-it-2018092614760 (accessed April 5, 2020 ).
MEILGAARD, Morten; CIVILLE, Gail Vance; GILLIES, B. Thomas. Sensory Evaluation Techniques: Volume 2. CRC press, 2020.
MICHEL, Fabienne; HARTMANN, Christina; Siegrist, Michael. Consumer associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and vegetable based alternatives. Food Quality and Preference, vol. 87, p. 104063, 2021.
MISTRY, Ishan et al. Blockchain for 5G-enabled IoT for industrial automation: A systematic review, solutions, and challenges. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, v. 135, p. 106382, 2020.
MISTRY, M.; GEORGE, A.; THOMAS, S. Alternatives to meat for halting the stable to table continuum–an update. Arab Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, v. 27, n. 1, p. 324-334, 2020.
OMS – Organiação Mundial da Saúde. Doenças cardiovasculares continuam sendo principal causa de morte nas Américas. Organização Pan Americana da Saúde (OPAS). 2020 <Disponível:https://www.paho.org/pt/noticias/29-9-2021-doencas-cardiovasculares-continuam-sendo-principal-causa-morte-nas-americas#:~:text=Globalmente%2C%20mais%20pessoas%20morrem%20a,onde%20os%20casos%20continuam%20aumentando.>
ONWEZEN, MC et al. A systematic review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins : pulses, algae, insects, vegetable meat alternatives and cultured meat. Appetite, p. 105058, 2020.
PALERMO, Jane Rizzo. Análise sensorial: fundamentos e métodos. São Paulo: Atheneu, 2015.
QUINTERO, Julián et al. Vegetable proteins: encapsulating agents that do not sensitize bioactive compounds. London, United Kingdom: In Tech, p. 43-65, 2017.
RAI, Dinesh Chandra; YADAV, Ashok Kumar. Food technology formulated based on protein-rich vegetables. In: Milk and Dairy Processing Technologies . Apple Academic Press, 2017. p. 119-135.
ROBERTSON, A. R. The CIE 1976 Color‐Difference FormulaeColor Research & Application. [s.l: s.n.].
RÖÖS, Elin et al. A pegada de carbono pode servir como um indicador do impacto ambiental da produção de carne?. Ecological Indicators , v. 24, p. 573-581, 2013.
ROSANELI, Caroline Filla; FISCHER, Marta Luciane; DE GANG, Jéssica. CARNE ARTIFICIAL COMO ALTERNATIVA ALIMENTAR: um debate bioético necessário. Revista Húmus, v. 11, n. 33.
RUBIO, Natalie R.; XIANG, Ning; KAPLAN, David L. Plant and cell- based approaches to meat production. Nature Communications, v. 11, no. 1, p. 1-11, 2020. (RUBIO et al 2020)
SÁ, Amanda Gomes Almeida; MORENO, Yara Maria Franco; CARCIOFI, Bruno Augusto Mattar. Vegetable proteins as a high quality nutritional source for the human diet Trends in Food Science & Technology, vol. 97, p. 170-184, 2020.
SATEESH, D. et al. Sistema produto+serviço sustentável: fundamentos. Traduzido por Aguinaldo dos Santos). Curitiba, PR: Insight, 2018.
SEVERO, Eliana Andréa et al. The influence of social networks on environmental awareness and the social responsibility of generations. BBR. Brazilian Business Review, v. 16, n. 5, p. 500-518, 2019.
SHA, Lei; XIONG, Youling L. Plant protein-based alternatives of reconstructed meat: Science, technology, and challenges. Trends in Food Science & Technology, v. 102, p. 51-61, 2020.
SHURTLEFF, William; AOYAGI, Akiko. History of meat alternatives (965 CE to 2014): Extensively annotated bibliography and sourcebook. Soyinfo Center, 2014.
SIMPAM. 2014. Tabela brasileira de Composição de Alimentos–TACO/ Nepa. Unicamp
SINGH, Ajit Kumar et al. Active packaging technologies for clean label food products: a review. Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization, p. 1-11, 2021.
SPIES, J. R. Determination of tryptophan in proteins. Analytical Chemistry, v. 39, p.1412 – 1415,1967.
STEINFELD, Henning et al. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Food & Agriculture Org., 2006.
STOLL-KLEEMANN, Susanne; O’RIORDAN, Tim. The sustainability challenges of our meat and dairy diets. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, v. 57, n. 3, p. 34-48, 2015.
STONE, Herbert; BLEIBAUM, Rebecca N.; THOMAS, Heather A. Sensory evaluation practices. Academic press, 2020.
SUBAŞI, Büşra Gültekin et al. Protein extracts from de-oiled sunflower cake: Structural, physico-chemical and functional properties after removal of phenolics. Food Bioscience, v. 38, p. 100749, 2020.
SUN, Cuixia et al. Processing, quality, safety, and acceptance of meat analogue products. Engineering, v. 7, n. 5, p. 674-678, 2021.
TUSO, Phillip; STOLL, Scott R.; LI, William W. A plant-based diet, atherogenesis, and coronary artery disease prevention. The Permanente Journal, v. 19, n. 1, p. 62, 2015.
TZIVA, M. et al. Understanding the Protein Transition: The Rise of Herbal Meat Substitutes . Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, v. 35, p. 217-231, 2020.
VAN DER WEELE, Cor et al. Meat alternatives: an integrative comparison. Trends in Food Science & Technology, v. 88, p. 505-512, 2019.
VAN LOO, Ellen J.; CAPUTO, Vincenzine; LUSK, Jayson L. Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, laboratory-produced meat, and vegetable meat alternatives : does information or brand matter?. Food Policy, s. 95, p. 101931, 2020.
WEBB, Delaney Madeline. Physicochemical properties of pea proteins, texturization using extrusion, and application in plant-based meats. 2021. Doctoral Thesis.
WHEELER, T. L.; CUNDIFF, L. V.; KOCH, R. M. Effect of marbling degree on beef palatability in Bos taurus and Bos indicus cattle. Journal of animal Science, v. 72, n. 12, p. 3145-3151, 1994.
WHITE, J. A.; HART, R. J.; FRY; J. C. An evaluation of the Waters Pico-Tag system for the amino-acid analysis of food materials. The Journal of Automatic Chemistry, v.8, n.4, p. 170-177, Oct-Dec., 1986.
WILLIAMS, Adrian C.; HILL, Lisa J. Meat and nicotinamide: a causal role in human evolution, history, and demographics. International Journal of Tryptophan Research, v. 10, p. 1178646917704661, 2017.
ZENEBON, O.; PASCUET, N.S., (Coord.). Métodos físico-químicos para análise de alimentos:4ed. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde/ANVISA São Paulo: Instituto Adolfo Lutz, 2005.
ZOBELL, Dale; HOLMGREN, Lyle; WHITTIER, Dick. Beef quality and yield grading. 2005.
Tiago Negrão de Andrade
Nutricionista e Farmacêutico, Mestre em Ciência de Alimentos – ITAL Instituto de Tecnologia de Alimentos – ITAL E-mail: tiagonandr@gmail.com
Cynthia Macedo Brant Ribeiro
Bacharel em Administração de Empresas e pós graduada em Marketing pela Universidade de Fortaleza – UNIFOR. Email: brotandoemcasa@gmail.com
Guilherme Ayres Rossini
Doutor em Medicina pela Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo – FMUSP. Graduação em Medicina, pela Universidade Nove de Julho – UNINOVE. Coordenador Acadêmico SOBRAMFA/ SOBRAMFA, Educação Médica & Humanismo E-mail: guilherme@sobramfa.com.br
Adriano Gonçalves Caceres
Graduado em Nutrição pelo Centro Universitário Unieuro. E-mail: sementenative@gmail.com
Luciane Maria Rodrigues
Graduada em Administração de Empresas e Ciências Contábeis pela FASP. Graduanda em Nutrição pela Universidade Cruzeiro do Sul E-mail: encontroessencial@gmail.com
Bruna Fernanda Damasceno Ramirez
Nutricionista pelo Centro Universitário Nossa Senhora do Patrocínio – CEUNSP. E-mail: brunaramireznutri@gmail.com
Jean Pontara
Graduado em Gastronomia, pelo Centro Universitário Nossa Senhora do Patrocínio -CEUNSPEspecialista em estratégias e consultoria de negócios para o Mercado de Alimentação e Food Service. Av Prudente de Moraes, 259, Salas 3-4, Vila Nova, Itu, SP, 13.3019-050E-mail: jean@jpontara.com.br
Paloma de Lucena Lima
Nutricionista Graduada no Centro Universitário Nossa Senhora do Patrocínio. E-mai: limapalomalucena@gmail.com