ReviewFood science of animal resources2025
Environmental Impact of Meat Protein Substitutes: A Mini-Review.
Review in Food science of animal resources, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metagenomics comparison identifies shared pathogenic microbiome in humans, pigs and chickens.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Environmental and economic impact of a vegan versus traditional mediterranean diet: OMNIVEG study.European journal of nutrition · 2026Article
- Design and Characterization of a 3D-Printable Membrane Aeration Module for Small-Scale Bioprocess Prototyping.Engineering in life sciences · 2026Article
- Scaling Cultured Meat: Challenges and Solutions for Affordable Mass Production.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2025Review
- Carbon Footprint Impact, of Monoclonal Antibodies for Severe Asthma, Administered in Italy.Biomedicines · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The expansion of alternative food industries, including cultured meat, is often promoted as a strategy to reduce environmental pollution, particularly greenhouse gas emissions. However, comprehensive data on the environmental impacts of these industries remains limited. This study examines the environmental impacts of traditional meat and meat substitute production, highlighting their respective advantages and disadvantages. Our findings indicate that meat substitute production generally has a lower environmental impact compared to traditional livestock farming. However, it is challenging to quantify the extent to which meat substitutes can reduce the environmental impacts of traditional livestock products, as both sectors produce different pollution measurements depending on the criteria used. Moreover, the growth of the meat substitute market has been significantly smaller compared to that of the traditional livestock products market, limiting the availability of accurate data on the environmental impacts of meat substitute production. Therefore, assumptions that the meat substitute market will eventually surpass the traditional livestock market and reduce environmental pollution require caution. Continuous and in-depth research is crucial to fully understand the long-term environmental impacts of meat substitutes. Furthermore, enhancing the quality of alternative meat substitutes should be prioritized to increase their overall acceptability and facilitate technological advancements in alternative protein production before it becomes a sustainable food production system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.