Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes

  • LCA FOR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND FOOD PRODUCTS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Alig M, Grandl F, Mieleitner J et al. (2012) Life cycle assessment of beef, pork and poultry

  • Bellarby J, Foereid B, Hastings A, Smith P (2008) Cool farming: climate impacts of agriculture and mitigation potential. Amsterdam

  • Berardy A (2012) A consequential comparative life cycle assessment of seitan and beef. SSEBE-CESEM-2012-CPR-002 Course Project Report Series

  • Berk Z (1992) Technology of production of edible flours and protein products from soybeans, FAO AGRICU. FAO, United Nations, Rome

  • Berlin J (2002) Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of Swedish semi-hard cheese. Int Dairy J 12:939–953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blonk H, Kool A, Luske B, et al. (2008) Milieueffecten van Nederlandse consumptie van eiwitrijke producten. Gevolgen van vervanging van dierlijke eiwitten anno 2008

  • BSI (2008) PAS2050: specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services

  • 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 bioteknik

  • Dalgaard R, Schmidt J, Halberg N et al (2008) LCA of soybean meal. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:240–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng Y, Achten WMJ, Van Acker K, Duflou JR (2013) Life cycle assessment of wheat gluten powder and derived packaging film. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 7:429–458

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 11:60–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2014) Technology readiness levels (TRL). Horizon 2020—Work Programme 2014–2015. General Annexes, Extract from Part 19—Commission Decision C(2014)4995

  • FAO (2009) How to feed the world in 2050

  • FAO (2014) Food Price Index 2000–2014. In: FAOSTAT. http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/home/E

  • Finnigan T, Lemon M, Allan B, Paton I (2010) Mycoprotein, life cycle analysis and the food 2030 challenge. Asp Appl Biol 102:81–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn HC, Canals LMi, Keller E et al (2012) Quantifying global greenhouse gas emissions from land-use change for crop production. Glob Chang Biol 18:1622–1635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. London

  • Garnett T (2014) Three perspectives on sustainable food security: efficiency, demand restraint, food system transformation. What role for LCA? J Clean Prod 73:10–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The Eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology Report. Amersfoort

  • 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: characterisation

  • 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

  • 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, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G et al (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Håkansson S, Gavrilita P, Bengoa X (2005) Comparative life cycle assessment pork vs tofu. Stockholm

  • Head M, Sevenster M, Croezen H (2011) Life cycle impacts of protein-rich foods for superwijzer. Delft

  • Hoekstra AY, Mekonnen MM (2012) The water footprint of humanity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:3232–3237

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman J, Falvo M (2004) Protein—which is best? J Sports Sci Med 3:118–130

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: an assessment of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Synth Report. doi:10.1256/004316502320517344

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework

  • ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines

  • Jiménez-Colmenero F, Carballo J, Cofrades S (2001) Healthier meat and meat products: their role as functional foods. Meat Sci 59:5–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Zurich

  • Longvah T, Mangthya K, Ramulu P (2011) Nutrient composition and protein quality evaluation of eri silkworm (Samia ricinii) prepupae and pupae. Food Chem 128:400–403

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McEachern MG, Warnaby G (2006) Food shopping behaviour in Scotland: the influence of relative rurality. Int J Consum Stud 30:189–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milà i Canals L, Rigarlsford G, Sim S (2012) Land use impact assessment of margarine. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1265–1277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milà i Canals L, Rigarlsford G, Sim S (2013) Land use impact assessment of margarine. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1265–1277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 19:109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 65–69

  • Nielsen PH, Nielsen AM, Weidema BP, et al. (2003) LCA food data base. http://www.lcafood.dk/

  • Nonhebel S, Raats J (2007) Environmental impact of meat substitutes: comparison between Quorn and pork. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. LCA foods. Gothenburg, Sweden, pp 73–75

  • 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 7

  • 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 98:67–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 42:989–1001

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 39:1119–1128

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pfister S, Bayer P (2014) Monthly water stress: spatially and temporally explicit consumptive water footprint of global crop production. J Clean Prod 73:52–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 45:5761–5768

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • PYR Ltd (2014) Packaging weight units. http://www.pyr.fi/eng/forms/packaging-data-declaration-form/packaging-weight-units.html#6

  • 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

  • Roy P, Nei D, Orikasa T et al (2009) A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J Food Eng 90:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schau EM, Fet AM (2008) LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:255–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiklomanov IA (2003) World water resources at the beginning of the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 350123001/2011

  • 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, Italy

  • Tuomisto HL, de Mattos MJT (2011) Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environ Sci Technol 45:6117–6123

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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. 2012

  • 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

  • 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, Rome

  • 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 Industry

  • Vermeulen SJ, Campbell BM, Ingram JSI (2012) Climate change and food systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:195–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Gallen

  • Wiedemann S, McGahan E, Poad G (2012) Using life cycle assessment to quantify the environmental impact of chicken meat production

  • 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 IS0205

  • Williams AG, Audsley E, Sandars DL (2006b) Energy and environmental burdens of organic and non-organic agriculture and horticulture. Asp Appl Biol 79:19–23

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 119–124

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. German Institute of Food Technologies (DIL-e.V.), 49610, Quakenbrück, Germany

    Sergiy Smetana, Alexander Mathys, Achim Knoch & Volker Heinz

  2. Institute of Structural Analysis and Planning in Areas of Intensive Agriculture, University of Vechta, 49364, Vechta, Germany

    Sergiy Smetana

Authors
  1. Sergiy Smetana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander Mathys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Achim Knoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Volker Heinz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sergiy Smetana.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Niels Jungbluth

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smetana, S., Mathys, A., Knoch, A. et al. Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20, 1254–1267 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0931-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0931-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation