Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Dec 31;11(1):105.
doi: 10.3390/foods11010105.

Meat Analogues in the Perspective of Recent Scientific Research: A Review

Klaudia Kołodziejczak  1 , Anna Onopiuk  1 , Arkadiusz Szpicer  1 , Andrzej Poltorak  1
Affiliations
Review

Meat Analogues in the Perspective of Recent Scientific Research: A Review

Klaudia Kołodziejczak et al. Foods. .

Abstract

There are many reasons why consumers and food producers are looking for alternatives to meat and meat products, which includes the following: health, environmental or ethical aspects. This study reviews recent scientific reports on meat analogues. The scope of the review includes the following: formulation and nutritional value; health safety and legal regulations; manufacturing and processing technologies including the latest developments in this area; product availability on the food market; and consumer attitudes towards meat analogues. The analysis of the literature data identified technological challenges, particularly in improving consumer acceptability of meat analogues. Among the risks and limitations associated with the production of meat analogues, the following were identified: contamination from raw materials and the risk of harmful by-products due to intensive processing; legal issues of product nomenclature; and consumer attitudes towards substituting meat with plant-based alternatives. The need for further research in this area, particularly on the nutritional value and food safety of meat analogues, was demonstrated.

Keywords: consumer acceptance; consumption; meat alternatives; plant-based meat.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Types of meat analogues available on the market.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Advantages, risks, technological challenges, and research gaps associated with meat analogues (PAH- polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; HCA- heterocyclic aromatic amines).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Blanco-Gutiérrez I., Varela-Ortega C., Manners R. Evaluating animal-based foods and plant-based alternatives using multi-criteria and SWOT analyses. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17:7969. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17217969. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bryant C., Sanctorum H. Alternative proteins, evolving attitudes: Comparing consumer attitudes to plant-based and cultured meat in Belgium in two consecutive years. Appetite. 2021;161:105161. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105161. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Curtain F., Grafenauer S. Plant-based meat substitutes in the flexitarian age: An audit of products on supermarket shelves. Nutrients. 2019;11:2603. doi: 10.3390/nu11112603. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sucapane D., Roux C., Sobol K. Exploring how product descriptors and packaging colors impact consumers’ perceptions of plant-based meat alternative products. Appetite. 2021;167:105590. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105590. - DOI - PubMed
    1. UN . World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division; New York, NY, USA: 2017. [(accessed on 4 November 2021)]. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP/248. Available online: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf.

LinkOut - more resources