Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes

被引:316
|
作者
Smetana, Sergiy [1 ,2 ]
Mathys, Alexander [1 ]
Knoch, Achim [1 ]
Heinz, Volker [1 ]
机构
[1] German Inst Food Technol DIL eV, D-49610 Quakenbruck, Germany
[2] Univ Vechta, Inst Struct Anal & Planning Areas Intens Agr, D-49364 Vechta, Germany
关键词
Insect meal; LCA; Meat substitute; Mycoprotein; Soy meal; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; WATER FOOTPRINT; GREENHOUSE-GAS; ASSESSMENT LCA; PERSPECTIVES; EFFICIENCY; EMISSIONS; PRODUCTS;
D O I
10.1007/s11367-015-0931-6
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Food production is among the highest human environmental impacting activities. Agriculture itself accounts for 70-85 % of the water footprint and 30 % of world greenhouse gas emissions (2.5 times more than global transport). Food production's projected increase in 70 % by 2050 highlights the importance of environmental impacts connected with meat production. The production of various meat substitutes (plant-based, mycoprotein-based, dairy-based, and animal-based substitutes) aims to reduce the environmental impact caused by livestock. This article outlined the comparative analysis of meat substitutes' environmental performance in order to estimate the most promising options. The study considered "cradle-to-plate" meal life cycle with the application of ReCiPe and IMPACT 2002+ methods. Inventory was based on literature and field data. Functional unit (FU) was 1 kg of a ready-to-eat meal at a consumer. The study evaluated alternative FU (the equivalent of 3.75 MJ energy content of fried chicken lean meat and 0.3 kg of digested dry matter protein content) as a part of sensitivity analysis. Results showed the highest impacts for lab-grown meat and mycoprotein-based analogues (high demand for energy for medium cultivation), medium impacts for chicken (local feed), and dairy-based and gluten-based meat substitutes, and the lowest impact for insect-based and soy meal-based substitutes (by-products allocated). Alternative FU confirmed the worst performance of lab-grown and mycoprotein-based analogues. The best performing products were insect-based and soy meal-based substitutes and chicken. The other substitutes had medium level impacts. The results were very sensitive to the changes of FU. Midpoint impact category results were the same order of magnitude as a previously published work, although wide ranges of possible results and system boundaries made the comparison with literature data not reliable. The results of the comparison were highly dependable on selected FU. Therefore, the proposed comparison with different integrative FU indicated the lowest impact of soy meal-based and insect-based substitutes (with given technology level development). Insect-based meat substitute has a potential to be more sustainable with the use of more advanced cultivation and processing techniques. The same is applicable to lab-grown meat and in a minor degree to gluten, dairy, and mycoprotein-based substitutes.
引用
收藏
页码:1254 / 1267
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes
    Sergiy Smetana
    Alexander Mathys
    Achim Knoch
    Volker Heinz
    The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2015, 20 : 1254 - 1267
  • [2] Life cycle assessment of burger patties produced with extruded meat substitutes
    Saerens, Wiebe
    Smetana, Sergiy
    Van Campenhout, Leen
    Lammers, Volker
    Heinz, Volker
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2021, 306
  • [3] Life Cycle Assessment of Environmental Sustainability and Nutritional Value of Animal Meat Substitutes
    Jin, Yinzhu
    Noguchi, Ryozo
    Ahamed, Tofael
    JOURNAL OF THE JAPAN INSTITUTE OF ENERGY, 2022, 101 (01) : 9 - 15
  • [4] Situational appropriateness of meat products, meat substitutes and meat alternatives as perceived by Dutch consumers
    Elzerman, Johanna E.
    Keulemans, Lenneke
    Sap, Rosalie
    Luning, Pieternel A.
    FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE, 2021, 88
  • [5] Life cycle assessment of the chicken meat chain
    Skunca, Dubravka
    Tomasevic, Igor
    Nastasijevic, Ivan
    Tomovic, Vladimir
    Djekic, Ilija
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2018, 184 : 440 - 450
  • [6] Impact of sustainability perception on consumption of organic meat and meat substitutes
    Siegrist, Michael
    Hartmann, Christina
    APPETITE, 2019, 132 : 196 - 202
  • [7] A comparative nutritional life cycle assessment of processed and unprocessed soy-based meat and milk alternatives including protein quality adjustment
    Herrmann, Moritz
    Mehner, Eric
    Egger, Lotti
    Portmann, Reto
    Hammer, Laila
    Nemecek, Thomas
    FRONTIERS IN SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS, 2024, 8
  • [8] Life Cycle Environmental Impacts and Health Effects of Protein-Rich Food as Meat Alternatives: A Review
    Cellura, Maurizio
    Cusenza, Maria Anna
    Longo, Sonia
    Luu, Le Quyen
    Skurk, Thomas
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2022, 14 (02)
  • [9] "Planting" meat substitutes in the meat shelf: An online and two supermarket field experiments to explore the effect of placing meat substitutes next to meat
    van der Meer, M.
    Schruff-Lim, E. M.
    Onwezen, M. C.
    Fischer, A. R. H.
    JOURNAL OF RETAILING AND CONSUMER SERVICES, 2025, 84
  • [10] Prospectus of cultured meat—advancing meat alternatives
    Zuhaib Fayaz Bhat
    Hina Fayaz
    Journal of Food Science and Technology, 2011, 48 : 125 - 140