Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes

PurposeFood production is among the highest human environmental impacting activities. Agriculture itself accounts for 70–85 % of the water footprint and 30 % of world greenhouse gas emissions (2.5 times more than global transport). Food production’s projected increase in 70 % by 2050 highlights the importance of environmental impacts connected with meat production. The production of various meat substitutes (plant-based, mycoprotein-based, dairy-based, and animal-based substitutes) aims to reduce the environmental impact caused by livestock. This article outlined the comparative analysis of meat substitutes’ environmental performance in order to estimate the most promising options.MethodsThe study considered “cradle-to-plate” meal life cycle with the application of ReCiPe and IMPACT 2002+ methods. Inventory was based on literature and field data. Functional unit (FU) was 1 kg of a ready-to-eat meal at a consumer. The study evaluated alternative FU (the equivalent of 3.75 MJ energy content of fried chicken lean meat and 0.3 kg of digested dry matter protein content) as a part of sensitivity analysis.Results and discussionResults showed the highest impacts for lab-grown meat and mycoprotein-based analogues (high demand for energy for medium cultivation), medium impacts for chicken (local feed), and dairy-based and gluten-based meat substitutes, and the lowest impact for insect-based and soy meal-based substitutes (by-products allocated). Alternative FU confirmed the worst performance of lab-grown and mycoprotein-based analogues. The best performing products were insect-based and soy meal-based substitutes and chicken. The other substitutes had medium level impacts. The results were very sensitive to the changes of FU. Midpoint impact category results were the same order of magnitude as a previously published work, although wide ranges of possible results and system boundaries made the comparison with literature data not reliable.Conclusions and recommendationsThe results of the comparison were highly dependable on selected FU. Therefore, the proposed comparison with different integrative FU indicated the lowest impact of soy meal-based and insect-based substitutes (with given technology level development). Insect-based meat substitute has a potential to be more sustainable with the use of more advanced cultivation and processing techniques. The same is applicable to lab-grown meat and in a minor degree to gluten, dairy, and mycoprotein-based substitutes.

[1]  Niels Jungbluth,et al.  Life cycle assessment of bio-based ethanol produced from different agricultural feedstocks , 2013, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[2]  Mary Stewart,et al.  A Consistent Framework for Assessing the Impacts from Resource Use - A focus on resource functionality (8 pp) , 2005 .

[3]  H. Steinfeld,et al.  Livestock's Long Shadow , 2006 .

[4]  Harald Ellingsen,et al.  Environmental Impacts of Wild Caught Cod and Farmed Salmon - A Comparison with Chicken (7 pp) , 2006 .

[5]  D. Oonincx,et al.  Environmental Impact of the Production of Mealworms as a Protein Source for Humans – A Life Cycle Assessment , 2012, PloS one.

[6]  O. Jolliet,et al.  Multimedia fate and human intake modeling: spatial versus nonspatial insights for chemical emissions in Western Europe. , 2005, Environmental science & technology.

[7]  M. Noguer,et al.  Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2002 .

[8]  Zeki Berk,et al.  Technology of Production of Edible Flours and Protein Products from Soybeans , 1992 .

[9]  M. Goedkoop,et al.  A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment , 1999 .

[10]  J. Grönroos,et al.  Environmental impacts and related options for improving the chicken meat supply chain , 2008 .

[11]  T. Garnett Three perspectives on sustainable food security: efficiency, demand restraint, food system transformation. What role for life cycle assessment? , 2014 .

[12]  N. Halberg,et al.  LCA of soybean meal , 2008 .

[13]  J. Dutoit The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , 2007 .

[14]  Daniel L. Sandars,et al.  Energy and environmental burdens of organic and non-organic agriculture and horticulture , 2006 .

[15]  Andrew Berardy A Consequential Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Seitan and Beef , 2012 .

[16]  B. Campbell,et al.  Climate Change and Food Systems , 2012 .

[17]  Gjalt Huppes,et al.  Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[18]  Joost Duflou,et al.  Life cycle assessment of wheat gluten powder and derived packaging film , 2013 .

[19]  Llorenç Milà i Canals,et al.  Quantifying global greenhouse gas emissions from land‐use change for crop production , 2012 .

[20]  Takeo Shiina,et al.  A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. , 2009 .

[21]  T. Grube,et al.  World Water Resources at the Beginning of the 21st Century , 2003 .

[22]  Joep Raats Meat (substitutes) comparing environmental impacts. A Case study comparing Quorn and pork , 2007 .

[23]  H. Blonk,et al.  LCI data for the calculation tool Feedprint for greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization , 2012 .

[24]  Annik Magerholm Fet,et al.  LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarations , 2008 .

[25]  H. Steinfeld,et al.  Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options. , 2006 .

[26]  Eric Johnson Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment Operational Guide to the ISO Standards , 2003 .

[27]  G. Psacharopoulos Overview and methodology , 1991 .

[28]  Sarah Sim,et al.  Land use impact assessment of margarine , 2012, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[29]  A. Hastings,et al.  Cool Farming : Climate impacts of agriculture and mitigation potential , 2008 .

[30]  Gary Warnaby,et al.  Food shopping behaviour in Scotland: the influence of relative rurality , 2006 .

[31]  Tara Garnett,et al.  Three perspectives on sustainable food security : ef fi ciency , demand restraint , food system transformation . What role for LCA ? , 2013 .

[32]  J. Ball Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security , 2014 .

[33]  N. Pelletier,et al.  Scenario Modeling Potential Eco-Efficiency Gains from a Transition to Organic Agriculture: Life Cycle Perspectives on Canadian Canola, Corn, Soy, and Wheat Production , 2008, Environmental management.

[34]  Michael J Falvo,et al.  Protein - Which is Best? , 2004, Journal of sports science & medicine.

[35]  Liselotte Schebek,et al.  Modular Server – Client – Server (MSCS) Approach for Process Optimization in Early R&D of Emerging Technologies by LCA , 2012 .

[36]  Chris Foster,et al.  Environmental impacts of food production and consumption: final report to the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs , 2007 .

[37]  M. Goedkoop,et al.  The Eco-indicator 99, A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment , 1999 .

[38]  T. Finnigan,et al.  Mycoprotein, life cycle analysis and the food 2030 challenge. , 2010 .

[39]  Hans-Jürgen Dr. Klüppel,et al.  The Revision of ISO Standards 14040-3 - ISO 14040: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework - ISO 14044: Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines , 2005 .

[40]  Tuomisto Hanna Leena,et al.  Could cultured meat reduce environmental impact of agriculture in Europe , 2012 .

[41]  H. Tuomisto,et al.  Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[42]  N. Pelletier,et al.  Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: Life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions , 2008 .

[43]  S. Pfister,et al.  Environmental impacts of water use in global crop production: hotspots and trade-offs with land use. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[44]  Marieke Head,et al.  Life cycle impacts of protein-rich foods: creating robust yet extensive life cycle models for use in a consumer app , 2014 .

[45]  vgc,et al.  Replacement of meat and dairy by more sustainable protein sources in the Netherlands : Quality of the diet , 2012 .

[46]  E. ten Pierick,et al.  Milieueffecten van Nederlandse consumptie van eiwitrijke producten : gevolgen van vervanging van dierlijke eiwitten anno 2008 , 2008 .

[47]  A. Hoekstra,et al.  The water footprint of humanity , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[48]  J. Berlin Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of Swedish semi-hard cheese , 2002 .

[49]  C. Cederberg Greenhouse gas emissions from Swedish consumption of meat, milk and eggs 1990 and 2005 , 2009 .

[50]  T. Nemecek,et al.  Overview and methodology: Data quality guideline for the ecoinvent database version 3 , 2013 .

[51]  Bio-Ethanol Industry,et al.  LCI data for the calculation tool Feedprint for greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization , 2012 .

[52]  S. Pfister,et al.  Monthly water stress: spatially and temporally explicit consumptive water footprint of global crop production , 2014 .

[53]  F. Jiménez-Colmenero,et al.  Healthier meat and meat products: their role as functional foods. , 2001, Meat science.

[54]  T. Longvah,et al.  Nutrient composition and protein quality evaluation of eri silkworm (Samia ricinii) prepupae and pupae. , 2011, Food chemistry.

[55]  Sanderine Nonhebel,et al.  Environmental impact of meat substitutes: comparison between quorn and pork. , 2007 .