Current Nutrition Reports (2020) 9:346–355

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-020-00341-1

GASTROENTEROLOGY, CRITICAL CARE, AND LIFESTYLE MEDICINE (SA MCCLAVE, SECTION

EDITOR)

Meet the Meat Alternatives: The Value of Alternative Protein Sources

Aravind Thavamani 1 & Thomas J Sferra 1 & Senthilkumar Sankararaman 1

Accepted: 16 October 2020 / Published online: 5 November 2020

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Purpose of Review Meat alternatives are non-animal-based proteins with chemical characteristics and aesthetic qualities com-
parable to meat. The global increase in meat consumption is associated with the adverse environmental impacts such as increased
greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming and higher water/land use. In this review, we focus on the develop-
ment, availability, and nutritional value of various meat alternatives and their impact on meat consumption.
Recent Findings Changing dietary patterns and drive for environmental conservation contribute to the recent increase in the
consumption of environmental friendly sources of proteins such as plant-based and mycoprotein-based meat alternatives.
Summary Perceived lack of naturalness and poor cultural acceptance present as roadblocks for widespread societal acceptance
for meat alternatives. Continued research and efforts are needed to make the meat alternatives more aesthetically appealing with
improved nutritive value.

Keywords Meat alternatives . Meat analogs . Meat substitutes . Plant proteins . Insect protein . Entomophagy . Cultured meat .
Mycoprotein . Red meat . Processed meat

Introduction
Meat alternatives are known by various names including meat
substitutes, meat analogs, meat surrogates, fake meat, faux meat,
mock meat, and imitation meat [1–3]. Meat alternatives generally
have non-animal-based proteins with chemical characteristics
very similar to animal protein and are intended to provide the
same aesthetic feel (texture, flavor, and appearance) [3, 4]. The
concept of meat alternatives is not new. Tofu has been incorpo-
rated in the diet of Asian cultures for many centuries, and the
Aravind Thavamani and Senthilkumar Sankararaman contributed equally
to this work.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Gastroenterology, Critical
Care, and Lifestyle Medicine
* Senthilkumar Sankararaman
Senthilkumar.Sankararaman@uhhospitals.org
Aravind Thavamani
Aravind.Thavamani@uhhospitals.org
Thomas J Sferra
Thomas.Sferra@uhhospitals.org
1
UH Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital, Case Western Reserve
University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA
documented usage dating back as early as 965 A.D. [5, 6]. Tao
Gu (903–970 A.D.) referred tofu as “small mutton” highlighting
the concept of meat alternative. In the1960s, soy protein was
introduced in the US market as a major meat alternative in the
form of tofu and tempeh (fermented soybean cake) [1, 2, 6]. Soy
protein has high nutritional value comparable to animal protein
and forms an excellent base for meat alternatives [3]. Soy pro-
teins are extracted by a process referred to as texturized vegetable
protein, and by the late twentieth century, proteins from wheat
(seitan), legumes, and mushrooms were similarly extracted for
use as a meat alternative [7–9]. These early plant-based meat
alternative products consisted mostly of patties, nuggets, and
crumbles [8, 9]. These products are consumed preferentially by
vegans and vegetarians and have not gained widespread popu-
larity in the diet of Western societies due to their distinct aesthetic
qualities, very different from meat [1]. Advances in food biotech-
nology have revolutionized this shortcoming. Currently, many
plant-based foods have become extremely popular meat alterna-
tives [1, 3, 6, 8, 10] (Table 1). These novel products provide an
appealing mouthfeel and taste very similar to that of meat [1, 3, 6,
8, 10]. These products are designed to appear, taste, and even
bleed like real meat. Additionally, cultured meat, insect-based
protein sources, and mycoprotein-based foods are other available
meat alternatives [2, 6, 9, 18, 19] (Table 1). In recent years, the
popularity of these meat alternatives has exploded exponentially,
Table 1 Different sources of proteins for meat alternatives [3, 9, 11–17]

Protein source Nutritive value Advantages Limitations Company/available products*

Plant based • Soy is a good source of protein and fiber •Ideal for consumers with lactose and •Allergic predisposition to soy Impossible™ Foods
(soy protein) • Rich in bioactive phytoestrogens called gluten intolerances proteins •Impossible™ Burger
Curr Nutr Rep (2020) 9:346–355

isoflavones •Impossible™ Gyro

• Soy protein and isoflavones have been •Impossible™ Lemongrass Skewers
shown to decrease the LDL levels Beyond Meat®
Plant based •Protein rich and high fiber content •Less allergic tendency •Except for chick peas, most legume •Beyond Burger®
(pulses or legumes) •Pulses can be deficient in methionine and proteins have weaker gel •Beyond Sausage®
cysteine but can be easily supplemented formation. This makes the process •Beyond Beef Crumbles®
of meat-like texture formation MorningStar Farms®
challenging •MorningStar Farms® Grillers Original
Plant based (wheat •Wheat protein provide high calories than •Gluten is used in meat alternatives owing •Gluten sensitivity, celiac disease, Veggie Burger
protein or gluten) legume based meat alternatives to easily solubility, viscosity, binding and wheat allergy •MorningStar Farms® BBQ Chik’n
and dough formation properties •When compared to soy products Nuggets
and mycoprotein, wheat products BOCA Inc.
have relatively low fiber and •BOCA Non-GMO Soy All American
protein content Veggie Burger
Gardein™
•Gardein™ Meatless Meat Balls
•Gardein™ Meatless Chick’n Strips
Tofurky™
•Tofurky™ Ham Style Roast with Glaze
Fungus •Rich in protein, fiber content and •4 to 10 times less carbon footprint •Extensive processing required Quorn™
(mycoprotein) micronutrients •Relatively expensive •Quorn™ Meatless Nuggets
•Low-calorie healthy food •Quorn™ Meatless Meatballs
•Quorn™ Meatless Gourmet Burgers
Insect based •Protein content comparable to meat •Most efficient production with low •Lower community acceptance Essento®
(entomophagy) •Rich fat content environmental impact •Less established governing laws •Essento® Insect Burger
•High in trace elements •Low greenhouse gas emission and water •Essento® Grasshopper Skewer
consumption
•Less agricultural land use
Cultured meat •Nutritive value equivalent to meat •Less allergic tendency •Lack of naturalness hampers Memphis Meats™
consumer acceptance Mission Barns Inc.
•Long-term benefits/risks unknown Finless Foods Inc.
Mosa Meats Inc.

*The list is not inclusive of all available companies and products

347
348
and now the global meat alternatives market includes not just
vegetarians but traditional meat eaters and also flexitarians (those
who are primarily vegetarians but consume meat occasionally)
[2, 9, 20, 21]. In fact, these foods are specifically targeted towards
meat lovers who are willing to change their dietary habits to-
wards these innovative meat alternatives. This review is focused
on the development, availability, and nutritional value of various
meat alternatives and their impact on meat consumption.
The Impact of Meat Consumption on Health
and Environment
Meat is an integral portion of our diet and is a valuable source
of calories, proteins of high biological value, and various
micronutrients such as iron, zinc, phosphorus, niacin, vitamin
B6, and vitamin B12 [6, 22••]. Piazza and colleagues elegant-
ly substantiated the reasons for human meat consumption
using the acronym “4Ns—necessary, natural, normal, and
nice” [23]. Apart from the preferential consumption based
on the aesthetic properties, there is an intrinsic human desire
to consume energy-dense foods, including meat [22••]. The
quantity and the type of meat consumed (red meat, poultry, or
seafood) differs between countries and also depend on various
factors such as social customs, prevailing economy, politics,
trade agreements, religious beliefs, and geographical location
[22••]. By 2050, there will be at least 10 billion people glob-
ally and more sustainable food sources are needed to meet
these increasing demands [10, 24••]. The global demand for
meat consumption has drastically increased in China and
many other developing countries due to rising population,
urbanization, and industrialization with an increase in stan-
dard of living and family income [3, 10, 22••, 25, 26]. In a
study evaluating 196 countries, the investigators found that
global consumption of processed meat was 90% higher than
the recommended amount and red meat intake was 18% great-
er than the desired quantity [27••]. With the global increase in
production of meat and its consumption, three major concerns
are often cited—environmental issues related to meat produc-
tion, animal welfare, and adverse health issues associated with
excessive consumption of meats, particularly red and proc-
essed meats [28].
Compared to plant-based foods meat production causes
significant environmental damage. Meat production re-
sults in higher anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions per unit of energy consumed compared to the
production of various plant-based foods [22••]. Methane,
carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide are the important GHGs
[22••]. Raising livestock contributes to global warming
through release of all these gases, and the single most
contributor for greenhouse effect is methane [10, 22••,
28]. Methane has a low half-life in the environment but
has higher warming potential when compared to carbon
Curr Nutr Rep (2020) 9:346–355
dioxide [22••, 29]. Sources of GHG include the rumi-
nant’s enteric fermentation (methane); animal feed pro-
duction, processing, and transport (carbon dioxide, and
nitrous oxide); manure management (methane and nitrous
oxide) and energy consumption for various livestock
production-related activities (carbon dioxide) [30].
Global farming and food production–related activities ac-
counts for almost a quarter of all GHG [24••, 31].
Compared to plant-based foods, production of meats re-
sults in significant higher GHG emissions [3, 10, 31].
Production of protein from ruminant meats such as beef
and lamb contributes to emissions approximately 250
times higher than legumes [6, 31, 32]. Ruminant meats
produce significantly higher GHG compared to poultry
[22••]. Beef production accounted for almost a quarter
of all food-related GHG emissions, and in 2010, this
was roughly 2 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalents
[10]. Vegan and flexitarian diets are more environmental
friendly by reducing GHG emissions by 70% and 40%,
respectively [33]. Meat production is the main reason for
deforestation, land degradation, water pollution, and de-
sertification [6, 28]. Meat production also results in higher
consumption of water and land use [34]. The production
of meat requires almost 100 times more water than what is
required for food crops. The worldwide livestock popula-
tion utilize almost one-fourth of all freshwater [30, 35].
Also, the phosphorus and nitrogen from livestock manure
contaminates the surface and groundwater harming aquat-
ic health and human wellbeing [22••].
Excessive intake of red and processed meats has been as-
sociated with the development of colorectal cancer [20, 22••,
36–38]. An increased risk of developing other cancers such as
breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, and prostate cancer is also a
concern [39–42]. In 2015, the International Agency for
Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization
(WHO) classified the consumption of red meat as “probably
carcinogenic to humans” and consumption of processed meat
as “carcinogenic to humans” [36, 43]. Higher consumption of
red and processed meats is also associated with several other
chronic diseases [10, 22••, 38]. The consumption of processed
meats lead to an increased risk of diabetes; an additional 50 g
of processed meat in the diet increases fasting glucose, while
an additional 100 g of unprocessed meat increases the fasting
glucose and insulin concentration regardless of genetic risk
scores [44–46]. A prospective study in Chinese adults showed
that consumption of red meat increased the risk of end-stage
renal disease, while a similar association was not noted for
poultry, fish, or dairy products [47]. Increased consumption
of heme iron from animal food products is associated with a
higher risk of heart disease and an increased risk of stroke [8,
10]. Of significant concern, there is also an increase in all-
cause mortality associated with high consumption of proc-
essed and red meats [10, 22••, 38]. Furthermore, raising
Curr Nutr Rep (2020) 9:346–355
livestock and meat consumption are also associated with sev-
eral adverse health consequences such as contracting zoonosis
(e.g. viral infections, enteric bacterial infections, and bovine
spongiform encephalopathy) and exposure to the excessive
use of antibiotics and hormones in animal farming [1, 18].
There are many studies that also present the counterargument.
Tarino et al., in their meta-analysis, stressed the lack of data to
suggest any significant association between saturated fat con-
sumption and cardiovascular disease [48]. A recent meta-
analysis demonstrated that daily consumption of at least half
or more servings of red meat did not affect the blood lipids,
lipoproteins, and blood pressure [49]. However, the associa-
tion of cardiovascular disease is likely attributed to the in-
creased sodium content widely prevalent among the processed
meats [46].
Contrary to the global meat demand, the consumption of
red and processed meats has been declining over the last few
decades in the USA and many developed nations [50]. The
EAT-Lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable
food systems recommended shifting to healthy diets by 2050
which means a 50% reduction in global consumption of un-
healthy foods such as red meat and sugar and a greater than
100% increase in consumption of healthy diets including nuts,
legumes, vegetables, and fruits [24••]. The popularity of veg-
anism is rising significantly worldwide led by the U K, follow-
ed by Australia, New Zealand, and other developed countries
[33]. In the USA, the number of people adopting a vegan
diet also increased drastically from four million in 2014 to
19.6 million in 2017 [33]. The other reasons people elect not
to consume meat include religious beliefs and ethical and
moral reasoning such as the promotion of animal welfare
and prevention of cruelty to livestock [1, 18].
Plant-Based Meat Alternatives
The novel plant-based meat alternative producers utilize a
variety of sources of protein such as soy, gluten, and
legumes/pulses (chickpea, pea, and lentil) [3, 6, 8, 18]. Other
products such as beans and nuts can also be minimally proc-
essed to different states to result in mouthfeel of meat [10].
Some of the techniques employed to manufacture meat alter-
natives include high moisture extrusion technology, spinning,
and shear cell technology to texturize the plant-based proteins
[2, 5, 6]. In extrusion technology, the proteins are subjected to
mechanical and thermal stress by heating the barrel and shear-
ing of the screws. This results in altered protein structure, and
the resulting alkaline protein solution is extruded through
spinnerets into an acidic coagulating bath, which causes pre-
cipitation in to fiber form [6]. The fibers are unfolded, cross-
linked, and aligned [6]. To solidify the products, thermal pro-
cess, drying, or coagulation methods are applied [6]. By fur-
ther processing, these fibers are aligned into the final meat
349
alternatives [6]. In shear cell process, high-temperature coni-
cal shear cells are utilized to induce high temperature and
shear-induced mechanical forces transforming vegetable pro-
tein mixtures into fibrous protein. In both methods, a variety
of products with differing characteristics is achievable by
changing the process conditions. The elastic and spongy tex-
ture of the resulting final product is optimum for utilization in
burger patties, minced meats, and sausages [1, 2, 11–13].
Among the plant-based meat alternatives two companies
dominate the landscape, which are Impossible™ Foods Inc.
and Beyond Meat® Inc., and it is worth discussing their
unique differences [11–13]. Beyond Meat® utilizes a blend
of pea, brown rice, fava beans, and mung beans, whereas
Impossible™ Foods Inc. uses soy as their protein source
[11–13, 51]. Beyond Meat® Inc. utilizes beet juice and apple
extract to mimic the reddish color of meat, and Impossible™
Foods Inc. uses heme protein (soy leghemoglobin), which
mimics heme from the meat [8, 51, 52]. This soy
leghemoglobin not only gives blood-like appearance but also
provides a meat-like flavor [1]. Impossible Foods Inc. has a
proprietary method that utilizes genetic engineering to pro-
duce this plant heme protein from yeast [6]. The company
claims this method of heme production is more environmental
friendly than harvesting heme directly from soy plant root
nodules [12]. Excessive heme consumption from animal
sources is associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes,
heart disease, and stroke [8, 10, 20]. However, the safety con-
cerns of soy leghemoglobin are currently unknown and being
explored [9, 52].
Mycoprotein-Based Food Products
Mycoprotein is derived from the fermentation of a filamentous
fungus called Fusarium venenatum, which is commonly
found in the soil [6, 53]. The cytoplasm is rich in high-
quality proteins, and cell walls of hyphae are rich in dietary
fibers and polyunsaturated fatty acids in cell membrane [3]. It
was approved for human consumption by the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food of the UK in 1984 [53].
The filamentous structures of the fungus are subjected to con-
trolled denaturation and, with the use of additives, are con-
verted to a meat-like texture [54]. Each 100 g of mycoprotein
contains 11.5 g of protein, 2.9 g of fats, majority of which are
unsaturated fats, and 1.7 g of carbohydrates [55]. Mycoprotein
also is rich in fiber content (25 g/100 g of mycoprotein) [10,
55]. Blinded randomized controlled trials and crossover trials
have demonstrated that consumption of mycoprotein may re-
sult in 4 to 14% reduction in the cholesterol levels [56–59]. A
small-sized study using a commercial mycoprotein product
(Quorn™) showed significant reduction of total cholesterol
by 13% and LDL cholesterol by 9% [60]. Similar results were
noted in a study from Japan which showed that after an 8-
350
week study period, participants with a daily consumption of
24 g of mycoprotein had more reduction of serum cholesterol
than the control group consuming 12 or 18 g of mycoprotein
suggesting a dose effect [61, 62]. Further, mycoprotein is a
good source of trace elements and low in sodium making a
mycoprotein-based diet helpful in reducing cardiovascular
risk [3]. However, the European Food Safety Authority had
stated that there is no data to support the cause and effect
relationship between the consumption of mycoprotein and
maintenance of normal LDL cholesterol [63]. Mycoprotein
has a significant positive impact on the environment with
the reduction of GHG emissions [54]. The carbon footprint
of mycoprotein maybe 4 to 10 times less than that of animal
protein such as poultry and beef [54]. Further, the production
of 1 kg of mycoprotein consumes tremendously less water and
agricultural land space when compared to animal or other
plant-meat alternatives [54]. Currently, several minced-typed
mycoprotein products such as chunks, sausages, and burgers
are commercially available [1].
Insect-Based Protein Sources
Entomophagy or consumption of insects is a promising option
to replace traditional dietary meat consumption, as it provides
high fat, protein, and micronutrients such as iron, zinc, and
several vitamins [64–67]. Although the concept of eating in-
sects appears unfamiliar to Western societies, studies have
shown that the notion of consuming insects is entrenched in
human diets [68, 69]. At least two billion people around the
world consume insects as part of their diet [70]. Humans con-
sume more than 2000 insect species across the globe [68, 71].
Most insects, especially house flies, caterpillars, and grasshop-
pers, are superior sources of protein than beef, pork, lamb, or
poultry [72]. Each 100 g of insects provides almost 750 kcal
which makes the insect source of energy superior or compa-
rable with an equal weight of meat or plant-based protein
sources (except for pork, which has more calories due to high
fat content) [71, 73]. Depending on the type of insects, the
protein content usually varies between 50 and 82% of the dry
weight and the fat content 10 to 30%; also, the protein content
varies depending on the stage of development, with higher
protein content found during the larval or pupal stage when
compared to adult insects [64, 65, 68]. The nutrient composi-
tion also depends on the feed composition utilized to raise
these insects [64, 65, 68]. Entomophagy offers environmental
benefits including a significant reduction of GHGs and am-
monia production and lower land utility from the raising of
insects compared to cattle [68, 74, 75].
Despite these advantages, there are many limitations to
entomophagy. Not all insects are safe for human consumption.
Consumption of some insects may cause nutritional deficien-
cies, medical illness like ataxic syndromes from Anaphe
Curr Nutr Rep (2020) 9:346–355
venata in Nigeria, food poisoning from aflatoxins, and botu-
lism [65, 68, 76]. Further, legal barriers governing the breed-
ing and processing of edible insects may pose challenges to
mass production for consumption [67]. The US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) mandates that edible insects
should be bred solely for the purpose of human consumption
and the manufacturer needs to demonstrate the “wholesome-
ness” of the product, free of dirt, parasites, and microbes.
Insect-based burger patties and various snacks are widely
available in Germany and Switzerland [77].
Cultured Meat
Meat is essentially muscle fibers (90%) and made up of pro-
tein interspersed with adipose and connective tissues (10%)
and some blood vessels [8]. A concept of producing and mim-
icking meat constituents using in vitro cultivation of muscle
fibers was originally conceived in 1930 [18]. Cultured meat,
also known as lab-grown or cell-based meat, refers to bio-
artificial muscle mass produced by in vitro cultivation of an-
imal muscle stem cells (myosatellite cells) for the purpose of
consumption [19, 28, 78]. Here, stem cells are grown in a
nutrient medium and later differentiated on a three-
dimensional scaffold and therefore go in to form myotubes
(small primitive muscle fibers) [14, 19]. The myotubes are
later placed in a gel (made of 99% water), which further helps
the cells to develop the shape of muscle fibers [14]. Fetal
bovine serum is the best-known nutrient medium utilized for
culturing meat along with growth factors [14, 79]. One of the
cultured meat producers, Mosa Meat Inc., claims that they got
rid of fetal bovine serum for culture medium to appeal to more
customers who do not want animal-based nutrition [14, 30].
Russell Ross attempted this cultured meat process in 1971,
and Jason Matheny popularized this in 2000 [28]. Dr. Mark
Post at Maastricht University revealed the first lab-grown beef
patty in a press conference in London in 2013 [28]. His com-
pany, Mosa Meat Inc., produced the world’s first cultured
meat hamburger [14]. Cell-based meats are available in many
forms, including hamburgers and minced meat [19]. As this
technology is becoming more prevalent, the product is becom-
ing more efficient and less expensive. The first beef patty took
nearly 2 years of production time, and the cost was more than
$300,000 [14]. Four years later, the same patty cost nearly $11
[28].
Unlike plant-based protein sources, the nutritive composi-
tion of the cultured meat is equivalent to traditional meat as it
is cultured from muscle cells [80]. Cultured meat has the po-
tential to decrease GHG emissions, agricultural land, and wa-
ter utilization by 80 to 90% compared to traditional meat pro-
duction [81, 82]. The GHG emissions and land use were lower
than that of ruminant meat production but higher than poultry
[21, 30, 83]. Cultured meat employs more efficient use of
Curr Nutr Rep (2020) 9:346–355
energy as all the nutrients and energy are spent in meat pro-
duction unlike in traditional meat in which a significant
amount of energy is spent on metabolism, activities of daily
living, and locomotion of the livestock [78, 80]. In some re-
views, the summative energy use required for cultured beef
production is quoted to be even higher than conventional meat
[4, 30]. Cultured meat is referred to by some as “victimless
meat” as no animal is harmed during its production, which is
welcomed by various animal activist groups [83]. For people
who are allergic to dietary ingredients such as soy or wheat,
cultured meat does not have allergic ingredients and is safe for
use [6]. The traditional meat-related consequences of possible
enteric infections are not pertinent in cultured meat [79].
Despite its advantages, there are unique limitations related to
the unnaturalness of the product leading to reduced consumer
acceptance, fear of trying new products with limited data on
long-term health implications and unknown risks related to
cell engineering [83–86]. Future technology in meat alterna-
tives production also includes a three-dimensional printing of
meats, which is based on the principle that a computer-based
design software aids a digital manufacture machine in the
production of three-dimensional meat objects [87].
Growing Popularity of Meat Alternatives
In 2018, the global plant-based meat industry was $11.9 bil-
lion and is projected to reach $21.2 billion in 2025 [15].
Europe leads the world in meat alternatives, followed by the
other geographic regions [33]. There is a slow decline in red
meat consumption in the USA [50]. The primary driving
forces for this change in dietary habits include the improving
aesthetic quality of the meat alternatives, environmental con-
cerns from meat production, and health impact caused by red
and processed meats [2]. The other reasons include an increase
in the number of vegetarians and vegans all over the globe [88,
89]. Moral and ethical considerations and animal rights activ-
ities play a crucial role in moving away from animal protein
consumption and searching towards meat alternatives [90]. To
substantiate the growing popularity of meat alternatives, a
study from Australia revealed that the number of meat alter-
native products increased fivefold in a 4-year period [21].
Similarly, the medical research interest in meat alternatives
has been rising over the past two decades. A search of the
medical literature database PubMed (the US National
Library of Medicine) demonstrated this phenomenon with
over a 300% increase of published articles since the year
2000 (Fig. 1).
A multinational study (the UK, Spain, Brazil, and
Dominican Republic) analyzed the willingness of consumers
to adopt three meat alternatives, namely, plant-based, cultured
meat, and insect-based proteins [91]. The plant-based type
was the most preferred one among the three choices. In those
351
from the higher economic countries (UK and Spain), con-
sumers were more willing to replace traditional meats with
all three meat alternatives [91]. Here, participants considered
the character and attributes of the meat alternatives as the vital
factors that influence their preferences other than the impact
on the environment and health [91]. Another study compared
two meat alternatives (tofu and mycoprotein-based meat alter-
natives) with chicken in 89 non-vegetarian participants [92].
The initial preference for the meat alternatives was lower com-
pared to chicken, but over time the acceptance of the meat
alternatives improved [92]. Significant barriers for non- or
light/medium users of meat alternatives included unfamiliarity
with these products and lower sensory profiles than meat [92].
Frequent users of meat alternatives had high motivation to use
meat alternatives due to ethical reasons [92]. The authors em-
phasized that manufacturers should focus on improving the
sensory quality of the meat alternatives to enhance marketing
rather than citing environmental or ethical reasons for meat
usage [92].
A consumer survey—based on three most populous
countries (China, India, and USA)—revealed a signifi-
cantly higher acceptance of clean and plant-based meats
in India and China when compared to USA [93]. The
differences could be the result of China and India hav-
ing a younger population and India having a large num-
ber of vegetarians. In another study conducted in India,
nearly half of the respondents showed stronger prefer-
ence and willingness to pay for either a plant-based
meat alternative or cell-based meat product than for a
traditional vegetarian dish, chana (chickpea). The meat
alternative start-ups utilize various strategies to enhance
their consumer market. Consumers may be attracted to
meat alternatives for reasons beyond the avoidance of
meat in their diets, including the products labeling as
organic, non-GMO, and kosher and their sustainability
and impact on the environment [2, 11–13]. The demo-
graphics of the population also play a key role in the
acceptance of meat alternatives. Millennial generation
and women are more open to try meat alternatives than
men and older populations [1, 94, 95].
Limitations of Meat Alternatives and Future
Directions
As the popularity and sales of meat alternatives are increas-
ing, the following limitations deserve a detailed discussion.
Even though many products claim that they produce food
products which are aesthetically similar in texture and taste
to animal meat, two important barriers in convincing meat
consumers to utilize these products are lack of familiarity
and doubts about the aesthetics [3, 10, 16]. Vegetarians in
general are more welcoming of plant-based burgers [95].
352
Fig. 1 A PubMed search using the following terms “meat substitutes” or
“meat alternatives” or “meat analogues” or “meat analogs” or “meat
surrogates” or “fake meat” or “faux meat” or “mock meat” or
“imitation meat” or “plant-based meat alternatives” or “cultured meat”
or “clean meat” or “cell-based meat” or “lab-grown meat” or “in-vitro
However, cultured meat is less preferred by the vegetarians
as the initial cell and nutrition medium is derived from
animals [30, 95]. The type of meat alternative also has an
impact on the acceptance rate. Acceptance of insect-based
and mycoprotein-based meat alternatives is low in Western
societies [1, 18]. Insect-based food products are often
approached with fear and aversion [94, 96]. Further gov-
ernment regulations for the procurement and processing of
insect-based protein products may hamper the wide-scale
development of these meat alternatives.
The health benefits of plant-based foods cannot be directly
extrapolated to plant-based meat alternatives. The macro-/mi-
cronutrient compositions of plant-based meat alternatives of-
ten resemble their meat counterparts [9]. Also, the plant-based
meat alternatives are often ultra-processed and have reduced
content of ingredients of high nutritional value [9, 20]. A
recent randomized, short-term feeding trial showed that con-
sumption of an ultra-processed diet resulted in weight gain
compared to an unprocessed diet [97•]. Most plant-based meat
alternative products have low saturated fat but have increased
high sodium content [21]. Also, the impact of these products
on the intestinal microbiome is unknown. Experts also argue
that most of these plant-based meat alternatives are served in
fast-food restaurants where typically they are served in a bun
made up of refined grain flour, along with French fries and
Curr Nutr Rep (2020) 9:346–355
meat” or “insect-based protein” or “Beyond meats” or “Beyond burger”
or “Impossible foods” or “Impossible burger” or “Mosa meat” or
“Memphis meats” or “Quorn meat” or “mycoprotein” yielded 18,781
articles from 1960 to 2019
sweetened beverages [20]. It is also debated that the supply
chain, logistics, and agricultural products involved in the pro-
duction of plant-based meat alternatives may utilize excessive
carbon foot print contrary to the popular belief that they are
ecofriendly [98]. Hence, more rigorously conducted, indepen-
dent, multicenter, longitudinal studies are needed to elucidate
their long-term consequences on health and also their impact
on the environment [9, 20].
A significant shift away from meat in the diet will have an
impact on existing economies. In many places, in addition to
edible meat products, livestocks contribute to the rural econ-
omy by providing milk, dairy products, and other goods such
as leather [10]. The arrival of the entire spectrum of these meat
alternatives pose many legal dilemmas specifically, with the
naming and selling of meat alternatives as “meats.” For exam-
ple, referring to cultured meat as clean meat or animal-free
meat or eco-friendly is vague and is mostly viewed as market-
ing strategies [19]. Ong and colleagues detailed more realistic
standards on claims regarding these nomenclatures [19]. In
2018, the Missouri government passed a law that reserves
the terminology “meat” for products derived only for live
animals [10]. Similarly, in the same year, France passed a bill
making it illegal to sell vegetarian products as meat or steaks
or sausages and reserving those terms only for animal prod-
ucts [10, 79]. Food laws and regulations are urgently needed
Curr Nutr Rep (2020) 9:346–355
to ensure human health and to guarantee fair food marketing
and trade practices [1].
Conclusions
With changing demographics, dietary patterns, and drive for
environmental conservation, meat alternatives have a huge
potential of becoming a part of our daily food habit and source
of nutrition. The success of meat alternatives depends on the
texture, nutritive value, and streamlined regulatory measures.
A perceived lack of naturalness and poor cultural acceptance
poses significant challenges, and increased awareness is need-
ed among people to try different, newer meat alternatives.
Despite recent advances and popularity in the commercial
marketplace, continued research and efforts are needed to
make the meat alternatives more aesthetically appealing with
improved nutritive value. The long-term impact of these prod-
ucts on human health and the environment needs to be
evaluated.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent This article does not
contain any studies with humans or animals performed by any of the
authors.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been
highlighted as:
• Of importance
•• Of major importance
1. Ismail I, Hwang Y-H, Joo S-T. Meat analog as future food: a re-
view. J Anim Sci Technol. 2020;62(2):111–20.
2. Wild F, Czerny M, Janssen AM, Kole AP, Zunabovic M, Domig
KJ. The evolution of a plant-based alternative to meat. From niche
markets to widely accepted meat alternatives. Agro Food Industry
Hi-Tech. 2014;25(1):45–9.
3. Kumar P, Chatli M, Mehta N, Singh P, Malav O, Verma AK. Meat
analogues: health promising sustainable meat substitutes. Crit Rev
Food Sci Nutr. 2017;57(5):923–32.
4. Smetana S, Mathys A, Knoch A, Heinz V. Meat alternatives: life
cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes. Int J Life Cycle
Assess. 2015;20(9):1254–67.
5. Shurtleff W, Huang H, Aoyagi A. History of soybeans and
soyfoods in China and Taiwan, and in Chinese cookbooks, restau-
rants, and Chinese work with soyfoods outside China (1024 BCE to
2014): Extensively Annotated Bibliography and Sourcebook,
Including Manchuria, Hong Kong and Tibet: Soyinfo Center.
Available from: https://www.soyinfocenter.com/pdf/176/Chin.pdf.
2014. Accessed on August 1 2020.
353
6. Ajwalia R. Meat alternative gaining importance over traditional
meat products: a review. Food Agric Spectrum J. 2020;1(2).
7. Kinsella JE, Franzen KL. Texturized proteins: fabrication,
flavoring, and nutrition. Critical Rev Food Sci Nutr. 1978;10(2):
147–207.
8. The rise of plant-based “meats”. Tufts University Health &
Nutrition Letter. Available from: https://www.searchproquestcom/
docview/2357380876?accountid=9920. 2020:4–5. Accessed on
August 1 2020.
9. Bohrer BM. An investigation of the formulation and nutritional
composition of modern meat analogue products. Food Sci Human
Wellness. 2019;8(4):320–9.
10. World Economic Forum. Available from: http://www3.weforum.
org/docs/WEF_White_Paper_Alternative_Proteins.pdf. Accessed
on August 1 2020.
11. Available from: https://www.beyondmeat.com. Accessed on
August 1 2020.
12. Available from: https://impossiblefoods.com. Accessed on August
1 2020.
13. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/well/eat/
fake-meat-vs-real-meat.html. Accessed on August 1 2020.
14. Available from: https://www.mosameat.com/. Accessed on August
1 2020.
15. Available from: https://www.zionmarketresearch.com/news/plant-
based-meat-market. Accessed on August 1 2020.
16. Sadler MJ. Meat alternatives—market developments and health
benefits. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2004;15(5):250–60.
17. Available from: https://www.memphismeats.com. Accessed on
August 1 2020.
18. van der Weele C, Feindt P, van der Goot AJ, van Mierlo B, van
Boekel M. Meat alternatives: an integrative comparison. Trends
Food Sci Technol. 2019;88:505–12.
19. Ong S, Choudhury D, Naing MW. Cell-based meat: current ambi-
guities with nomenclature. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2020;102:
223–31.
20. Hu FB, Otis BO, McCarthy G. Can plant-based meat alternatives be
part of a healthy and sustainable diet? Jama. 2019;322(16):1547–8.
21. Curtain F, Grafenauer S. Plant-based meat substitutes in the
flexitarian age: an audit of products on supermarket shelves.
Nutrients. 2019;11(11):2603.
22.•• Godfray HCJ, Aveyard P, Garnett T, Hall JW, Key TJ, Lorimer J,
et al. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science.
2018;361(6399) Of major Importance. A systematic review fo-
cusing on meat consumption, human health and environmental
impact.
23. Piazza J, Ruby MB, Loughnan S, Luong M, Kulik J, Watkins HM,
et al. Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite. 2015;91:
114–28.
24.•• Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T,
Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet
Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems.
Lancet. 2019;393(10170):447–92 Of major importance. A sys-
tematic review from the EAT–Lancet Commission focusing on
healthy diets from sustainable food systems.
25. Kearney J. Food consumption trends and drivers. Philos Trans R
Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci. 2010;365(1554):2793–807.
26. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - OECD-
FAO agricultural outlook 2016-2025. OECD Publishing, 2016.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Accessed on August 1 2020.
27.•• Afshin A, Sur PJ, Fay KA, Cornaby L, Ferrara G, Salama JS, et al.
Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a sys-
tematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.
Lancet. 2019;393(10184):1958–72 Of major Importance. A sys-
tematic review analyzing the health effects of dietary risks in
195 countries.
354
28. Available from: https://www.3dnatives.com/en/3d-printed-meat-
040620194/#!. Accessed on August 1 2020.
29. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.
Available from: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197646/
icode/. Accessed on August 1 2020.
30. Tuomisto HL. The eco-friendly burger: could cultured meat im-
prove the environmental sustainability of meat products? EMBO
Rep. 2019;20(1):e47395.
31. Tilman D, Clark M. Global diets link environmental sustainability
and human health. Nature. 2014;515(7528):518–22.
32. Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J,
et al. Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assess-
ment of emissions and mitigation opportunities: food and agricul-
ture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); 2013. Available
from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3437e.pdf. Accessed on August 1
2020.
33. Available from: https://www.vegansociety.com/news/media/
statistics. Accessed on August 1 2020.
34. Aleksandrowicz L, Green R, Joy EJ, Smith P, Haines A. The im-
pacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use,
water use, and health: a systematic review. PLoS One.
2016;11(11):e0165797.
35. Pimentel D, Pimentel M. Sustainability of meat-based and plant-
based diets and the environment. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003;78(3):
660S–3S.
36. Bouvard V, Loomis D, Guyton KZ, Grosse Y, Ghissassi FE,
Benbrahim-Tallaa L, et al. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red
and processed meat. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(16):1599–600.
37. Aune D, Chan DS, Vieira AR, Navarro Rosenblatt DA, Vieira R,
Greenwood DC, et al. Red and processed meat intake and risk of
colorectal adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis of ep-
idemiological studies. Cancer Causes Control. 2013;24(4):611–27.
38. Schwingshackl L, Schwedhelm C, Hoffmann G, Lampousi AM,
Knuppel S, Iqbal K, et al. Food groups and risk of all-cause mor-
tality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2017;105(6):1462–73.
39. Jeyakumar A, Dissabandara L, Gopalan V. A critical overview on
the biological and molecular features of red and processed meat in
colorectal carcinogenesis. J Gastroenterol. 2017;52(4):407–18.
40. Wolk A. Potential health hazards of eating red meat. J Intern Med.
2017;281(2):106–22.
41. Boada LD, Henríquez-Hernández LA, Luzardo O. The impact of
red and processed meat consumption on cancer and other health
outcomes: epidemiological evidences. Food Chem Toxicol.
2016;92:236–44.
42. Grundy A, Poirier AE, Khandwala F, McFadden A, Friedenreich
CM, Brenner DR. Cancer incidence attributable to red and proc-
essed meat consumption in Alberta in 2012. CMAJ open.
2016;4(4):E768–75.
43. IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of red and processed
meat. World Food Regulation Review 2015;25(6):30. Available
from: https://search.proquest.com/openview/
e a a 3 3 79 e 6 23 b2 34 c 0 90 5 e 5b 6 ab4c6aef/ 1? pq-origsit e=
gscholar&cbl=2029995). Accessed on August 1 2020.
44. Fretts AM, Follis JL, Nettleton JA, Lemaitre RN, Ngwa JS,
Wojczynski MK, et al. Consumption of meat is associated with
higher fasting glucose and insulin concentrations regardless of glu-
cose and insulin genetic risk scores: a meta-analysis of 50,345
Caucasians. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;102(5):1266–78.
45. Feskens EJ, Sluik D, van Woudenbergh GJ. Meat consumption,
diabetes, and its complications. Current diabetes reports.
2013;13(2):298–306.
46. Micha R, Sarah K, Wallace, Mozaffarian D. “Clinical Perspective”
Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary
heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Circulation. 2010;121(21):2271–83.
Curr Nutr Rep (2020) 9:346–355
47. Lew Q-LJ, Jafar TH, Koh HWL, Jin A, Chow KY, Yuan J-M, et al.
Red meat intake and risk of ESRD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017;28(1):
304–12.
48. Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM. Meta-analysis of pro-
spective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat
with cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91(3):535–46.
49. O’Connor LE, Kim JE, Campbell WW. Total red meat intake of≥
0.5 servings/d does not negatively influence cardiovascular disease
risk factors: a systemically searched meta-analysis of randomized
controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr. 2017;105(1):57–69.
50. Available from: https://progressreport.cancer.gov/prevention/red_
meat.html. Accessed on August 1 2020.
51. Available from: https://thebeet.com/ultimate-guide-fake-meat-vs-
real-meat/. Accessed on August 1 2020.
52. Fraser RZ, Shitut M, Agrawal P, Mendes O, Klapholz S. Safety
evaluation of soy leghemoglobin protein preparation derived from
Pichia pastoris, intended for use as a flavor catalyst in plant-based
meat. Int J Toxicol. 2018;37(3):241–62.
53. Asgar M, Fazilah A, Huda N, Bhat R, Karim A. Nonmeat protein
alternatives as meat extenders and meat analogs. Compr Rev Food
Sci Food Saf. 2010;9(5):513–29.
54. Finnigan T, Needham L, Abbott C. Mycoprotein: a healthy new
protein with a low environmental impact. In: Nadathur SRWJPD,
Scanlin L, editors. Sustainable protein sources: Elsevier: Academic
Press; 2017. p. 305–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
802778-3.00019-6.
55. Denny A, Aisbitt B, Lunn J. Mycoprotein and health. Nutr Bull.
2008;33(4):298–310.
56. Udall JN, Lo CW, Young VR, Scrimshaw NS. The tolerance and
nutritional value of two microfungal foods in human subjects. Am J
Clin Nutr. 1984;40(2):285–92.
57. Turnbull WH, Leeds AR, Edwards DG. Mycoprotein reduces blood
lipids in free-living subjects. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992;55(2):415–9.
58. Turnbull WH, Leeds AR, Edwards GD. Effect of mycoprotein on
blood lipids. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;52(4):646–50.
59. Nakamura H, Ishikawa T, Akanuma M, Nishiwaki M, Yamashita
T, Tomiyasu K, et al. Effect of mycoprotein intake on serum lipids
of healthy subjects. Prog Med. 1994;14(7):1972–6.
60. Ruxton CH, McMillan B. The impact of mycoprotein on blood
cholesterol levels: a pilot study. Br Food J. 2010;112(10):1092–
101.
61. Homma Y, Nakamura H, Kumagai Y, Ryuzo A, Saito Y, Ishikawa
T, et al. Effects of eight week ingestion of mycoprotein on plasma
levels of lipids and Apo (Lipo) proteins. Prog Med. 1995;15(3):
183–95.
62. Ishikawa T. The effect of mycoprotein intake (12 and 24g/day) over
four weeks on serum cholesterol levels. Prog Med. 1995;15(1):61–
74.
63. EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products N. Allergies. Scientific opinion
on the substantiation of health claims related to mycoprotein and
maintenance of normal blood LDL-cholesterol concentrations (ID
1619) and increase in satiety leading to a reduction in energy intake
(ID 1620) pursuant to Article 13 (1) of Regulation (EC) No
1924/2006. EFSA J. 2011;9(4):2042.
64. DeFoliart G. Insect fatty acids: similar to those of poultry and fish in
their degree of unsaturation, but higher in the polyunsaturates. Food
Insects Newslett. 1991;4(1):1–4.
65. Schabel HG. Forest insects as food: a global review. Forest insects
as food: Humans bite back. 2010:37–64. Available from: http://
www.fao.org/3/a-i1380e.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug 2020.
66. Christensen DL, Orech FO, Mungai MN, Larsen T, Friis H,
Aagaard-Hansen J. Entomophagy among the Luo of Kenya: a po-
tential mineral source? Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2006;57(3–4):198–203.
67. Alexander P, Brown C, Arneth A, Dias C, Finnigan J, Moran D,
et al. Could consumption of insects, cultured meat or imitation meat
Curr Nutr Rep (2020) 9:346–355
reduce global agricultural land use? Global Food Security. 2017;15:
22–32.
68. Rumpold BA, Schlüter OK. Potential and challenges of insects as
an innovative source for food and feed production. Innovative Food
Sci Emerg Technol. 2013;17:1–11.
69. de Magistris T, Pascucci S, Mitsopoulos D. Paying to see a bug on
my food: how regulations and information can hamper radical in-
novations in the European Union. Br Food J. 2015;117(6):1777–
92.
70. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/i3253e/i3253e.pdf. Accessed
on August 1 2020.
71. Sirimungkararat SSW, Nopparat T, Natongkham A. Edible prod-
ucts from eri and mulberry silkworms in Thailand. In: Durst PB,
Johnson DV, Leslie RL, Shono K, editors. Forest insects as food:
humans bite back. Proceedings of a workshop on Asia-Pacific re-
sources and their potential for development, Chiang Mai, Thailand,
19-21 February, 2008: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
of the United Nations, Bangkok, FAO, Regional Office for Asia
and the Pacific. 2010 pp.189–200 ref.16; 2010.
72. Srivastava S, Babu N, Pandey H. Traditional insect bioprospecting–
as human food and medicine. Indian J Tradit Knowl. 2009;8(4):
485–94.
73. Sirimungkararat S, Saksirirat W, Nopparat T, Natongkham A.
Edible products from eri and mulberry silkworms in Thailand.
Forest insects as food: humans bite back. 2010:189. Available
from: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i1380e.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug 2020.
74. Oonincx DG, Van Itterbeeck J, Heetkamp MJ, Van Den Brand H,
Van Loon JJ, Van Huis A. An exploration on greenhouse gas and
ammonia production by insect species suitable for animal or human
consumption. PLoS One. 2010;5(12):e14445.
75. Oonincx D, de Boer I. Environmental impact of the production of
mealworms as a protein source for humans–a life cycle. PLoS One.
2012;7(12):e51145.
76. Nishimune T, Watanabe Y, Okazaki H, Akai H. Thiamin is
decomposed due to Anaphe spp. entomophagy in seasonal ataxia
patients in Nigeria. J Nutr. 2000;130(6):1625–8.
77. Available from: https://essento.ch/en/. Accessed on August 1 2020.
78. Post MJ. Cultured meat from stem cells: challenges and prospects.
Meat Sci. 2012;92(3):297–301.
79. Chriki S, Hocquette J-F. The myth of cultured meat: a review. Front
Nutr. 2020;7:7.
80. Bhat ZF, Kumar S, Fayaz H. In vitro meat production: challenges
and benefits over conventional meat production. J Integr Agric.
2015;14(2):241–8.
81. Tuomisto HL, de Mattos MJ. Environmental impacts of cultured
meat production. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45(14):6117–23.
82. Fox JL. Test tube meat on the menu? Nat Biotechnol. 2009;27:873.
83. Bryant C, Barnett J. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: a sys-
tematic review. Meat Sci. 2018;143:8–17.
84. Grunert KG, Verbeke W, Kügler JO, Saeed F, Scholderer J. Use of
consumer insight in the new product development process in the
meat sector. Meat Sci. 2011;89(3):251–8.
355
85. Verbeke W, Marcu A, Rutsaert P, Gaspar R, Seibt B, Fletcher D,
et al. ‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: consumers’ reactions and
attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom.
Meat Sci. 2015;102:49–58.
86. Siegrist M, Sütterlin B. Importance of perceived naturalness for
acceptance of food additives and cultured meat. Appetite.
2017;113:320–6.
87. Dick A, Bhandari B, Prakash S. 3D printing of meat. Meat Sci.
2019;153:35–44.
88. Dagevos H, Voordouw J. Sustainability and meat consumption: is
reduction realistic? Sustainability: science. Practice and Policy.
2013;9(2):60–9.
89. Idel A, Fehlenberg V, Reichert T. Livestock production and food
security in a context of climate change and environmental and
health challenges. Trade and Environ Rev. 2013:138–53.
90. Mouat MJ, Prince R, Roche MM. Making value out of ethics: the
emerging economic geography of lab-grown meat and other
animal-free food products. Econ Geogr. 2019;95(2):136–58.
91. Gómez-Luciano CA, de Aguiar LK, Vriesekoop F, Urbano B.
Consumers’ willingness to purchase three alternatives to meat pro-
teins in the United Kingdom, Spain. Brazil and the Dominican
Republic Food quality and preference. 2019;78:103732.
92. Hoek AC, Luning PA, Weijzen P, Engels W, Kok FJ, de Graaf C.
Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person- and
product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite.
2011;56(3):662–73.
93. Bryant C, Szejda K, Parekh N, Desphande V, Tse B. A survey of
consumer perceptions of plant-based and clean meat in the USA,
India, and China. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2019;3:11.
94. Verbeke W. Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a
meat substitute in a Western society. Food Qual Prefer. 2015;39:
147–55.
95. Slade P. If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for
plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite. 2018;125:428–37.
96. Caparros Megido R, Sablon L, Geuens M, Brostaux Y, Alabi T,
Blecker C, et al. Edible insects acceptance by Belgian consumers:
promising attitude for entomophagy development. J Sens Stud.
2014;29(1):14–20.
97.• Hall KD, Ayuketah A, Brychta R, Cai H, Cassimatis T, Chen KY,
et al. Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight
gain: an inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food
intake. Cell Metab. 2019;30(1):67-77. e3 Of importance. A ran-
domized controlled trial evaluating the effects of consumption
of ultra-processed diets and excessive weight gain.
98. Available from: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4355008-beyond-
meat-may-be-bad-for-environment. Accessed on August 1 2020.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.