Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39840250›Full record

ReviewFood science of animal resources2025

Environmental Impact of Meat Protein Substitutes: A Mini-Review.

Da Young Lee, Ermie Mariano, Yeongwoo Choi, Jin Mo Park, Dahee Han, Jin Soo Kim, Ji Won Park, Seok Namkung, Qiang Li, Xiangzi Li and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Scaling Cultured Meat: Challenges and Solutions for Affordable Mass Production.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Da Young LeeDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University, Anseong 17546, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3172-0815
Ermie MarianoDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University, Anseong 17546, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2630-4603
Yeongwoo ChoiDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University, Anseong 17546, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1882-4890
Jin Mo ParkDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University, Anseong 17546, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9626-1025
Dahee HanDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University, Anseong 17546, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6423-3414
Jin Soo KimDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University, Anseong 17546, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7974-7885
Ji Won ParkDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University, Anseong 17546, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9500-5763
Seok NamkungDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University, Anseong 17546, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4533-7971
Qiang LiEngineering Research Center of North-East Cold Region Beef Cattle Science & Technology Innovation, Ministry of Education, Department of Animal Science, Yanbian University, Yanji 133002, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2722-1324
Xiangzi LiEngineering Research Center of North-East Cold Region Beef Cattle Science & Technology Innovation, Ministry of Education, Department of Animal Science, Yanbian University, Yanji 133002, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3061-3847
Colin VenterDepartment Physiological Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Matieland 7602, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4142-5809
Sun Jin HurDepartment of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University, Anseong 17546, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9386-5852

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

alternative proteinenvironmental impactmeat analogstraditional meat

Identifiers

PMID39840250
PMCPMC11743834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.