Explore the vast range of titles available.

The great environmental impact of increasing animal product consumption requires the willingness to reduce or to substitute meat consumption. A possible substitute product, plant-based meat substitute, is made from plants and offers a sensory experience similar to conventional meat. In this narrative review, we focus on the consumer acceptance of plant-based meat alternatives. We searched for peer-reviewed studies in SCOPUS and Web of Science (WoS) up to December 2021. Of all 111 records identified, 28 were eligible, and, thus, included in this narrative review. The results imply that established consumer behavior has complex socio-economic implications for the adoption of plant-based meat substitutes. Plant-based meat was consistently rated more favorably than other meat substitute products, but sensory and nutritional implications still exist. Environmental and health-related factors may contribute to the market spread of plant-based meat substitutes, but these factors alone are not sufficient. Furthermore, so far there is no information available about how the hypothetical measurements used in the studies (such as willingness to pay) will translate to real life consumer behavior. Despite these barriers, there is certainly a great market potential for plant-based meat alternatives, which is expected to be more pronounced in the future, with increasing environmental and health awareness.

\"Meat Planet explores the quest to grow meat in laboratories--a substance sometimes called \"cultured meat\"--and asks what it means to imagine that this is the future of food. This book takes the reader on a tour of the laboratories, kitchens, public debates, and media events that may launch this novel food technology. While pundits and entrepreneurs promote cultured meat as a solution to the ethical and environmental problems of industrial meat, Meat Planet meditates on the philosophical, historical and anthropological meanings of future flesh\"--Provided by publisher.

Demand for plant-based meat substitutes is growing globally for nutritional and environmental reasons, with Australia the third-fastest growing vegan market worldwide. This study aimed to profile and compare plant-based meat substitutes (mimicking meat) with equivalent meat products, and 2015 data. An audit undertaken in May (updated in September 2019) from four metropolitan Sydney supermarkets (Coles, Woolworths, Aldi, IGA), collected nutrition information and Health Star Rating (HSR) from 137 products (50 burgers, 10 mince, 29 sausages, 24 chicken, 9 seafood, 15 other). Mean (± standard deviation (SD)) and median (range) was calculated for nutrients and HSR. Plant-based options were generally lower in kilojoules, total and saturated fat, higher in carbohydrate, sugars, and dietary fibre compared with meat. Only 4% of products were low in sodium (58–1200 mg/100 g). Less than a quarter of products (24%) were fortified with vitamin B12, 20% with iron, and 18% with zinc. HSR featured on 46% (3.6–4.4 stars). On-pack claims were vegetarian/vegan/plant-based (80%), protein (63%), non-genetically modified/organic (34%), gluten free (28%). Product numbers increased five-fold (↑429%) in four years. The plant protein trend has prompted innovation in meat substitutes, however wide nutrient ranges and higher sodium levels highlights the importance of nutrition guidelines in their development to ensure equivalence with animal-based proteins.

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.

\"In Field Roast, Chef Tommy McDonald shares fundamental techniques and tips that will enable you to make your own vegan meats at home--for everyday (sandwiches, burgers, meatloaf) to holiday (stuffed roast, anyone?), as well as recipes for using them in every meal from breakfast through dinner. The 100 recipes are flexible: want to make your own plant-based meats? Great! Want to use Field Roast products instead? That will work too. All you need are grains, veggies, and spices--easy-to-find whole food ingredients for authentic, hearty taste. With basics such as cutlets and sausages, along with dishes like Burnt Ends Biscuit Sandwich, Chicken Fried Field Roast and Waffles, Pastrami on Rye, Tuscan Shepherd's Pie, Curry Katsu, (and even some favorite desserts), Field Roast brings new meaning to plant-based meat\"--Amazon.

To assess and compare the (macro-)nutritional composition of red meat (RM) and poultry meat (PM) products with the emerging category of meat substitutes. We use information on nutritional values per 100 g to estimate the differences in the nutritional composition between RM, PM, vegan meat substitute (VMS) and non-vegan meat substitute (NVMS) and derive six unique meat product clusters to enhance the comparability. Meat markets from five major European countries: France, Germany, UK, Italy and Spain. Product innovation data for 19 941 products from Mintel's Global New Product Database from 2010 to 2020. Most of the innovations in the sample are RM products (55 %), followed by poultry (30 %), VMS (11 %) and NVMS (5 %). RM products exhibit a significantly higher energy content in kcal/100 g as well as fat, saturated fat, protein and salt all in g/100 g than the meatless alternatives, while the latter contain significantly more carbohydrates and fibre than either poultry or RM. However, results differ to a certain degree when products are grouped into more homogeneous clusters like sausages, cold cuts and burgers. This indicates that general conclusions regarding the health effects of substituting meat with plant-based alternatives should only be drawn in relation to comparable products. Meat substitutes, both vegan and non-vegan, are rated as ultra-processed foods. However, compared with RM products, they and also poultry products both can provide a diet that contains fewer nutrients-to-limit, like salt and saturated fats.

Food additives that are “generally recognized as safe” — a determination that can be made by manufacturers — aren’t required to be approved by the FDA. This system could pose a threat to public health.