Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes

Smetana, Sergiy; Mathys, Alexander; Knoch, Achim; Heinz, Volker

doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0931-6

Cited by 427 publications

(308 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

289

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The high environmental impacts connected with meat production and the increase in demand up till 2050 require dietary changes. Insect-based meat substitutes are potentially more sustainable but require more advanced cultivation and processing techniques (Smetana et al 2015). Such advancement is expected as the whole sector of insects as food and feed is just emerging.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On most reported aspects cricket production had a similar or lower impact than poultry production. Smetana et al (2015) compared the environmental impact of several meat substitutes, based on a similarly large selection of indicators. They concluded that insect-based and soy meal-based products were associated with the lowest environmental impact.…”

Section: Life Cycle Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These effects were quantified for black soldier fly larvae. What becomes apparent is that low-value by-products (e.g., chicken manure or DDGS) can result in a low environmental impact (Smetana et al 2015). However, beet pulp, which can also be considered a low-value by-product, resulted in the highest environmental impact.…”

Section: Life Cycle Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. A review

Huis

Oonincx

2017

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

661

381

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With a growing world population, increasingly demanding consumers, and a limited amount of agricultural land, there is an urgent need to find alternatives to conventional meat products. Livestock production is, moreover, a leading cause of anthropogenic-induced climate change. To mediate this, more sustainable diets are needed, with reduced meat consumption or the use of alternative protein sources. Insects are promoted as human food and animal feed worldwide. In tropical countries, edible insects are harvested from nature, but overexploitation, habitat changes, and environmental contamination threaten this food resource. Therefore, sustainable harvesting practices need to be developed and implemented. We provide examples of (1) aquatic insects whose populations are threatened by pollution, (2) caterpillar species in Africa that are disappearing due to overexploitation and habitat change, (3) edible insects species that are considered pests in agro-ecosystems, and (4) edible insect species that can be conserved and enhanced in forest management systems. Insect farming can be conducted either on small-scale farms or in large-scale industrialized rearing facilities. We review the environmental sustainability of insect farming compared to livestock production. The major environmental advantages of insect farming compared to livestock production are as follows: (1) less land and water is required; (2) greenhouse gas emissions are lower; (3) insects have high feed conversion efficiencies; (4) insects can transform low-value organic by-products into highquality food or feed; and (5) certain insect species can be used as animal feed or aqua feed. For instance, they can replace fish meal, which is becoming increasingly scarce and expensive.However, edible insect species intended for production should be screened for risks to humans, animals, plants, and biodiversity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Life Cycle Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. A review

Huis

Oonincx

2017

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

661

381

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A comparative study on meat substitutes has shown that labgrown meat performs considerably worse than chicken meat and dairy milk, whereas edible insects are beneficial for the environment. Soya meal-based substitutes represent the most environmentally friendly alternative (Smetana et al 2015). Table 6 Numerous studies have shown that a diet with less animal products and especially a vegan diet benefits the environment (e.g.…”

Section: Trade-offs With Environmental Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Framework for integrating animal welfare into life cycle sustainability assessment

Scherer

Tomasik²,

Rueda³

et al. 2017

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study seeks to provide a framework for integrating animal welfare as a fourth pillar into a life cycle sustainability assessment and presents three alternative animal welfare indicators. Methods Animal welfare is assessed during farm life and during slaughter. The indicators differ in how they value premature death. All three consider (1) the life quality of an animal such as space allowance, (2) the slaughter age either as life duration or life fraction, and (3) the number of animals affected for providing a product unit, e.g. 1 Mcal. One of the indicators additionally takes into account a moral value denoting their intelligence and self-awareness. The framework allows for comparisons across studies and products and for applications at large spatial scales. To illustrate the framework, eight products were analysed and compared: beef, pork, poultry, milk, eggs, salmon, shrimps, and, as a novel protein source, insects.Results and discussion Insects are granted to live longer fractions of their normal life spans, and their life quality is less compromised due to a lower assumed sentience. Still, they perform worst according to all three indicators, as their small body sizes only yield low product quantities. Therefore, we discourage from eating insects. In contrast, milk is the product that reduces animal welfare the least according to two of the three indicators and it performs relatively better than other animal products in most categories. The difference in animal welfare is mostly larger for different animal products than for different production systems of the same product. This implies that, besides less consumption of animal-based products, a shift to other animal products can significantly improve animal welfare. Conclusions While the animal welfare assessment is simplified, it allows for a direct integration into life cycle sustainability assessment. There is a trade-off between applicability and indicator complexity, but even a simple estimate of animal welfare is much better than ignoring the issue, as is the common practice in life cycle sustainability assessments. Future research should be directed towards elaborating the life quality criterion and extending the product coverage.

show abstract

“…While the sustainability and nutritional benefits of meat substitute products are often highlighted at an individual dietary level (Denny et al, 2008;Smetana et al, 2015), no comprehensive analysis has been conducted on the overall scale of these benefits at the national, regional and international level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential of Meat Substitutes for Climate Change Mitigation and Improved Human Health in High-Income Markets

Ritchie

Reay

Higgins

2018

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The global food system contributes approximately one-quarter of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with these dominated by the livestock sector. The projected increase in livestock demand is likely to undermine efforts to keep global average warming below a 2 • C target. A carbon tax is often proposed as the preferred demand-side mechanism for reduced meat consumption. Previous studies, however, suggest that while this could prove successful in reducing net global emissions, it may worsen nutritional standards in lowest-income nations. An alternative market mechanism which may simultaneously reduce GHG emissions and improve health at all income levels is a reduction in the price of meat substitute products (meat-free proteins with particular nutritional and aesthetic similarities to meat). Using a combined ecological and health modeling approach, we project the associated GHG savings and health benefits associated with a stepwise reduction in the price of meat substitute products. Utilizing food demand elasticities, we quantify the substitution of meat commodities across a range of social acceptability scenarios. Our results show that meat substitute products-integrated within a "flexitarian" approach (primarily vegetarian but occasionally eating meat and fish)-have a large potential for reducing GHG emissions (up to 583 MtCO 2 e per year) and improving nutritional outcomes (up to 52,700 premature deaths avoided per year). However, this capacity is strongly dependent on a combination of price reductions and improved social acceptability of this product group; therefore both will be essential.

show abstract

Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes

Cited by 427 publications

References 25 publications

The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. A review

The environmental sustainability of insects as food and feed. A review

Framework for integrating animal welfare into life cycle sustainability assessment

Potential of Meat Substitutes for Climate Change Mitigation and Improved Human Health in High-Income Markets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About