Water Footprint of Meat Analogs: Selected Indicators According to Life Cycle Assessment

Abstract

Animal-based products reportedly have substantial water footprints. One alternative to meat products is meat analogs, which are processed plant-based foods mimicking real meat products. As data for the water footprints of meat analogs are limited, the present study assesses their water consumption and their potential for contributing to eutrophication and ecotoxicity in fresh and marine receiving waters. Life cycle assessments, which encompassed the generation of ingredients to the packaging of products, were performed for 39 meat analogs. Estimates for consumptive water use, ecotoxicity, and eutrophication are reported per ton of product and per kilogram of protein. On average, 3800 m3 of water were consumed per ton of product, whereas 0.56 kg P equivalents. and 12 kg 1,4-DCB (1,4-dichlorobenzene)) equivalents. were potentially released to terrestrial freshwaters and 2.2 kg N equivalents. and 7 kg 1,4-DCB equivalents. to marine waters. The predominant driver for water consumption and marine ecotoxicity was processing the meat analogs, whereas producing the raw ingredients was the main driver for freshwater toxicity and eutrophication. For reducing the use of and potential impacts on water, meat analogs may represent a viable alternative to processed meat products.

Considering Plant-Based Meat Substitutes and Cell-Based Meats: A Public Health and Food Systems Perspective

“…Limited data exists on how much plant-based substitutes exacerbate eutrophication, but existing research suggests they provide significant benefits over conventional meats. One study found that the average freshwater eutrophication potential of plant-based substitutes was an order of magnitude smaller than that of conventional pork sausage patties, and two orders of magnitude smaller than those of beef and chicken patties (Fresán et al, 2019). Another study found that conventional pork production resulted in six times greater eutrophication potential and required 3.4 times more fertilizer per unit of protein compared to a pea-based plantbased substitute (Zhu and van Ierland, 2004).…”

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

“…Indeed, highly processed plant-based ingredients have been highlighted as having a greater impact on resources and the environment than their lesser-processed counterparts [9]. The highly-processed, soy-derived components of our reported products may be largely responsible for the water consumption value we reported in our paper [1].…”

“…In addition, we have modified the table so that water footprints for the unprocessed meats have been drawn exclusively from LCA studies rather than water footprint assessment (WFA) studies. As we discussed in the original paper [1], comparing values calculated from the WFA or even closely related LCA methodologies can be problematic as a result of the differences in the assumptions and algorithms employed to calculate those values [5]. As such, the WFA data presented by Berardy et al [8] from the publications by Hoekstra [15] and Mekonnen and Hoekstra [16] have been removed.…”

“…A comment was published asking for clarification of selected data reported in our study [3]. Specifically, the specified concerns identified three main issues: (1) water consumption estimates for the ingredients of our meat analog products, (2) differences between the water consumption estimates we reported and those reported by other publications assessing similar meat analogs, and (3) data cited in our paper reflecting water consumption of other food products, including both meat analogs and real meat products. The present comment is intended to address these points.…”

“…Last year, Water journal published our paper quantifying several indicators related to the water footprint of meat analogs produced by a selected facility [1]. Table 1 summarizes the main findings of our original study.…”