nutrients

Review
Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Technological, Nutritional,
Environmental, Market, and Social Challenges
and Opportunities
Giulia Andreani 1 , Giovanni Sogari 1, * , Alessandra Marti 2 , Federico Froldi 3 , Hans Dagevos 4
and Daniela Martini 2

1 Department of Food and Drug, University of Parma, 43124 Parma, Italy

2 Department of Food, Environmental and Nutritional Sciences (DeFENS), Università degli Studi di Milano,
20133 Milan, Italy
3 Department of Animal Science, Food and Nutrition (DiANA), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore,
29122 Piacenza, Italy
4 Wageningen Economic Research, Wageningen University and Research, 2595 BM The Hague, The Netherlands
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-0521-906545

Abstract: There is a growing awareness that fostering the transition toward plant-based diets with
reduced meat consumption levels is essential to alleviating the detrimental impacts of the food system
on the planet and to improving human health and animal welfare. The reduction in average meat
intake may be reached via many possible ways, one possibility being the increased consumption
of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs). For this reason, in recent years, hundreds of products
have been launched on the market with sensory attributes (i.e., taste, texture, appearance, and smell)
similar to their animal counterparts; however, these products have often a long list of ingredients and
their nutritional values are very different from animal meat. The present review aims to highlight the
main opportunities and challenges related to the production and consumption of PBMAs through
an interdisciplinary approach. Aspects related to the production technology, nutritional profiles,
Citation: Andreani, G.; Sogari, G.; potential impacts on health and the environment, and the current market and consumer acceptance
Marti, A.; Froldi, F.; Dagevos, H.; of PBMAs are discussed. Focusing on the growing literature on this topic, this review will also
Martini, D. Plant-Based Meat highlight research gaps related to PBMAs that should be considered in the future, possibly through
Alternatives: Technological, the collaboration of different stakeholders that can support the transition toward sustainable plant-
Nutritional, Environmental, Market,
based diets.
and Social Challenges and
Opportunities. Nutrients 2023, 15, 452.
Keywords: alternative proteins; consumer acceptance; flexitarianism; meat analogs; sustainability;
https://doi.org/10.3390/
SDGs
nu15020452

Academic Editors: Francesco La

Barbera, Mario Amato,
Fabio Verneau and Nicola Lowe 1. Introduction
Received: 30 December 2022 It is broadly agreed that transitioning away from meat-intensive diets toward increas-
Accepted: 10 January 2023 ingly plant-based diets is essential to alleviating the adverse environmental sustainability
Published: 15 January 2023 impacts of the food system and to improving human health and animal welfare. However,
our collective meat consumption is still increasing and is projected to keep rising in the
coming decade [1]. To curb the projected global rise in meat consumption, it is argued that a
substantial reduction in average meat consumption levels—starting in affluent societies—is
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. critically important.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Meat reduction can be established in various ways: (i) reducing meat portion sizes,
This article is an open access article (ii) replacing parts of meat-based products with plant-based alternatives (so-called hybrid
distributed under the terms and meats) or applying a “less but better” principle (less quantity, more quality, i.e., more
conditions of the Creative Commons
environmentally and/or animal-friendly meat), (iii) leaving the meat out of the dish without
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
a replacement, (iv) replacing meat with another protein source (ranging from animal-based
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
foods, such as eggs or cheese, to plant-derived alternatives, such as legumes, mushrooms, or
4.0/).

Nutrients 2023, 15, 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15020452 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/nutrients

Nutrients 2023, 15, 452 2 of 16

tofu—not to mention alternative sources of protein with a minimal, i.e., insects and seaweed,
or still non-existent market share, i.e., cultured meat), and last but not least, (v) consuming
plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) [2,3]. These strategies imply that a flexitarian diet
should not be narrowed down to the adoption of (processed) meat alternatives because it is
also about substituting meat with other (unprocessed) alternative proteins, both animal-
and plant-sourced. Having said this, the broad and varied dietary group of flexitarians is
undeniably the key target group of PBMAs and the major group already consuming these
products. From the perspective of a flexitarian diet characterized by abstaining from meat
(whether this is occasionally, frequently, or often), it is obvious that flexitarians are searching
for and interested in meat alternatives to practice their reduced meat foodstyle. Briefly
put, there is logic in pointing to flexitarians as launching customers. From the perspective
of PBMAs, the dominant market strategy hitherto is to mimic traditional meat as closely
as possible in terms of flavor (meaty/savory), texture (mouthfeel), appearance (e.g., “the
bleeding burger”), nutritional value (iron, vitamins, etc.), and even product names (using
meat-related terms); incidentally, “PBMAs” may also be read as “plant-based meat analogs”.
The food industry’s goal to develop meat-like plant-based foods unquestionably facilitates
the meat-free choices of many flexitarians and vegetarians and vegans as well, who may
feel an aversion to the association with meat surrounding PBMAs.
While food consumers’ adoption and acceptance of PBMAs are not self-evident, as
will be shown in the remainder of this review, it seems safe to say that PBMAs facilitate the
need of many of today’s food consumers in various high-income countries to be supplied
with tasty, affordable, and accessible alternative protein products to satisfy their cravings
to eat beyond meat.
Currently, many factors can testify that the field of PBMAs is vibrant and worth being
further explored and critically assessed. Among these factors are the remarkable successes
of efforts to improve the product qualities of PBMAs in the past few decades and the wide
availability of PBMAs on supermarket shelves and in the food service sector (including
McDonald’s, Burger King, and KFC, having released plant-based alternative versions of
beef burgers and chicken nuggets). Furthermore, the substantial investments in the PBMA
market, the significant growth figures it is experiencing in frontrunning countries (such as
Germany, the UK, and the Netherlands), and its expected growth rates in global sales in
the near future are additional elements that can attest to the key role of PBMAs.
This review aims at highlighting the main challenges and opportunities related to the
production and consumption of PBMA products, taking into consideration all of the pivotal
aspects of designing new food products. Indeed, after a brief excursus on the formulation
and production technology of PBMAs (i), the review addresses their nutritional profiles
and their potential impacts on health (ii) and the environment (iii), as well as consumers’
choices (iv) and the state of the market (v). Each of the five sections will provide a sketch
of the state of affairs, and overall, this article aims to add to other recent reviews [4,5]
by critically assessing recent studies from different disciplines in order to highlight the
consensus and controversies on this topic from an interdisciplinary perspective.

2. Production Technology of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

Among the earliest examples of meat alternatives, vegetable protein products are
traditionally produced and consumed in Asian countries—i.e., tofu and tempeh from soy
and seitan from gluten. Unfortunately, these products are not able to replicate the sensory
attributes of meat products for Western consumers, who seek vegetable-based products that
resemble meat in structure, flavor, and taste. Twenty-first-century meat alternatives have
made use of the crosslinking capacity—under certain conditions—of soy proteins from
the Asian tradition. Indeed, even today, soy is the main raw material for the production
of meat alternatives [6]. This supremacy undoubtedly depends on the availability of the
raw material and the techno-functional attributes of its proteins, including its solubility, its
ability to absorb water and oil, and its gelling and emulsifying properties—all important
aspects in defining the quality of the finished product [7]. However, scientific research (and
Nutrients 2023, 15, 452 3 of 16

the market) is shifting toward the use of raw materials other than soy because of issues
concerning GMOs, allergies, unfavorable climate for soy cultivation, and the preservation
and/or valorization of biodiversity. Thus, recent work explored the use of proteins from
different raw materials, including peas, fava beans, rapeseeds, and hemp, alone or in
combination with soybean [8]. Regardless of the botanical source, protein isolates—with
protein content above 75% (usually close to 90%)—are the most used raw materials [9].
Protein isolates are produced using wet separation techniques that are often time-
consuming, costly, inefficient, and unsustainable, given the high amounts of water, alkalis,
acids, or enzymes employed [9]. Finally, since the functionality of proteins can widely vary
depending on the process conditions adopted during protein isolation, the standardization
of the technological properties of the isolates is challenging [8]. Thus, protein isolates are
increasingly being replaced by protein concentrates (protein content between approx. 50
and 65%), without neglecting the structural properties required in the finished product [10].
These high-protein fractions are produced using dry separation processes. The latter type
of process is considered more sustainable than wet techniques, as it requires no water
or solvents, consumes less energy, and preserves the protein’s native structure instead
of forming protein aggregates, thus retaining their technological functionality [8]. The
principle behind the air classification is the different densities of the flour particles, which
are richer in starch or proteins. This allows the separation of the flour into a fine protein-
rich fraction and a coarse starch-rich fraction as a consequence of the centrifugal and
gravitational forces applied during the operation. Therefore, the less-refined protein
ingredients obtained with the air classification also contain other components, such as
lipids and fibers, which are often included in the formulation of protein-isolate-based
products [9]. Since the lipid and fiber contents in protein concentrates may vary based
on the source and processing conditions, the set-up of the air-classification conditions
needs to be optimized. So far, there are few examples—albeit with encouraging results—of
the application of high-protein fractions obtained using air separation from legumes in
the production of meat analogs [11], suggesting the need for further studies that also use
different sources.
In order to expand the range of raw materials that are suitable to be used in the
production of meat alternatives and that can maintain the high-quality characteristics
of the finished product, various colorants (e.g., leghemoglobin, red beets, red cabbage,
etc.) and flavorings (e.g., herbs and spices) have been proposed to reproduce the meat
color and flavor profile, as well as to mask the beany off-flavors of some legume proteins.
The juiciness, tenderness, and other sensory attributes of meat-like products are also
obtained by using fats/oils (such as coconut oil/butter, sunflower oil, canola oil, sesame
oil, etc.). However, it is increasingly common to use binding agents (e.g., oleogels, starches,
hydrocolloids, or fibers) as fat replacers [10]. Indeed, high amounts of fat—acting as a
lubricant—could interfere with the protein denaturation process, which is the first kind of
modification proteins need to undergo in order to obtain a meat-like structure.
The meat-like structure is achieved when the native globular structure of pulse pro-
teins is transformed into a fibrous structure in which proteins are elongated and highly
ordered [8]. This structure can be created using different technologies (including extrusion,
flow-induced structuring using a shear cell or a Couette cell, 3D printing, wet-spinning, and
electrospinning), the advantages and disadvantages of which were recently summarized
by Boukid [12].
The high productivity, low costs, versatility, energy efficiency, and scale-up potentials
of extrusion have led it to be the most widely used technology to produce meat analogs.
During this process, raw materials are hydrated and subjected to thermal and mechanical
stresses applied during extrusion, and, finally, the product is cooled to room tempera-
ture [13]. As a result of the mechanical stress, the temperature, the pressure, and the final
cooling step, proteins undergo a series of structural modifications, ranging from denatura-
tion to unfolding, crosslinking, and alignment, resulting in a fibrous structure that mimics
the characteristics of muscle tissues [14]. These modifications take place in a chamber
Nutrients 2023, 15, 452 4 of 16

containing one (i.e., single-screw extruder) or—more commonly—two (i.e., twin-screw

extruder) corotating screws that convey the material toward a die that provides the final
shape to the product. The extrusion chamber is subdivided into several zones, in which the
peculiar profiles of the screws—and, thus, the applied shear—and temperatures cause the
material to undergo (from the material inlet to the finished product outlet) mixing, hydra-
tion, shearing, homogenization, compression, deaeration, heating, shaping, and expansion.
During these operations, proteins are hydrated, unfolded, aligned, and texturized.
Extrusion can be performed at a low moisture level (<30%) to obtain texturized
vegetable proteins (TVPs) or at a high moisture level (>50%) to directly obtain meat analogs.
When extrusion is carried out at low moisture, the sudden drop in pressure at the end of
the extruder causes an immediate expansion of the product due to the rapid evaporation of
water. TVPs have a spongy meat-like structure that mimics ground beef or chicken breast.
TVPs can take different forms (flakes, chunks, or minced), and, after hydration (and final
cooking), they are able to retain their structural integrity and acquire a chewy texture and
elasticity, which is typical of meat.
In the case of high-moisture extrusion, a cooling die is connected at the end of the twin-
screw extruder to cool the sample at 20 ◦ C, which prevents the expansion and promotion
of fiber alignment and stabilization, as is typical of the anisotropic structure desirable for
these kinds of products.
Although the use of technologies other than extrusion has shown encouraging results
(including high-temperature-induced shearing and 3D printing), some hurdles still need
to be addressed before their widespread industrial deployment: cost reduction and/or
applicability to a wide range of legume proteins.

3. Nutritional Profiles and Health Impacts of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

Among the several reasons related to the growing demand for meat alternatives,
a potential explanation is likely related to the increased knowledge about the negative
impacts of diets high in red meat and, above all, processed meat on human health [15].
This, together with an increased concern for the environmental impacts of animal products
compared to their plant-based counterparts, supports the transition toward sustainable
healthy diets, which are based on a high intake of plant-based foods and the moderate
consumption of animal products [16].
However, to investigate the potential role of PBMAs on human health, it is critical to
analyze the nutritional characteristics of these products, also considering that meat is an
essential source of high-quality proteins, iron, vitamins, minerals, and varying amounts of
saturated fats depending on the type of meat [17]. A few studies analyzed the nutritional
quality of meat alternatives present in different markets and compared meat alternatives
and animal meat in terms of energy and nutrient contents [18–20].
In this regard, a recent study analyzed the nutritional quality of 269 commercial
meat analogs currently sold on the Italian market by retrieving data reported on their
food labels [19]. Large nutritional variability was observed among PBMAs, with plant-
based steaks showing significantly higher protein and lower energy, fats, and salt contents
compared to other plant-based food categories. Comparing the nutritional information
with reference animal meat products, the results showed higher fiber content in all PB-
MAs. Moreover, plant-based burgers and meatballs had a lower protein content than their
meat counterparts, while ready-sliced meat substitutes showed a lower salt content than
cured meats.
Similar results were obtained in other studies performed in the US [18], Sweden [20],
and other European markets [12]. These studies found lower energy and total and saturated
fat contents and higher total carbohydrates, sugars, and fibers in PBMAs compared to meat-
based products. On the other hand, salt content showed contrasting results. Furthermore,
plant-based and meat-based products generally presented similar amounts of total proteins
despite large differences in the contents of single amino acids. As a matter of fact, higher
Nutrients 2023, 15, 452 5 of 16

amounts of glutamic acid and cysteine and lower contents of alanine, glycine, and, above
all, methionine were identified in PBMAs [21].
These results support the importance of further exploring the use of plant-based
protein blends to reduce differences between plant-based and animal-based meats [22].
In addition, it is noteworthy that plant-based and animal products also differ in protein
digestibility and the bioavailability of single amino acids. Indeed, animal meat showed
higher protein digestibility than PBMAs, which, in turn, have a negative impact on amino
acid bioavailability. These data suggest the possibility to use specific protein sources with
high bioavailability (e.g., soy isolate) and stress the importance of considering the real
bioavailability of amino acids when investigating the diet quality of dietary patterns that
include these products.
Another interesting aspect to be considered regards micronutrients. Data are often
limited on this topic, but previous studies highlighted that PBMAs are a good source of
minerals, also reporting a higher iron content compared to meat [21,23]. However, it is
important to underline that the absorption and bioavailability of iron from plant-based
sources and vegetarian diets are lower compared to omnivorous diets, and this shall be
considered in future investigations [24].
Altogether, these results highlight the importance of carefully evaluating the nutri-
tional impacts of switching from animal meat to PBMAs in order to identify potential
at-risk nutrients. With this intention, a recent study compared the omnivore diet with diets
in which animal products were substituted with either traditional or novel plant-based
foods by using NHANES 2017–2018 data. The risk of inadequacies of specific nutrients
(e.g., vitamin B12) was highlighted, especially when novel PBMAs were used [25]. These
results once again support the need to consider the nutritional quality of PBMAs when
switching to plant-based diets that exclude the consumption of animal foods.
Another area that deserves further investigation is the evaluation of the impact of
replacing animal meat on human health through well-designed human intervention studies.
So far, different studies have compared the effects of vegetarian/vegan diets with those of
omnivorous diets [26], but trials specifically focused on PBMAs are still lacking. Yet, due to
the publication of study protocols in clinical trial registries (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov), it is
reasonable to expect the implementation and publication of trials evaluating the impacts of
PBMAs on nutritional and health aspects in the near future. A first attempt was recently
made by Crimarco and colleagues [27], who assessed the effects of plant-based meats on
biomarkers of inflammation through a secondary analysis of the Study With Appetizing
Plant food—Meat Eating Alternatives Trial (SWAP-MEAT). Contrary to expectations, no
improvements in biomarkers of inflammation following plant-based meat consumption
were identified. However, further long-term studies focused on a large plethora of health
markers are necessary before drawing any conclusions.

4. Environmental Impacts of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

Meat is a protein food of high biological value; however, the conversion of feed and
fodder into animal protein may not be sustainable due to inputs and the use of limited
natural resources [28]. Currently, several farming systems of meat production exist, with
the production efficiency per unit of a product depending mainly on feeding, breeds,
management, and the technology employed [29,30]. Fewer resources per product unit are
required for crop growth, which leads these products to represent an interesting oppor-
tunity for sustainable development while meeting the increasing demand for food [31].
Thus, in developed countries not relying on subsistence animal breeding, PBMAs could
bring environmental benefits in terms of biodiversity, land and water use, and reduced
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [32,33].
Nonetheless, the environmental impacts of PBMAs still need to be assessed. In this
regard, the life cycle assessment (LCA) approach has been applied. It is a methodology
used in various contexts to quantify the environmental impacts of a product based on the
ISO 14040 [34] and ISO 14044 [35] standards to improve its environmental performance [36].
Nutrients 2023, 15, 452 6 of 16

Several LCA studies were conducted on PBMAs to detect hotspots in the produc-
tion process and to compare environmental performances with animal-based products.
Indicators such as climate change, land, water, and energy use were considered.
In this regard, Bryant [37] analyzed 43 studies and concluded that the production
of meat analogs is more sustainable when compared to animal products. At the same
time, Detzel et al. [38] stated that PBMAs could help reduce the environmental impacts
related to food consumption by overcoming the complexity of the processing stage of
ingredients—which has a significant environmental impact—and by optimizing the inputs
required to produce protein ingredients (i.e., legumes, trying to stabilize their yields, the
main problem in their cultivation) [39]. Nevertheless, Smetana et al. [40] reported that
the technology employed (i.e., machinery and process equipment) might be a valuable
opportunity to improve the sustainability of alternative protein source production. A de-
tailed LCA study by Mejia et al. [41] on three factories producing 57 different types of meat
analogs achieved low GHG emissions, mainly due to the manufacturing process, followed
by the agricultural production of food ingredients and their transportation. According to
Goldstein et al. [42], the production stage accounts for 80% of the environmental impact
due to the use of electricity from fossil sources; however, alternative energy solutions could
mitigate this impact.
In-depth studies are needed since contrasting data are ascribed to energy consumption
derived from the use of proxy processes for the implemented energy sources [37]. Within
the meat supply chain, meat production and animal husbandry are the most impactful
stages [43]. Nevertheless, manure production, subsequently applied to the soil, spares the
need for chemical fertilizer, contributes to crop yield, and maintains soil fertility. On the
other hand, legumes do not require nitrogen fertilization due to their ability to fix nitrogen
from the atmosphere and at the root level [44]. This leads to lower N2 O and NH3 emissions
due to the non-use of manure and/or synthetic fertilizers.
Several studies have considered the impact of meat and meat analogs on the water
used and the effects on eutrophication and acidification. In a study comparing patties with
and without meat, Smetana et al. [45] estimated lower acidification and subsequent aquatic
eutrophication for PBMAs. Similar conclusions were obtained by Heller et al. [46], who
showed lower water use for plant-based patties. However, guidelines for water modeling
are needed to avoid misleading interpretations based on erroneous comparisons.
Lusk et al. [47] produced a model to study both the economic and environmental effects
of the use of alternative plant products over meat in the US. The reforestation of cropland
and pastureland, as well as the conversion of land for crops grown for livestock feeding
to crops for plant-based products, would result in the sequestration of 0.43 megatons
of CO2 per year. The results imply an increase in crop yields to compensate for the
reduction in available cropland. At the European level, Saget et al. [48] found a reduction
in human–animal competition for land use for pea protein production and an 89% lower
global warming potential. In more detail, in Germany, a 5% substitution of beef with pea
proteins could lead to a 1% reduction in annual CO2 emissions. However, it is important to
assert that agricultural activities impact 9.9% of global greenhouse gas emissions [49]. There
could be scenarios of increased arable land to fulfill the growth of alternative meat products,
even when deforestation is limited through environmental policies. The extensification
of palm plantations in humid tropical countries could be an example, with an increased
demand for coconut oil as an ingredient in plant-based beef substitutes [42].
It can be concluded that, still, few LCA studies have quantified the environmental im-
pacts of meat alternatives, and many limitations related to the application of the methodol-
ogy need to be addressed. Relevant considerations are that (i) PBMAs are highly processed
foods, and thus, impacts associated with the use of different forms of energy counteract the
low environmental impact associated with the production of plant-based ingredients [41];
(ii) the building of databases for the productive process of complex (multi-ingredient) foods
should be a relevant point to focus on; (iii) a functional unit that does not consider the
mass of a product but integrates primary nutrients should be implemented, along with
Nutrients 2023, 15, 452 7 of 16

a feature required when comparing LCA results from different studies/products [48,50];
(iv) the sustainability of PBMA production must take into consideration good agricultural
practices, such as crop rotation, fertilizer, plant protection, and water use [38].

5. Consumer Behavior of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

In the realm of meat alternatives, despite technological innovations and efforts to
design processed plant-based products from different sources, one of the main challenges in
successfully replacing animal prom ducts with plant-based ingredients is the re-creation of
similar meat sensory properties. Moreover, communication about these new products and
individual attributes (e.g., attitude and demographics) should be taken into consideration
during the marketing stage—especially in those countries where meat and meat-based
products have a key role in consumers’ minds, in terms of habits, culinary traditions, and
culture [5,51]. Therefore, both sensory and consumer science can play an important role
in understanding how consumers perceive PBMAs, including drivers of and barriers to
their acceptance.
First, past studies showed that perceived sensory attributes and consumer acceptance
are strongly influenced by the choice of plant/protein sources [52,53]. Therefore, what
ingredients to use as a replacement for meat is an important factor to consider in the devel-
opment of meat alternatives [54]. Early product developments mimicking processed meat
products, for example, those from mycoproteins, have low sensory acceptance in terms of
taste and texture [55]. This results in a low willingness to include such products as a real
meat substitute for meat eaters [56]. As mentioned above, until a few years ago, the first
generation of these products was mostly designed for vegetarians and vegans [55,57,58].
To achieve acceptability by a wider audience of meat eaters, the new generation of PBMAs
shall be developed in a way that texture, appearance, aroma, and taste resemble those of
equivalent authentic meat products, before, during, and after cooking [5,57]. Yet, reproduc-
ing the complex and delicate sensory profile of farmed meat can be challenging [14,59]. For
instance, the color of plant-based products may diminish due to light or oxygen exposure,
or the taste could be affected by lipid oxidation and cause undesirable characteristics [52].
Considering that the appearance of a product is generally the first element to be assessed,
it is a critical determinant in food acceptance. Another challenge for these PBMAs is to
recall the flavor of real meat while avoiding unpleasant flavors (e.g., bitter, burnt, and
earthy) caused by the high level of legume protein [5]. Therefore, the need to mimic meat
characteristics requires the use of many additives in the development stage [5]. As a
result, the product packaging of PBMAs often includes a long list of unfamiliar ingredi-
ents [19], which could convey a sense of processed and unhealthy food among consumers.
In particular, PBMAs that are high/ultra-processed could be associated with a certain
unnaturalness of the product [60]. Thus, while reducing the gap between the sensory
profiles of PBMAs and their meat equivalents might be important for some companies,
the concept of product acceptance goes beyond merely sensory appreciation, including
consumers’ perceptions. For example, low product familiarity with PBMAs—including
the preparation/cooking method—is one of the most important product-related factors
associated with consumer acceptance. This could potentially limit the expansion to the
mainstream consumer market. Therefore, fully understanding consumers’ acceptance of
PBMAs should require individuals to have a direct experience [4].
The most investigated meat category in consumer studies, including sensory tests,
is burgers [53,61–63]. The reason is that traditional burgers are one of the most popular
meat forms due to their composition (e.g., rich in proteins and fats), market availability,
convenience, affordability, and sensory qualities [64,65]. Results consistently indicate that
respondents generally prefer traditional meat products over their plant-based alternatives.
For example, Grasso et al. [62] showed that individuals had higher sensory expectations for
a beef burger than for a plant-based or hybrid patty; however, in terms of acceptability and
purchase intentions, the hybrid one (60% beef and 40% vegetables) was the most preferred
after the tasting.
Nutrients 2023, 15, 452 8 of 16

In general, product familiarity is also often associated with higher acceptance. For
instance, another study by Caputo et al. [53], which included a choice experiment with a
blind–informed sensory study, showed that the beef burger, which had the highest degree
of familiarity, also received the highest willingness to pay (WTP) compared to two PBMAs
and one hybrid burger. They also found that, in the informed group, the preference and
WTP for the plant-based patty labeled as “made with animal-like protein” exceeded those
for the hybrid burger (70% beef and 30% mushrooms) and the plant-based burger “made
with pea protein”. As reported by several studies, low prices of non-meat protein sources
may act as a driver to accept such products [66]; however, it will probably take some years
to reach price parity with traditional meat [4].
Regarding demographics, habits, and attitudinal factors, being pro-health, pro-sustainability,
and young leads to higher acceptability toward PBMAs compared to other consumer seg-
ments [5]. For these reasons, health and environmental sustainability benefits could be
included among the main drivers to try such products [66]. For instance, in a study by
Sogari et al. [51], motivations to process both sustainability and nutrition information were
a strong determinant driving the likelihood to purchase a hybrid meat–mushroom burger
among US students. Other impacting factors could be the attitude toward meat analogs [67]
and, more generally, consumer attitude toward food innovation [51]. On the other hand,
the main personal-related barriers to acceptability are related to food and food technology
neophobia [4,5], attachment to meat, and lower situational appropriateness of consuming
non-meat protein sources [66].
Several studies have shown that heavy meat eaters might be less willing to substitute
meat products for plant-based alternatives than flexitarians [68,69]. However, other studies
suggested that the greater the number of consumers who are already familiar with plant-
based products, the fewer the individuals who will seek products that are similar to meat
from a sensory point of view [5]. This could be explained by the fact that vegetarians and
vegans are not seeking meat sensory properties in plant-based products [70].
Finally, more knowledge about consumer acceptance of PBMAs is also helpful for
legislators. For instance, in the EU, policymakers support the production and promotion of
alternative meat substitutes and hybrid products by funding research programs toward
more sustainable and alternative proteins, such as the Farm to Fork Strategy in the European
Union [71]. Thus, understanding how consumers perceive such products is challenging for
the food system, and developing meat alternatives with high consumer appeal requires the
full integration of sensory and consumer research.

6. Market Analysis of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

Given that the latest market trends of plant-based meat alternatives have not been
deeply investigated, we conducted market research to identify the current direction of these
products. Retailers and industries could benefit from the data retrieved from this analysis
to design new products (in terms of ingredients, claims, labeling, etc.) to better shape their
market strategies.
To analyze market trends of PBMAs, we used Mintel’s Global New Product Database
(GNPD) [72], an online database for new products launched in selected countries. The same
database was previously used in other research. For instance, several authors employed
Mintel’s GNPD to investigate front-of-package information, food labeling schemes, ingredi-
ent profiles, and new launches of alternative meat products in the global market [65,73–75].
The objective of our analysis was to use the Mintel database to extract and explore
different information on the latest market trends of PBMAs. In order to have an overview
of recent years, we searched for new meat alternative launches over the past three years
(from January 2019 to December 2021). The dataset was extracted on 26 October 2022, and
the search strategy is described in Appendix A (Table A1).
The research returned 5155 results in the form of a spreadsheet, where each column
reported different information, such as ingredients, claims, and nutritional values per 100 g.
After cleaning the dataset to remove non-meat alternatives (e.g., fish or egg alternatives)
 different information on the latest market trends of PBMAs. In order to have an overview
of recent years, we searched for new meat alternative launches over the past three years
(from January 2019 to December 2021). The dataset was extracted on 26 October 2022, and
the search strategy is described in Appendix A (Table A1).
Nutrients 2023, 15, 452 The research returned 5155 results in the form of a spreadsheet, where each column 9 of 16
reported different information, such as ingredients, claims, and nutritional values per 100
g. After cleaning the dataset to remove non-meat alternatives (e.g., fish or egg alternatives)
usingkeywords
using keywords(e.g., (e.g.,seafood,
seafood, salmon,
salmon, tuna,
tuna, and
and egg)
egg) in
in the
the “Product”
“Product” andand “Description”
“Description”
columns, the final dataframe was analyzed using descriptive
columns, the final dataframe was analyzed using descriptive statistics. statistics.
Duringthe
During thepast
pastthree
threeyears
years(2019–2021),
(2019–2021),the themarket
marketof ofPBMAs
PBMAshas hasseen
seenaa remarkable
remarkable
spikein
spike inproduct
productlaunches,
launches,withwith4965
4965products
productsreleased
releasedworldwide.
worldwide. InIn more
more detail,
detail, Figure
Figure 1
1 shows
shows thethe solid
solid growth
growth of PBMAs
of PBMAs at beginning
at the the beginning of 2020—when
of 2020—when the COVID-19
the COVID-19 pan-
pandemic
demicout—and
broke broke out—and a slight
a slight drop drop
at the endatof
the endThis
2021. of 2021. Thiscould
change change could be explained
be explained by common by
common short-term reductions in meat intake during zoonotic outbreaks,
short-term reductions in meat intake during zoonotic outbreaks, as the same happened for as the same
happened for
SARS-CoV SARS-CoV
in 2003 and theinAfrican
2003 and the African
Swine Swine
Flu in 2019 Flu in 2019
(Attwood and(Attwood and Hajat,
Hajat, 2020). Thus,
2020).
this meatThus, this reduction
intake meat intake reduction
could have ledcould have led to
consumers consumers to look
look for new for new alterna-
alternatives at the
tives at theofbeginning
beginning of the coronavirus
the coronavirus outbreak. Nevertheless,
outbreak. Nevertheless, despite thedespite
modestthe modesttrend
negative neg-
ative trend
during during
the third thefourth
and third and fourth
quarters of quarters
2021, theofoverall
2021, the overallof
direction direction of PBMA
PBMA launches
islaunches is positively
positively growing, growing,
and this newand this newpattern
dietary dietarycould
pattern could represent
represent an oppor-
an opportunity to
tunitythese
foster to foster these More
products. products. Morethis
precisely, precisely,
positivethis positive
market trendmarket trend
is mostly is mostly
focused fo-
on the
introduction
cused on the of new products
introduction (n =products
of new 1822; 36.7%) and new
(n = 1822; 36.7%) varieties
and new (n varieties
= 1910; 38.5%) of
(n = 1910;
PBMAs.
38.5%) ofThe remaining
PBMAs. launches (n
The remaining = 1232; (n
launches 24.8%)
= 1232;include
24.8%)new packaging,
include re-launches,
new packaging, re-
and new formulations.
launches, and new formulations.

2000

1500

1000

500

0
2019 2020 2021
PBMAs’ launches New varieties New products
New packaging Re-launches New formulations

Figure1.1.Number
Figure Numberof ofPBMAs’
PBMAs’launches
launches(n(n== 4965—green
4965—green bar),
bar), new
new varieties
varieties (n
(n == 1910—orange
1910—orange bar),
bar),
new products (n = 1822—gray bar), new packaging (n = 1822—yellow bar), re-launches (n =
new products (n = 1822—gray bar), new packaging (n = 1822—yellow bar), re-launches (n = 386—blue386—
blue bar), and new formulations (n = 58—black bar) launched worldwide over the past three years
bar), and new formulations (n = 58—black bar) launched worldwide over the past three years
(2019–2021). Abbreviations: PBMAs, plant-based meat alternatives.
(2019–2021). Abbreviations: PBMAs, plant-based meat alternatives.

ItIt isisalso
alsoimportant
important to
to highlight
highlight that,
that, despite
despite thethe market
market for
for PBMA
PBMA products
products experi-
experi-
encing increasing growth, the global market revenue of plant-based meat substitutes isis
encing increasing growth, the global market revenue of plant-based meat substitutes
forecastto
forecast tobe
beworth
worthUSD
USD33.99
33.99billion
billionin
in2027
2027(Global:
(Global:Meat
MeatSubstitutes
SubstitutesMarket
MarketRevenue
Revenue
2016–2027|Statista, 2022), while the meat sector is expected to be valued
2016–2027|Statista, 2022), while the meat sector is expected to be valued at USD 1354 at USD 1354 bil-
bil-
lion by 2027 (Global Meat Industry Value Projection, 2021–2027|Statista,
lion by 2027 (Global Meat Industry Value Projection, 2021–2027|Statista, 2022). Thus, the 2022). Thus, the
market share of PBMAs is, and is estimated to remain, significantly lower
market share of PBMAs is, and is estimated to remain, significantly lower than that of the than that of the
meatmarket.
meat market.
Considering the
Considering the 2019–2021
2019–2021 period,
period, new
new PBMA
PBMA products
products were
were mostly
mostly launched
launched in in
France, with
France, with 417
417 new
newlaunches
launches (8.4%),
(8.4%), followed
followed by by the
theUK
UK(n (n== 393;
393; 7.9%)
7.9%) and
andGermany
Germany
(n== 391;
(n 391; 7.9%).
7.9%). The
The top
toptwelve
twelvemost
mostactive
activemarkets
marketsininthis
thissector
sectorare
are represented
represented in in Figure
Figure 2.
This figure underlines that European and northern American countries, along with Brazil
and Australia, have been more active in launching plant-based meat alternatives during
the past few years, showing an increasing interest in meat substitutes in these countries.
 zil and Australia, have been more active in launching plant-based meat alternatives dur-
ing the pastoffew
1 Department Food years, showing
and Drug, University an increasing
of Parma, interest
43124 Parma, in meat substitutes in these coun-
Italy; [email protected]
tries.
2 Department of Food, Environmental and Nutritional Sciences (DeFENS), Università degli Studi di Milano,

20133 Milan, Italy; [email protected] (A.M.); [email protected] (D.M.)

3 Department of Animal Science, Food and Nutrition (DiANA), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore,
29122 Piacenza, Italy; [email protected]
Nutrients 2023, 15, 452 10 of 16
UK
4 Wageningen Economic Research, Wageningen University and Research, 2595 BM The Hague, The Nether-

lands; [email protected]
Netherlands
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-0521-906545
USA
Spain
Brazil
Australia
0 100 200 300 400 500
Number of products launched over the past three years by
country

Figure 2. Twelve most active countries in PBMA launches over the past three years (2019–2021).
Note: Each bar represents the total number of PBMAs’ launches between January 2019 and Decem-
ber 2021. Abbreviations: PBMAs, plant-based meat alternatives.

In the global market, the most represented food categories were general plant-based
proteins (n = 1469; 29.6%)—meaning foods that do not intend to mimic an existing meat
product (e.g., burgers, sausages, nuggets, or meatballs) but can still be considered meat
substitutes,
Figure as they
2. Twelve mostare protein-rich
active countries inplant
PBMA foods (e.g.,over
launches “teriyaki
the pasttofu”
threeand
years“fried glutenNote:
(2019–2021). with
peanuts”)—and
Each bar representspatty/burger
the total number alternatives (n = 1331;
of PBMAs’ launches 26.8%).
between Every
January other
2019 and food category
December 2021.
alone—such as
Abbreviations: sausage,
PBMAs, mince, or
plant-based nugget
meat alternatives—does not represent more than 9%
alternatives.
of the total launches, as illustrated in Figure 3.
In
In the global
terms market,
of the highest thesales
most represented
value in EUR and foodthe categories wereaccording
growth rate, general plant-based
to a recent
proteins
study of the Smart Protein project [76] using Nielsen Retail Scanning Data, the UKmeat
(n = 1469; 29.6%)—meaning foods that do not intend to mimic an existing and
product
Germany (e.g.,
leadburgers,
the sectorsausages,
of PBMAs, nuggets, or meatballs)
i.e., sausages, burgerbut can still
patties, and be considered
cold meat
cuts. However,
substitutes,
differences as in they are protein-rich
the categories plant foods
exist between (e.g., “teriyaki
countries; tofu” and
for example, “fried gluten
plant-based with
sausages
peanuts”)—and patty/burger
lead the market segment in thealternatives
UK, whereas, (n in
= 1331;
Germany,26.8%).
the Every other food
top category category
is plant-based
alone—such
refrigerated as meatsausage,
(burger mince, or nugget
patties, nuggets, alternatives—does
minced, etc.), followednot represent more thancold
by plant-based 9%
of the total launches, as illustrated in
cuts and meat spreads and plant-based sausages. Figure 3.

Nutrients 2023, 15, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/nutrients

Figure 3.
Figure 3. Food
Foodcategory
categorydistribution
distributionofofPBMAs
PBMAs launched over
launched thethe
over pastpast
three years
three (2019–2021).
years Ab-
(2019–2021).
breviations: PBMAs,
Abbreviations: PBMAs,plant-based
plant-basedmeat
meatalternatives.
alternatives.

In terms of the highest sales value in EUR and the growth rate, according to a recent
study of the Smart Protein project [76] using Nielsen Retail Scanning Data, the UK and
Germany lead the sector of PBMAs, i.e., sausages, burger patties, and cold cuts. However,
differences in the categories exist between countries; for example, plant-based sausages
lead the market segment in the UK, whereas, in Germany, the top category is plant-based
refrigerated meat (burger patties, nuggets, minced, etc.), followed by plant-based cold cuts
and meat spreads and plant-based sausages.
FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16

Nutrients 2023, 15, 452 11 of 16

Regarding the ingredients, we used the data from Mintel to identify which foods are
most widely used as the first ingredient. When water was reported to be the first element
in the list (n = 1605; 32.3%), we considered the second one. Using this strategy, we identi-
Regarding the ingredients, we used the data from Mintel to identify which foods
fied 1914 productsare (38.6%) containing
most widely used assoy-based components—e.g.,
the first ingredient. When water soybean curd, proteins,
was reported to be the first
or flour—as the first ingredient.
element in the listAfter soy, wheat
(n = 1605; 32.3%),(nwe=considered
520; 10.5%) theand other
second one.pulses
Using(nthis= 702;
strategy,
1914 products (38.6%) containing soy-based components—e.g.,
14.1%), such as kidney beans, black beans, peas, chickpeas, and lentils, were predomi-curd,
we identified soybean
or flour—as the first ingredient. After soy, wheat (n = 520; 10.5%) and other pulses
nantly used as theproteins,
first ingredient, followed by mushrooms (n = 134; 2.7%) and jackfruit (n
(n = 702; 14.1%), such as kidney beans, black beans, peas, chickpeas, and lentils, were
= 86; 1.7%). predominantly used as the first ingredient, followed by mushrooms (n = 134; 2.7%) and
In terms of information
jackfruit (n = 86;provided
1.7%). on the packaging, a total of 120 different claims
were identified. Out ofIn4965termsproducts,
of information
2849provided
(57%)on the packaging,
included a total of 120 Animal
the “Vegan/No different claims
Ingre-were
identified. Out of 4965 products, 2849 (57%) included the “Vegan/No
dients” claim, and 2099 (42%) reported the “Plant Based” claim. In addition, in line with Animal Ingredients”
claim, and 2099 (42%) reported the “Plant Based” claim. In addition, in line with Cutroneo
Cutroneo et al. [19], the most common nutrition claim was the “High/Added Protein”
et al. [19], the most common nutrition claim was the “High/Added Protein” statement
statement (n = 1616;(n =33%). A graphic
1616; 33%). presentation
A graphic presentationofofthe
the claims
claims isisrepresented
represented in Figure
in Figure 4. 4.

Figure 4. Word cloud of the

Figure 4. top
Word20 claims
cloud employed
of the in PBMA
top 20 claims employed products
in PBMA launched over the
products launched past
over the three
past three
years (2019–2021). Abbreviations:
years (2019–2021). PBMA, plant-based
Abbreviations: PBMA, meat alternative.
plant-based meat Note: A word
alternative. Note:cloud
A wordis acloud
vis- is a
visual
ual representation of wordrepresentation
frequencyofand word frequency
value. Theand value. Media”
“Social The “Social Media”
claim claim indicates
indicates the presence
the presence
on the packaging of on the packaging
a logo/claim toofentice
a logo/claim to entice
consumers to consumers to join the company’s
join the company’s social media
social media community
community
and follow
and follow its channel/website. its channel/website.

Finally, Mintel’s Global New Product Database has been a practical tool to obtain
Finally, Mintel’s Global
a global NewofProduct
overview PBMA marketDatabase hasThe
trends. been
dataa retrieved
practicaland tool to obtain
analyzed froma the
global overview ofdatabase
PBMAshowed marketthat trends. The data
plant-based meatretrieved andcan
alternatives analyzed frominthe
widely differ data-
terms of the
food category, ingredients, and/or claims. However, despite
base showed that plant-based meat alternatives can widely differ in terms of the food cat- these several variations,
the increasing trend in product launches—especially in Western countries—highlights a
egory, ingredients,promising
and/or claims. However, despite these several variations, the increas-
global trend to support the transition toward a plant-based diet. However, as
ing trend in product launches—especially
previously in Western
highlighted in this section, market countries—highlights
share differences between the a promising
meat and PBMA
global trend to support
sectors the transition
are still notable, toward
and meatarevenue
plant-based
forecastsdiet. However,
do not as declining
foresee any previously trends.
These data underline that the growing market of meat
highlighted in this section, market share differences between the meat and PBMA sectorssubstitutes does not significantly
affect the meat market. Therefore, PBMAs are still weak substitutes for animal-based
are still notable, and meat revenue forecasts do not foresee any declining trends. These
products, as they are often complementary to meat rather than meat replacers [77]. Previous
data underline that the also
studies growing
showedmarket of meat
that regular substitutes
meat consumers are does nottosignificantly
less likely choose plant-basedaffectitems
the meat market. Therefore,
over beef than PBMAs
people are still weak
declaring substitutes
that they for animal-based
follow different products,
diets (e.g., vegan, flexitarian,
as they are often complementary
or vegetarian) [78].toThus,meatinrather
order tothan meat
support replacers
a dietary shift[77]. Previous
toward studiesit is
meat reduction,
critical to study and test strategies that could steer meat
also showed that regular meat consumers are less likely to choose plant-based items eaters’ choices toward plant-based
over
diets and support the growing market of PBMAs.
beef than people declaring that they follow different diets (e.g., vegan, flexitarian, or veg-
etarian) [78]. Thus,7. in order toand
Discussion support a dietary shift toward meat reduction, it is critical
Conclusions
to study and test strategies that could
Plant-based steer
foods that meatanimal
replace eaters’ choices
foods, such toward plant-based
as meat, but dietseven
also dairy, and
fish and eggs, are
and support the growing market of PBMAs. gaining increased attention as possible substitutes that can facilitate the

7. Discussion and Conclusions

Plant-based foods that replace animal foods, such as meat, but also dairy, and even
Nutrients 2023, 15, 452 12 of 16

transition toward sustainable healthy diets. The idea of processing plant-based ingredients
to obtain protein-based foods is not a new concept for consumers since many products,
such as tempeh, tofu, and seitan, have been available on the market for hundreds of
years [4], especially in Asian countries. However, these products were not intended to
be meat substitutes per se and have never become mainstream in Western countries. A
possible explanation could be that these products have mostly been targeted at vegetarians
or vegans without any explicit reference to their animal counterparts.
Nevertheless, the development of the so-called “meat alternatives” sector is gaining
more and more attention due to growing concerns over the environmental impacts of the
food system [5] and the increasing awareness of the detrimental impacts of high meat
consumption on human health [79].
In the last several years, hundreds of meat-like substitutes, such as plant-based burgers,
have been developed and launched globally on the market to imitate the traditional beef
burger using either 100% plant-based ingredients or a mix of both meat and plant-based
ingredients, i.e., “hybrid meat products”. Although this latter category is not suitable for
vegetarians and vegans, these hybrid meat alternatives could exploit consumer barriers
to PBMAs (e.g., low sensory quality) and lead to the first approach to reducing meat
consumption.
The growing demand for PBMAs has driven the development of ground-breaking
process technologies and novel ingredients that can help to obtain products with meat-
like sensory attributes that have the potential to attract non-vegetarian consumers [52].
However, many of these new meat alternatives are highly complex products in terms of
ingredients/formulations and require technological investments [80]. For instance, one
limitation of using plant proteins as meat substitutes is the challenge of preserving the
shape while dealing with the high risk of crumbling [56]. For this reason, as of now,
most of these proteins have been employed either as a meat ingredient substitute (e.g., in
the shape of mince) or as parts of food products (pizza, sauces, etc.) and have not been
consumed on their own [55]. Currently, a new line of familiar alternatives to traditional meat
products or dishes, such as imitation-meat burgers, has been launched in supermarkets
and restaurants [81].
While targeting young flexitarians and omnivores is seen as the key to ensuring
growing sales of plant-based meat alternatives in the future [82,83], there is still the need to
investigate whether and how the sensory appeal will be a barrier for the second generation
of plant-based meat alternatives among these consumers [5].
To achieve acceptability among non-vegetarian consumers, plant-based foods should
resemble the texture, flavor, appearance, aroma, and taste of authentic meat products.
However, the long list of unfamiliar ingredients used to mimic meat sensory properties
leads to different nutrition values of these products compared to animal meats. As a result,
even if PBMAs are similar to meat in terms of sensory experience, they cannot be considered
a nutritional replacement for animal products [4]. Thus, further studies are needed not
only to monitor the nutritional quality of new plant-based meat products on the market but
also to investigate the impact of this substitution on human health markers. In addition,
adequate nutritional education programs to improve consumers’ knowledge and awareness
about the differences between animal- and plant-based products are required [19].
Moreover, the discussion on whether manufacturers should describe PBMA products
using references to their animal counterparts (e.g., “tastes like meat”), which could create
positive expectations for meat consumers [5,62], is still under debate. Specifically, after
the recent commercial success of several PBMAs, a strong debate has started on how to
label/name such products. For example, in the EU, a regulation clarifying whether “meat-
sounding” labels for PBMAs should be allowed does not exist yet. This outcome will
probably impact consumer preferences, as shown in a recent study by Demartini et al. [84],
in which consumers’ perceptions of tastiness and healthiness and their willingness to buy
plant-based meatballs were negatively affected by the vegan labeling.
Nutrients 2023, 15, 452 13 of 16

As we reported, the sector of PBMAs is launching products on the market that mimic
their animal counterparts, and the term “meat substitutes” seems to imply that people
will stop eating meat [4]; however, it is more likely that individuals will consume both
traditional and non-traditional meat alternatives. In this scenario, PBMAs may be a useful
tool to reduce animal products, especially for populations that consume too much animal
meat according to dietary recommendations. We might also expect PBMAs to be regarded
as an intermediate phase on our way to (semi-)plant-based diets, in which unprocessed
plant-based foods and recipes would take center stage. Achieving this kind of diet would
mean that our food habits have really gone beyond meat.
Finally, future studies should consider calls for collaboration, particularly among
stakeholders of the food supply chain (i.e., industries and food services) and the sci-
entific community (i.e., nutritionists and dietitians, food technologists, and consumers
scientists), to facilitate the transition toward healthier and more sustainable plant-based
protein sources.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.M. and G.S.; visualization, G.A.; writing—original

draft preparation, G.A., F.F., H.D., A.M., D.M. and G.S.; writing—review and editing G.A., F.F., H.D.,
A.M., D.M. and G.S.; supervision, G.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data will be available upon request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Search criteria considered in Mintel database.

Search Variable Criteria

Category “Food”
“Meat Substitutes” (with “Format Type” matching one or more of
Sub-category the following: ball; block/cubed; burger; sausage; fillet;
shredded/minced; sliced; other)
within the “last three complete years”
Date Published
(January 2019–December 2021)
Region/Market “Across all regions/markets”

References
1. OECD; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2022–2031; Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2022.
2. Dagevos, H. Exploring Flexitarianism: Meat Reduction in a Meat-Centred Food Culture. In Impact of Meat Consumption on Health
and Environmental Sustainability; Raphaely, T., Marinova, D., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016; pp. 233–243.
3. Verain, M.; Dagevos, H.; Antonides, G. Flexitarianism: A Range of Sustainable Food Styles. In Handbook of Research on Sustainable
Consumption; Reisch, L.A., Thøgersen, J., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK; pp. 209–223.
4. Nezlek, J.B.; Forestell, C.A. Meat Substitutes: Current Status, Potential Benefits, and Remaining Challenges. Curr. Opin. Food Sci.
2022, 47, 100890. [CrossRef]
5. Giacalone, D.; Clausen, M.P.; Jaeger, S.R. Understanding Barriers to Consumption of Plant-Based Foods and Beverages: Insights
from Sensory and Consumer Science. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2022, 48, 100919. [CrossRef]
6. Zhang, T.; Dou, W.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Jiang, L.; Sui, X. The Development History and Recent Updates on Soy
Protein-Based Meat Alternatives. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 109, 702–710. [CrossRef]
7. Nishinari, K.; Fang, Y.; Guo, S.; Phillips, G.O. Soy Proteins: A Review on Composition, Aggregation and Emulsification. Food
Hydrocoll. 2014, 39, 301–318. [CrossRef]
Nutrients 2023, 15, 452 14 of 16

8. Grossmann, L.; Weiss, J. Alternative Protein Sources as Technofunctional Food Ingredients. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 12,
93–117. [CrossRef]
9. Schutyser, M.A.I.; Pelgrom, P.J.M.; van der Goot, A.J.; Boom, R.M. Dry Fractionation for Sustainable Production of Functional
Legume Protein Concentrates. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 45, 327–335. [CrossRef]
10. Zahari, I.; Östbring, K.; Purhagen, J.K.; Rayner, M. Plant-Based Meat Analogues from Alternative Protein: A Systematic Literature
Review. Foods 2022, 11, 2870. [CrossRef]
11. De Angelis, D.; Kaleda, A.; Pasqualone, A.; Vaikma, H.; Tamm, M.; Tammik, M.-L.; Squeo, G.; Summo, C. Physicochemical and
Sensorial Evaluation of Meat Analogues Produced from Dry-Fractionated Pea and Oat Proteins. Foods 2020, 9, 1754. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
12. Boukid, F. Plant-Based Meat Analogues: From Niche to Mainstream. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2021, 247, 297–308. [CrossRef]
13. Wittek, P.; Ellwanger, F.; Karbstein, H.P.; Emin, M.A. Morphology Development and Flow Characteristics during High Moisture
Extrusion of a Plant-Based Meat Analogue. Foods 2021, 10, 1753. [CrossRef]
14. Sha, L.; Xiong, Y.L. Plant Protein-Based Alternatives of Reconstructed Meat: Science, Technology, and Challenges. Trends Food Sci.
Technol. 2020, 102, 51–61. [CrossRef]
15. Afshin, A.; Sur, P.J.; Fay, K.A.; Cornaby, L.; Ferrara, G.; Salama, J.S.; Mullany, E.C.; Abate, K.H.; Abbafati, C.; Abebe, Z.; et al.
Health Effects of Dietary Risks in 195 Countries, 1990–2017: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.
Lancet 2019, 393, 1958–1972. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. World Health Organization; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Sustainable Healthy Diets: Guiding
Principles; World Health Organization: Geneva, Geneva, 2019; ISBN 9789241516648.
17. Pereira, P.M.d.C.C.; Vicente, A.F.d.R.B. Meat Nutritional Composition and Nutritive Role in the Human Diet. Meat Sci. 2013, 93,
586–592. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Cole, E.; Goeler-Slough, N.; Cox, A.; Nolden, A. Examination of the Nutritional Composition of Alternative Beef Burgers Available
in the United States. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 73, 425–432. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Cutroneo, S.; Angelino, D.; Tedeschi, T.; Pellegrini, N.; Martini, D.; SINU Young Working Group; Dall’Asta, M.; Russo, M.D.;
Nucci, D.; Moccia, S.; et al. Nutritional Quality of Meat Analogues: Results from the Food Labelling of Italian Products (FLIP)
Project. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 852831. [CrossRef]
20. Bryngelsson, S.; Moshtaghian, H.; Bianchi, M.; Hallström, E. Nutritional Assessment of Plant-Based Meat Analogues on the
Swedish Market. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 73, 889–901. [CrossRef]
21. De Marchi, M.; Costa, A.; Pozza, M.; Goi, A.; Manuelian, C.L. Detailed Characterization of Plant-Based Burgers. Sci. Rep. 2021,
11, 2049. [CrossRef]
22. Gorissen, S.H.M.; Crombag, J.J.R.; Senden, J.M.G.; Waterval, W.A.H.; Bierau, J.; Verdijk, L.B.; van Loon, L.J.C. Protein Content and
Amino Acid Composition of Commercially Available Plant-Based Protein Isolates. Amino Acids 2018, 50, 1685–1695. [CrossRef]
23. Pointke, M.; Pawelzik, E. Plant-Based Alternative Products: Are They Healthy Alternatives? Micro- and Macronutrients and
Nutritional Scoring. Nutrients 2022, 14, 601. [CrossRef]
24. Hunt, J.R. Bioavailability of Iron, Zinc, and Other Trace Minerals from Vegetarian Diets. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2003, 78, 633S–639S.
[CrossRef]
25. Tso, R.; Forde, C.G. Unintended Consequences: Nutritional Impact and Potential Pitfalls of Switching from Animal- to Plant-Based
Foods. Nutrients 2021, 13, 2527. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Oussalah, A.; Levy, J.; Berthezène, C.; Alpers, D.H.; Guéant, J.-L. Health Outcomes Associated with Vegetarian Diets: An Umbrella
Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Clin. Nutr. 2020, 39, 3283–3307. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Crimarco, A.; Landry, M.J.; Carter, M.M.; Gardner, C.D. Assessing the Effects of Alternative Plant-Based Meats v. Animal Meats
on Biomarkers of Inflammation: A Secondary Analysis of the SWAP-MEAT Randomized Crossover Trial. J. Nutr. Sci. 2022,
11, e82. [CrossRef]
28. Kumar, M.; Tomar, M.; Punia, S.; Dhakane-Lad, J.; Dhumal, S.; Changan, S.; Senapathy, M.; Berwal, M.K.; Sampathrajan, V.; Sayed,
A.A.S.; et al. Plant-Based Proteins and Their Multifaceted Industrial Applications. LWT 2022, 154, 112620. [CrossRef]
29. Rotz, C.A.; Montes, F.; Chianese, D.S. The Carbon Footprint of Dairy Production Systems through Partial Life Cycle Assessment.
J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 1266–1282. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, T.; Castel, V.; Rosales, M.; De Haan, C. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and
Options; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006; ISBN 978-92-5105571-7.
31. OECD and FAO. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2020–2029; OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook; OECD: Paris, France, 2020.
32. Aiking, H. Future Protein Supply. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 22, 112–120. [CrossRef]
33. Tukker, A.; Goldbohm, R.A.; de Koning, A.; Verheijden, M.; Kleijn, R.; Wolf, O.; Pérez-Domínguez, I.; Rueda-Cantuche, J.M.
Environmental Impacts of Changes to Healthier Diets in Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1776–1788. [CrossRef]
34. ISO 14040; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
35. ISO 14044; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
36. Froldi, F.; Lamastra, L.; Trevisan, M.; Mambretti, D.; Moschini, M. Environmental Impacts of Cow’s Milk in Northern Italy: Effects
of Farming Performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 363, 132600. [CrossRef]
37. Bryant, C.J. Plant-Based Animal Product Alternatives Are Healthier and More Environmentally Sustainable than Animal Products.
Futur. Foods 2022, 6, 100174. [CrossRef]
Nutrients 2023, 15, 452 15 of 16

38. Detzel, A.; Krüger, M.; Busch, M.; Blanco-Gutiérrez, I.; Varela, C.; Manners, R.; Bez, J.; Zannini, E. Life Cycle Assessment of
Animal-Based Foods and Plant-Based Protein-Rich Alternatives: An Environmental Perspective. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2022, 102,
5098–5110. [CrossRef]
39. Pulvento, C.; Riccardi, M.; Lavini, A.; D’Andria, R.; Ragab, R. Parameterization and Field Validation of Saltmed Model for Grain
Amaranth Tested in South Italy. Irrig. Drain. 2015, 64, 59–68. [CrossRef]
40. 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, 1254–1267. [CrossRef]
41. Mejia, M.; Fresán, U.; Harwatt, H.; Oda, K.; Uriegas-Mejia, G.; Sabaté, J. Life Cycle Assessment of the Production of a Large
Variety of Meat Analogs by Three Diverse Factories. J. Hunger. Environ. Nutr. 2020, 15, 699–711. [CrossRef]
42. Goldstein, B.; Moses, R.; Sammons, N.; Birkved, M. Potential to Curb the Environmental Burdens of American Beef Consumption
Using a Novel Plant-Based Beef Substitute. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0189029. [CrossRef]
43. Godfray, H.C.J.; Aveyard, P.; Garnett, T.; Hall, J.W.; Key, T.J.; Lorimer, J.; Pierrehumbert, R.T.; Scarborough, P.; Springmann, M.;
Jebb, S.A. Meat Consumption, Health, and the Environment. Science 2018, 361, eaam5324. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Stagnari, F.; Maggio, A.; Galieni, A.; Pisante, M. Multiple Benefits of Legumes for Agriculture Sustainability: An Overview. Chem.
Biol. Technol. Agric. 2017, 4, 2. [CrossRef]
45. Smetana, S.; Profeta, A.; Voigt, R.; Kircher, C.; Heinz, V. Meat Substitution in Burgers: Nutritional Scoring, Sensorial Testing, and
Life Cycle Assessment. Futur. Foods 2021, 4, 100042. [CrossRef]
46. Heller, M.C.; Keoleian, G.A. Beyond Meat’s beyond Burger Life Cycle Assessment: A Detailed Comparison between a Plant-Based and an
Animal-Based Protein Source, Report No. CSS18-10; University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2018.
47. Lusk, J.L.; Blaustein-Rejto, D.; Shah, S.; Tonsor, G.T. Impact of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives on Cattle Inventories and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022, 17, 24035. [CrossRef]
48. Saget, S.; Costa, M.; Barilli, E.; Wilton de Vasconcelos, M.; Santos, C.S.; Styles, D.; Williams, M. Substituting Wheat with Chickpea
Flour in Pasta Production Delivers More Nutrition at a Lower Environmental Cost. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 24, 26–38.
[CrossRef]
49. Bager, S.L.; Persson, U.M.; dos Reis, T.N.P. Eighty-Six EU Policy Options for Reducing Imported Deforestation. One Earth 2021, 4,
289–306. [CrossRef]
50. McLaren, S.; Berardy, A.; Henderson, A.; Holden, N.; Huppertz, T.; Jolliet, O.; De Camillis, C.; Renouf, M.; Rugani, B.; Saarinen,
M.; et al. Integration of Environment and Nutrition in Life Cycle Assessment of Food Items: Opportunities and Challenges; Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021.
51. Sogari, G.; Li, J.; Wang, Q.; Lefebvre, M.; Gómez, M.I.; Mora, C. Factors Influencing the Intention to Purchase Meat-Mushroom
Blended Burgers among College Students. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 90, 104169. [CrossRef]
52. Fiorentini, M.; Kinchla, A.J.; Nolden, A.A. Role of Sensory Evaluation in Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Analogs and
Meat Extenders: A Scoping Review. Foods 2020, 9, 1334. [CrossRef]
53. Caputo, V.; Sogari, G.; Van Loo, E.J. Do Plant-Based and Blend Meat Alternatives Taste like Meat? A Combined Sensory and
Choice Experiment Study. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2022, 1–20. [CrossRef]
54. Tucker, C.A. The Significance of Sensory Appeal for Reduced Meat Consumption. Appetite 2014, 81, 168–179. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Elzerman, J.E.; Hoek, A.C.; van Boekel, M.A.J.S.; Luning, P.A. Consumer Acceptance and Appropriateness of Meat Substitutes in
a Meal Context. Food Qual. Prefer. 2011, 22, 233–240. [CrossRef]
56. Hashempour-Baltork, F.; Khosravi-Darani, K.; Hosseini, H.; Farshi, P.; Reihani, S.F.S. Mycoproteins as Safe Meat Substitutes. J.
Clean. Prod. 2020, 253, 119958. [CrossRef]
57. He, J.; Evans, N.M.; Liu, H.; Shao, S. A Review of Research on Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: Driving Forces, History,
Manufacturing, and Consumer Attitudes. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 2639–2656. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Van Loo, E.J.; Caputo, V.; Lusk, J.L. Consumer Preferences for Farm-Raised Meat, Lab-Grown Meat, and Plant-Based Meat
Alternatives: Does Information or Brand Matter? Food Policy 2020, 95, 101931. [CrossRef]
59. Neville, M.; Tarrega, A.; Hewson, L.; Foster, T. Consumer-Orientated Development of Hybrid Beef Burger and Sausage Analogues.
Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 5, 852–864. [CrossRef]
60. Hartmann, C.; Furtwaengler, P.; Siegrist, M. Consumers’ Evaluation of the Environmental Friendliness, Healthiness and
Naturalness of Meat, Meat Substitutes, and Other Protein-Rich Foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 97, 104486. [CrossRef]
61. Caparros Megido, R.; Gierts, C.; Blecker, C.; Brostaux, Y.; Haubruge, E.; Alabi, T.; Francis, F. Consumer Acceptance of Insect-Based
Alternative Meat Products in Western Countries. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 52, 237–243. [CrossRef]
62. Grasso, S.; Rondoni, A.; Bari, R.; Smith, R.; Mansilla, N. Effect of Information on Consumers’ Sensory Evaluation of Beef,
Plant-Based and Hybrid Beef Burgers. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 96, 104417. [CrossRef]
63. Onwezen, M.C.; Verain, M.C.D.; Dagevos, H. Social Norms Support the Protein Transition: The Relevance of Social Norms to
Explain Increased Acceptance of Alternative Protein Burgers over 5 Years. Foods 2022, 11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Patinho, I.; Saldaña, E.; Selani, M.M.; Teixeira, A.C.B.; Menegali, B.S.; Merlo, T.C.; Rios-Mera, J.D.; Dargelio, M.D.B.; Rodrigues,
H.; Contreras-Castillo, C.J. Original Burger (Traditional) or Burger with Mushroom Addition? A Social Representation Approach
to Novel Foods. Food Res. Int. 2021, 147, 110551. [CrossRef]
65. Boukid, F.; Castellari, M. Veggie Burgers in the EU Market: A Nutritional Challenge? Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2021, 247, 2445–2453.
[CrossRef]
Nutrients 2023, 15, 452 16 of 16

66. Eckl, M.R.; Biesbroek, S.; van’t Veer, P.; Geleijnse, J.M. Replacement of Meat with Non-Meat Protein Sources: A Review of the
Drivers and Inhibitors in Developed Countries. Nutrients 2021, 13, 3602. [CrossRef]
67. Banovic, M.; Sveinsdóttir, K. Importance of Being Analogue: Female Attitudes towards Meat Analogue Containing Rapeseed
Protein. Food Control 2021, 123, 107833. [CrossRef]
68. Dagevos, H. Finding Flexitarians: Current Studies on Meat Eaters and Meat Reducers. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 114, 530–539.
[CrossRef]
69. Michel, F.; Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Consumers’ Associations, Perceptions and Acceptance of Meat and Plant-Based Meat
Alternatives. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 87, 104063. [CrossRef]
70. Kerslake, E.; Kemper, J.A.; Conroy, D. What’s Your Beef with Meat Substitutes? Exploring Barriers and Facilitators for Meat
Substitutes in Omnivores, Vegetarians, and Vegans. Appetite 2022, 170, 105864. [CrossRef]
71. European Union. Farm to Fork Strategy. For a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System; European Union: Brussels,
Belgium, 2020.
72. Solis, E. Mintel Global New Product Database. J. Bus. Financ. Librariansh. 2016, 21, 79–82. [CrossRef]
73. Lawrence, M.A.; Dickie, S.; Woods, J.L. Do Nutrient-Based Front-of-Pack Labelling Schemes Support or Undermine Food-Based
Dietary Guideline Recommendations? Lessons from the Australian Health Star Rating System. Nutrients 2018, 10, 32. [CrossRef]
74. Petersen, T.; Hartmann, M.; Hirsch, S. Which Meat (Substitute) to Buy? Is Front of Package Information Reliable to Identify the
Healthier and More Natural Choice? Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 94, 104298. [CrossRef]
75. Boukid, F.; Sogari, G.; Rosell, C.M. Edible Insects as Foods: Mapping Scientific Publications and Product Launches in the Global
Market (1996–2021). J. Insects Food Feed. 2022, 1–16. [CrossRef]
76. The Smart Protein Project. Plant-Based Foods in Europe: How Big Is the Market? The Smart Protein Plant-Based Food Sector Report; The
Smart Protein Project: New Delhi, India, 2022.
77. Neuhofer, Z.T.; Lusk, J.L. Most Plant-Based Meat Alternative Buyers Also Buy Meat: An Analysis of Household Demographics,
Habit Formation, and Buying Behavior among Meat Alternative Buyers. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 13062. [CrossRef]
78. Tonsor, G.T.; Lusk, J.L.; Schroeder, T.C. Market Potential of New Plant-Based Protein Alternatives: Insights from Four US
Consumer Experiments. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2022, 1–18. [CrossRef]
79. Grosso, G.; La Vignera, S.; Condorelli, R.A.; Godos, J.; Marventano, S.; Tieri, M.; Ghelfi, F.; Titta, L.; Lafranconi, A.; Gambera,
A.; et al. Total, Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Human Health: An Umbrella Review of Observational Studies. Int. J.
Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 73, 726–737. [CrossRef]
80. van der Weele, C.; Feindt, P.; Jan van der Goot, A.; van Mierlo, B.; van Boekel, M. Meat Alternatives: An Integrative Comparison.
Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 88, 505–512. [CrossRef]
81. Onwezen, M.C.; Bouwman, E.P.; Reinders, M.J.; Dagevos, H. A Systematic Review on Consumer Acceptance of Alternative
Proteins: Pulses, Algae, Insects, Plant-Based Meat Alternatives, and Cultured Meat. Appetite 2021, 159, 105058. [CrossRef]
82. Lemken, D.; Spiller, A.; Schulze-Ehlers, B. More Room for Legume—Consumer Acceptance of Meat Substitution with Classic,
Processed and Meat-Resembling Legume Products. Appetite 2019, 143, 104412. [CrossRef]
83. Mintel Plant-Based Push: UK Sales of Meat-Free Foods Shoot Up|Mintel.Com. Available online: https://www.mintel.com/
press-centre/food-and-drink/plant-based-push-uk-sales-of-meat-free-foods-shoot-up-40-between-2014-19 (accessed on 2 Octo-
ber 2021).
84. Demartini, E.; Vecchiato, D.; Finos, L.; Mattavelli, S.; Gaviglio, A. Would You Buy Vegan Meatballs? The Policy Issues around
Vegan and Meat-Sounding Labelling of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives. Food Policy 2022, 111, 102310. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.