Life Cycle Assessment of the Production of a Large Variety of Meat Analogs by Three Diverse Factories

Mejía, Maximino Alfredo; Fresán, Ujué; Harwatt, Helen; Oda, Keiji; Uriegas-Mejia, Griselda; Sabaté, Joan

doi:10.1080/19320248.2019.1595251

Cited by 34 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Few studies showed differences between various types of meat analogs. We recently published a comparison of the emissions of meat analogs, but differences were reported according to their commercial preparation (i.e., burger, sausage) or format (i.e., canned, frozen) [35]. In another study, Smetana et al reported the GHG emissions of meat analogs by the main source of protein [33], with results similar to those of our study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…The production of the meat analogs considered in this study have been reported elsewhere [35]. In brief, we had access to up-to-date primary data for 56 commonly consumed meat analogs.…”

Section: Assessed Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mejia et al [35] described the assessment of GHG emissions for the meat analogs. Briefly, a life cycle assessment (LCA) was performed on the data collected.…”

Section: Data For Ghg Emissions Of Meat Analog Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A few publications have focused on the assessment of the carbon footprint of meat analogs [32][33][34][35][36]. All concluded that meat analogs are a more sustainable alternative to meat and processed meat products.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Meat Analogs from Different Protein Sources: A Comparison of Their Sustainability and Nutritional Content

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meat analogs are processed foods designed to mimic meat products. Their popularity is increasing among people seeking foods that are healthy and sustainable. Animal-sourced protein products differ in both their environmental impact and nutritional composition. The protein sources to produce meat analogs come from different plants. There is a lack of published research data assessing differences in these two aspects of meat analogs according to the plant protein source. This study compared the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of different types of meat analogs according to their main source of protein (wheat, soy, wheat and soy, or nuts), and their nutritional composition. We also compared totally plant-based products with those containing egg. We performed life cycle analyses of 56 meat analogs from ingredient production to the final commercial product. The nutrient profile of the meat analogs was analyzed based on ingredients. Descriptive statistics and differences between means were assessed through t-test and ANOVA. No differences in GHG emissions were observed among products with different major sources of protein. However, egg-containing products produced significantly higher amounts of GHG (p < 0.05). The nutritional composition of all meat analogs was found to be quite similar. Altogether, total plant-based meat analogs should be the choice for the sake of the environment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…The production of the meat analogs considered in this study have been reported elsewhere [35]. In brief, we had access to up-to-date primary data for 56 commonly consumed meat analogs.…”

Section: Assessed Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mejia et al [35] described the assessment of GHG emissions for the meat analogs. Briefly, a life cycle assessment (LCA) was performed on the data collected.…”

Section: Data For Ghg Emissions Of Meat Analog Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Meat Analogs from Different Protein Sources: A Comparison of Their Sustainability and Nutritional Content

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 1 summarizes the main findings of our original study. Mejia et al described the methodology for the collection of data upon which that paper was based [2]. A comment was published asking for clarification of selected data reported in our study [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Replying to “Questions and Concerns Re: Blue Water Footprints Reported in “Water Footprint of Meat Analogs: Selected Indicators According to Life Cycle Assessment””

Fresán

Marrin²,

Mejía

et al. 2020

Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2019, we published a study focused on the quantification of several indicators related to the water footprint of meat analogs. Recently, a comment requesting clarification of specific data that were reported in our study was published. The present reply addresses their questions. We justified the high volume of water consumed in the production of the meat analogs’ ingredients, the observed differences between our data and those reported for other plant-based products and the information we had reported in our original manuscript that was obtained from secondary sources in the scientific literature. We anticipate that our responses address the questions that were raised.

show abstract

Taking Animals Out of Meat: Meat Industries and the Rise of Meat Alternatives

Rödl

2020

Sustainable Consumption and Production, Volume II

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Life Cycle Assessment of the Production of a Large Variety of Meat Analogs by Three Diverse Factories

Cited by 34 publications

References 17 publications

Meat Analogs from Different Protein Sources: A Comparison of Their Sustainability and Nutritional Content

Meat Analogs from Different Protein Sources: A Comparison of Their Sustainability and Nutritional Content

Replying to “Questions and Concerns Re: Blue Water Footprints Reported in “Water Footprint of Meat Analogs: Selected Indicators According to Life Cycle Assessment””

Taking Animals Out of Meat: Meat Industries and the Rise of Meat Alternatives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About