ArticleNPJ science of food2026
Comparing meat alternatives for a sustainable food system.
Article in NPJ science of food, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review of culture media and serum substitutes containing phytoecdysteroids for application in cultured meat technology.Food science of animal resources · 2026Review
- Alternative Proteins on the Polish Plate: Consumer Acceptance, Current Challenges, and Future Perspectives.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Contribution of C1 Biotechnology to the Achievement of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Have the environmental benefits of insect farming been overstated? A critical review.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This scoping review evaluates the potential of four alternative protein sources (plant-based meats, cultivated meat, insects, and single-cell proteins) to contribute to a sustainable food system. Using a holistic framework, each option is assessed across four dimensions: environmental impact, production scalability, consumer acceptability, and animal welfare. Plant-based meats rank highest, with established infrastructure, growing consumer acceptance, and substantial environmental benefits. Single-cell proteins show promise despite scalability uncertainties, while cultivated meat faces significant technical and economic challenges. Insect-based proteins encounter barriers across all dimensions, including limited environmental advantages and widespread consumer rejection. This multidimensional comparative analysis supports prioritizing plant-based meats in policy and investment strategies while highlighting critical research needs for emerging alternatives, demonstrating the value of systematic head-to-head comparisons in guiding resource allocation for sustainable food system transitions.
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.