Plant-based and cell-based approaches to meat production

Abstract

Advances in farming technology and intensification of animal agriculture increase the cost-efficiency and production volume of meat. Thus, in developed nations, meat is relatively inexpensive and accessible. While beneficial for consumer satisfaction, intensive meat production inflicts negative externalities on public health, the environment and animal welfare. In response, groups within academia and industry are working to improve the sensory characteristics of plant-based meat and pursuing nascent approaches through cellular agriculture methodology (i.e., cell-based meat). Here we detail the benefits and challenges of plant-based and cell-based meat alternatives with regard to production efficiency, product characteristics and impact categories.

Fig. 1. The history and evolution of animal-, plant- and cell-based approaches to meat production.

^,–. Humans have consumed plant-based meat (2555 years ago) for only 0.098% of the time period for which their ancestors have consumed animal-based meat (2,600,000 years ago). Likewise, humans have eaten cell-based meat (7 years ago) for only 0.274% of the time period for which they have consumed plant-based meat.

Fig. 2. Geographical distribution of plant-based (green circles) and cell-based (orange circles) meat companies.

Companies were included as listed in the Good Food Institute alternative protein company database (August 2020).

Fig. 3. Plant-based and cell-based strategies for emulating appearance properties (color, marbling, structure) of meat.

Structure and marbling are significant contributors to the texture of meat as well as appearance.

Fig. 4. Nutritional value of ABM (beef, pork, and chicken), traditional PBM (tofu), novel PBM (Impossible™ Beef), and mycoprotein (Quorn™) per 100 g wet weight, raw.

Nutritional data for ABM and tofu were obtained from the FoodData Central database (FDC ID: 174036, 167902, 171116, 388713) and Impossible™ and Quorn™ data were obtained from company websites. Content is quantified by the percent of recommended daily intake as determined by the FDA.

Fig. 5. Comparison of the environmental impact of meat and meat analogs.

Data are normalized to the impact of beef production. Eutrophication does not include data for mycoprotein. Land, emissions and energy data for mycoprotein were adapted from a 2015 LCA. Data for beef, pork, chicken and CBM were adapted from a 2015 life cycle assessment. Data for PBM were adapted from an Impossible™ Beef LCA (land, eutrophication, emissions) and a Beyond Meat^® life cycle assessment (energy use)^,.