The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 20, Issue 9, pp 1254–1267 | Cite as

Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes

  • Sergiy Smetana
  • Alexander Mathys
  • Achim Knoch
  • Volker Heinz
LCA FOR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND FOOD PRODUCTS

Abstract

Purpose

Food 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.

Methods

The 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 discussion

Results 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 recommendations

The 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.

Keywords

Insect meal LCA Meat substitute Mycoprotein Soy meal 

References

  1. Alig M, Grandl F, Mieleitner J et al. (2012) Life cycle assessment of beef, pork and poultryGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellarby J, Foereid B, Hastings A, Smith P (2008) Cool farming: climate impacts of agriculture and mitigation potential. AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  3. Berardy A (2012) A consequential comparative life cycle assessment of seitan and beef. SSEBE-CESEM-2012-CPR-002 Course Project Report SeriesGoogle Scholar
  4. Berk Z (1992) Technology of production of edible flours and protein products from soybeans, FAO AGRICU. FAO, United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  5. Berlin J (2002) Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of Swedish semi-hard cheese. Int Dairy J 12:939–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blonk H, Kool A, Luske B, et al. (2008) Milieueffecten van Nederlandse consumptie van eiwitrijke producten. Gevolgen van vervanging van dierlijke eiwitten anno 2008Google Scholar
  7. BSI (2008) PAS2050: specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and servicesGoogle Scholar
  8. Cederberg C, Sonesson U, Henriksson M et al. (2009) Greenhouse gas emissions from Swedish production of meat, milk and eggs 1990 and 2005. SIK-Institutet för livsmedel och bioteknikGoogle Scholar
  9. Dalgaard R, Schmidt J, Halberg N et al (2008) LCA of soybean meal. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:240–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deng Y, Achten WMJ, Van Acker K, Duflou JR (2013) Life cycle assessment of wheat gluten powder and derived packaging film. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 7:429–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ellingsen H, Aanondsen SA (2006) Environmental impacts of wild caught cod and farmed salmon—a comparison with chicken (7 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:60–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Commission (2014) Technology readiness levels (TRL). Horizon 2020—Work Programme 2014–2015. General Annexes, Extract from Part 19—Commission Decision C(2014)4995Google Scholar
  13. FAO (2009) How to feed the world in 2050Google Scholar
  14. FAO (2014) Food Price Index 2000–2014. In: FAOSTAT. http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/home/E
  15. Finnigan T, Lemon M, Allan B, Paton I (2010) Mycoprotein, life cycle analysis and the food 2030 challenge. Asp Appl Biol 102:81–90Google Scholar
  16. Flynn HC, Canals LMi, Keller E et al (2012) Quantifying global greenhouse gas emissions from land-use change for crop production. Glob Chang Biol 18:1622–1635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foster C, Green K, Bleda M et al. (2006) Environmental impacts of food production and consumption: a report to the department for environment, food and rural affairs. LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Garnett T (2014) Three perspectives on sustainable food security: efficiency, demand restraint, food system transformation. What role for LCA? J Clean Prod 73:10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The Eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology Report. AmersfoortGoogle Scholar
  20. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M et al. (2013) A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. ReCiPe 2008. First edition (version 1.08). Report I: characterisationGoogle Scholar
  21. Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, De Schryver A et al. (2013) ReCiPe 2008. A LCIA method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Characterisation. A life cycle impact. http://www.lcia-recipe.net
  22. Guinée JB, Gorree M, Heijungs R et al (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Series: eco-efficiency in industry and science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  23. Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G et al (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Håkansson S, Gavrilita P, Bengoa X (2005) Comparative life cycle assessment pork vs tofu. StockholmGoogle Scholar
  25. Head M, Sevenster M, Croezen H (2011) Life cycle impacts of protein-rich foods for superwijzer. DelftGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoekstra AY, Mekonnen MM (2012) The water footprint of humanity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:3232–3237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoffman J, Falvo M (2004) Protein—which is best? J Sports Sci Med 3:118–130Google Scholar
  28. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: an assessment of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Synth Report. doi:10.1256/004316502320517344 Google Scholar
  29. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and frameworkGoogle Scholar
  30. ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelinesGoogle Scholar
  31. Jiménez-Colmenero F, Carballo J, Cofrades S (2001) Healthier meat and meat products: their role as functional foods. Meat Sci 59:5–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Katajajuuri J-M, Grönroos J, Usva K (2008) Environmental impacts and related options for improving the chicken meat supply chain. 6th Int. Conf. LCA Agri-Food Sect. ZurichGoogle Scholar
  33. Longvah T, Mangthya K, Ramulu P (2011) Nutrient composition and protein quality evaluation of eri silkworm (Samia ricinii) prepupae and pupae. Food Chem 128:400–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McEachern MG, Warnaby G (2006) Food shopping behaviour in Scotland: the influence of relative rurality. Int J Consum Stud 30:189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Milà i Canals L, Rigarlsford G, Sim S (2012) Land use impact assessment of margarine. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1265–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Milà i Canals L, Rigarlsford G, Sim S (2013) Land use impact assessment of margarine. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1265–1277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Muñoz I, Flury K, Jungbluth N et al (2013) Life cycle assessment of bio-based ethanol produced from different agricultural feedstocks. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:109–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nemecek T, Frick C, Dubois D, Gaillard G (2001) Comparing farming systems at crop rotation level by LCA. Proc. Int. Conf. LCA Foods. SIK, VITO, Gothenburg, pp 65–69Google Scholar
  39. Nielsen PH, Nielsen AM, Weidema BP, et al. (2003) LCA food data base. http://www.lcafood.dk/
  40. Nonhebel S, Raats J (2007) Environmental impact of meat substitutes: comparison between Quorn and pork. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. LCA foods. Gothenburg, Sweden, pp 73–75Google Scholar
  41. Oonincx DG, de Boer IJ (2012) Environmental impact of the production of mealworms as a protein source for humans—a life cycle assessment. PLoS ONE 7Google Scholar
  42. Pelletier N (2008) Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions. Agric Syst 98:67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pelletier N, Arsenault N, Tyedmers P (2008) Scenario modeling potential eco-efficiency gains from a transition to organic agriculture: life cycle perspectives on Canadian canola, corn, soy, and wheat production. Environ Manag 42:989–1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pennington DW, Margni M, Ammann C, Jolliet O (2005) Multimedia fate and human intake modeling: spatial versus nonspatial insights for chemical emissions in western Europe. Environ Sci Technol 39:1119–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pfister S, Bayer P (2014) Monthly water stress: spatially and temporally explicit consumptive water footprint of global crop production. J Clean Prod 73:52–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pfister S, Bayer P, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2011) Environmental impacts of water use in global crop production: hotspots and trade-offs with land use. Environ Sci Technol 45:5761–5768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Raats J (2007) Meat (substitutes) comparing environmental impacts. A case study comparing Quorn and pork. Training thesis at Centre for Energy and Environmental Studies, University of Groningen. Retrieved from http://www.temoa.info/node/209029. University of Groningen
  48. Roy P, Nei D, Orikasa T et al (2009) A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J Food Eng 90:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schau EM, Fet AM (2008) LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shiklomanov IA (2003) World water resources at the beginning of the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T et al (2006) Livestock’s long shadow. Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), RomeGoogle Scholar
  52. Tijhuis MJ, Ezendam J, Westenbrink S et al. (2011) Replacement of meat and dairy by more sustainable protein sources in the Netherlands. Quality of the diet. RIVM Letter Report 350123001/2011Google Scholar
  53. Tuomisto H, De Mattos M (2010) Life cycle assessment of cultured meat production. 7th Int. Conf. Life Cycle Assess. Agri-Food Sect. 22nd–24th Sept. 2010, Bari, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  54. Tuomisto HL, de Mattos MJT (2011) Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environ Sci Technol 45:6117–6123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tuomisto HL, Roy AG (2012) Could cultured meat reduce environmental impact of agriculture in Europe? 8th Int. Conf. LCA Agri-Food Sect. Rennes, Fr. 2–4 Oct. 2012Google Scholar
  56. USDA (2014) USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 27. In: U.S. Dep. Agric. Agric. Res. Serv. Nutr. Data Lab. http://www.ars.usda.gov/ba/bhnrc/ndl
  57. Van Huis A, Van Itterbeeck J, Klunder H et al. (2013) Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security, FAO Forest. FAO, United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Zeist WJ, Marinussen M, Broekema R et al. (2012) LCI data for the calculation tool Feedprint for greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization. Wet Milling IndustryGoogle Scholar
  59. Vermeulen SJ, Campbell BM, Ingram JSI (2012) Climate change and food systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:195–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R et al. (2013) Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the Ecoinvent database version 3. Ecoinvent Report 1(v3). St. GallenGoogle Scholar
  61. Wiedemann S, McGahan E, Poad G (2012) Using life cycle assessment to quantify the environmental impact of chicken meat productionGoogle Scholar
  62. Williams A, Audsley E, Sandars D (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities: Defra project report IS0205Google Scholar
  63. Williams AG, Audsley E, Sandars DL (2006b) Energy and environmental burdens of organic and non-organic agriculture and horticulture. Asp Appl Biol 79:19–23Google Scholar
  64. Zschieschang E, Pfeifer P, Schebek L (2012) Modular Server–Client–Server (MSCS) approach for process optimization in early R&D of emerging technologies by LCA. Leveraging Technol. a Sustain. World. Springer, pp 119–124Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergiy Smetana
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alexander Mathys
    • 1
  • Achim Knoch
    • 1
  • Volker Heinz
    • 1
  1. 1.German Institute of Food Technologies (DIL-e.V.)QuakenbrückGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Structural Analysis and Planning in Areas of Intensive AgricultureUniversity of VechtaVechtaGermany

Personalised recommendations