Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 9/2015

01-09-2015 | LCA FOR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND FOOD PRODUCTS

Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes

Authors: Sergiy Smetana, Alexander Mathys, Achim Knoch, Volker Heinz

Published in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment | Issue 9/2015

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Purpose

Food production is among the highest human environmental impacting activities. Agriculture itself accounts for 70–85 % of the water footprint and 30 % of world greenhouse gas emissions (2.5 times more than global transport). Food production’s projected increase in 70 % by 2050 highlights the importance of environmental impacts connected with meat production. The production of various meat substitutes (plant-based, mycoprotein-based, dairy-based, and animal-based substitutes) aims to reduce the environmental impact caused by livestock. This article outlined the comparative analysis of meat substitutes’ environmental performance in order to estimate the most promising options.

Methods

The study considered “cradle-to-plate” meal life cycle with the application of ReCiPe and IMPACT 2002+ methods. Inventory was based on literature and field data. Functional unit (FU) was 1 kg of a ready-to-eat meal at a consumer. The study evaluated alternative FU (the equivalent of 3.75 MJ energy content of fried chicken lean meat and 0.3 kg of digested dry matter protein content) as a part of sensitivity analysis.

Results and discussion

Results showed the highest impacts for lab-grown meat and mycoprotein-based analogues (high demand for energy for medium cultivation), medium impacts for chicken (local feed), and dairy-based and gluten-based meat substitutes, and the lowest impact for insect-based and soy meal-based substitutes (by-products allocated). Alternative FU confirmed the worst performance of lab-grown and mycoprotein-based analogues. The best performing products were insect-based and soy meal-based substitutes and chicken. The other substitutes had medium level impacts. The results were very sensitive to the changes of FU. Midpoint impact category results were the same order of magnitude as a previously published work, although wide ranges of possible results and system boundaries made the comparison with literature data not reliable.

Conclusions and recommendations

The results of the comparison were highly dependable on selected FU. Therefore, the proposed comparison with different integrative FU indicated the lowest impact of soy meal-based and insect-based substitutes (with given technology level development). Insect-based meat substitute has a potential to be more sustainable with the use of more advanced cultivation and processing techniques. The same is applicable to lab-grown meat and in a minor degree to gluten, dairy, and mycoprotein-based substitutes.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Literature
go back to reference Alig M, Grandl F, Mieleitner J et al. (2012) Life cycle assessment of beef, pork and poultry Alig M, Grandl F, Mieleitner J et al. (2012) Life cycle assessment of beef, pork and poultry
go back to reference Bellarby J, Foereid B, Hastings A, Smith P (2008) Cool farming: climate impacts of agriculture and mitigation potential. Amsterdam Bellarby J, Foereid B, Hastings A, Smith P (2008) Cool farming: climate impacts of agriculture and mitigation potential. Amsterdam
go back to reference Berardy A (2012) A consequential comparative life cycle assessment of seitan and beef. SSEBE-CESEM-2012-CPR-002 Course Project Report Series Berardy A (2012) A consequential comparative life cycle assessment of seitan and beef. SSEBE-CESEM-2012-CPR-002 Course Project Report Series
go back to reference Berk Z (1992) Technology of production of edible flours and protein products from soybeans, FAO AGRICU. FAO, United Nations, Rome Berk Z (1992) Technology of production of edible flours and protein products from soybeans, FAO AGRICU. FAO, United Nations, Rome
go back to reference Berlin J (2002) Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of Swedish semi-hard cheese. Int Dairy J 12:939–953CrossRef Berlin J (2002) Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of Swedish semi-hard cheese. Int Dairy J 12:939–953CrossRef
go back to reference Blonk H, Kool A, Luske B, et al. (2008) Milieueffecten van Nederlandse consumptie van eiwitrijke producten. Gevolgen van vervanging van dierlijke eiwitten anno 2008 Blonk H, Kool A, Luske B, et al. (2008) Milieueffecten van Nederlandse consumptie van eiwitrijke producten. Gevolgen van vervanging van dierlijke eiwitten anno 2008
go back to reference BSI (2008) PAS2050: specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services BSI (2008) PAS2050: specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services
go back to reference Cederberg C, Sonesson U, Henriksson M et al. (2009) Greenhouse gas emissions from Swedish production of meat, milk and eggs 1990 and 2005. SIK-Institutet för livsmedel och bioteknik Cederberg C, Sonesson U, Henriksson M et al. (2009) Greenhouse gas emissions from Swedish production of meat, milk and eggs 1990 and 2005. SIK-Institutet för livsmedel och bioteknik
go back to reference Dalgaard R, Schmidt J, Halberg N et al (2008) LCA of soybean meal. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:240–254CrossRef Dalgaard R, Schmidt J, Halberg N et al (2008) LCA of soybean meal. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:240–254CrossRef
go back to reference Deng Y, Achten WMJ, Van Acker K, Duflou JR (2013) Life cycle assessment of wheat gluten powder and derived packaging film. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 7:429–458CrossRef Deng Y, Achten WMJ, Van Acker K, Duflou JR (2013) Life cycle assessment of wheat gluten powder and derived packaging film. Biofuels Bioprod Bioref 7:429–458CrossRef
go back to reference Ellingsen H, Aanondsen SA (2006) Environmental impacts of wild caught cod and farmed salmon—a comparison with chicken (7 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:60–65CrossRef Ellingsen H, Aanondsen SA (2006) Environmental impacts of wild caught cod and farmed salmon—a comparison with chicken (7 pp). Int J Life Cycle Assess 11:60–65CrossRef
go back to reference European Commission (2014) Technology readiness levels (TRL). Horizon 2020—Work Programme 2014–2015. General Annexes, Extract from Part 19—Commission Decision C(2014)4995 European Commission (2014) Technology readiness levels (TRL). Horizon 2020—Work Programme 2014–2015. General Annexes, Extract from Part 19—Commission Decision C(2014)4995
go back to reference Finnigan T, Lemon M, Allan B, Paton I (2010) Mycoprotein, life cycle analysis and the food 2030 challenge. Asp Appl Biol 102:81–90 Finnigan T, Lemon M, Allan B, Paton I (2010) Mycoprotein, life cycle analysis and the food 2030 challenge. Asp Appl Biol 102:81–90
go back to reference Flynn HC, Canals LMi, Keller E et al (2012) Quantifying global greenhouse gas emissions from land-use change for crop production. Glob Chang Biol 18:1622–1635CrossRef Flynn HC, Canals LMi, Keller E et al (2012) Quantifying global greenhouse gas emissions from land-use change for crop production. Glob Chang Biol 18:1622–1635CrossRef
go back to reference Foster C, Green K, Bleda M et al. (2006) Environmental impacts of food production and consumption: a report to the department for environment, food and rural affairs. London Foster C, Green K, Bleda M et al. (2006) Environmental impacts of food production and consumption: a report to the department for environment, food and rural affairs. London
go back to reference Garnett T (2014) Three perspectives on sustainable food security: efficiency, demand restraint, food system transformation. What role for LCA? J Clean Prod 73:10–18CrossRef Garnett T (2014) Three perspectives on sustainable food security: efficiency, demand restraint, food system transformation. What role for LCA? J Clean Prod 73:10–18CrossRef
go back to reference Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The Eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology Report. Amersfoort Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (2001) The Eco-indicator 99. A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology Report. Amersfoort
go back to reference Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M et al. (2013) A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. ReCiPe 2008. First edition (version 1.08). Report I: characterisation Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M et al. (2013) A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. ReCiPe 2008. First edition (version 1.08). Report I: characterisation
go back to reference Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, De Schryver A et al. (2013) ReCiPe 2008. A LCIA method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Characterisation. A life cycle impact. http://www.lcia-recipe.net Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, De Schryver A et al. (2013) ReCiPe 2008. A LCIA method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Characterisation. A life cycle impact. http://​www.​lcia-recipe.​net
go back to reference Guinée JB, Gorree M, Heijungs R et al (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Series: eco-efficiency in industry and science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht Guinée JB, Gorree M, Heijungs R et al (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Series: eco-efficiency in industry and science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
go back to reference Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G et al (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96CrossRef Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Huppes G et al (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96CrossRef
go back to reference Håkansson S, Gavrilita P, Bengoa X (2005) Comparative life cycle assessment pork vs tofu. Stockholm Håkansson S, Gavrilita P, Bengoa X (2005) Comparative life cycle assessment pork vs tofu. Stockholm
go back to reference Head M, Sevenster M, Croezen H (2011) Life cycle impacts of protein-rich foods for superwijzer. Delft Head M, Sevenster M, Croezen H (2011) Life cycle impacts of protein-rich foods for superwijzer. Delft
go back to reference Hoekstra AY, Mekonnen MM (2012) The water footprint of humanity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:3232–3237CrossRef Hoekstra AY, Mekonnen MM (2012) The water footprint of humanity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:3232–3237CrossRef
go back to reference Hoffman J, Falvo M (2004) Protein—which is best? J Sports Sci Med 3:118–130 Hoffman J, Falvo M (2004) Protein—which is best? J Sports Sci Med 3:118–130
go back to reference ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework
go back to reference ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines ISO 14044 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines
go back to reference Jiménez-Colmenero F, Carballo J, Cofrades S (2001) Healthier meat and meat products: their role as functional foods. Meat Sci 59:5–13CrossRef Jiménez-Colmenero F, Carballo J, Cofrades S (2001) Healthier meat and meat products: their role as functional foods. Meat Sci 59:5–13CrossRef
go back to reference Katajajuuri J-M, Grönroos J, Usva K (2008) Environmental impacts and related options for improving the chicken meat supply chain. 6th Int. Conf. LCA Agri-Food Sect. Zurich Katajajuuri J-M, Grönroos J, Usva K (2008) Environmental impacts and related options for improving the chicken meat supply chain. 6th Int. Conf. LCA Agri-Food Sect. Zurich
go back to reference Longvah T, Mangthya K, Ramulu P (2011) Nutrient composition and protein quality evaluation of eri silkworm (Samia ricinii) prepupae and pupae. Food Chem 128:400–403CrossRef Longvah T, Mangthya K, Ramulu P (2011) Nutrient composition and protein quality evaluation of eri silkworm (Samia ricinii) prepupae and pupae. Food Chem 128:400–403CrossRef
go back to reference McEachern MG, Warnaby G (2006) Food shopping behaviour in Scotland: the influence of relative rurality. Int J Consum Stud 30:189–201CrossRef McEachern MG, Warnaby G (2006) Food shopping behaviour in Scotland: the influence of relative rurality. Int J Consum Stud 30:189–201CrossRef
go back to reference Milà i Canals L, Rigarlsford G, Sim S (2012) Land use impact assessment of margarine. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1265–1277CrossRef Milà i Canals L, Rigarlsford G, Sim S (2012) Land use impact assessment of margarine. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1265–1277CrossRef
go back to reference Milà i Canals L, Rigarlsford G, Sim S (2013) Land use impact assessment of margarine. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1265–1277CrossRef Milà i Canals L, Rigarlsford G, Sim S (2013) Land use impact assessment of margarine. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1265–1277CrossRef
go back to reference Muñoz I, Flury K, Jungbluth N et al (2013) Life cycle assessment of bio-based ethanol produced from different agricultural feedstocks. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:109–119CrossRef Muñoz I, Flury K, Jungbluth N et al (2013) Life cycle assessment of bio-based ethanol produced from different agricultural feedstocks. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:109–119CrossRef
go back to reference Nemecek T, Frick C, Dubois D, Gaillard G (2001) Comparing farming systems at crop rotation level by LCA. Proc. Int. Conf. LCA Foods. SIK, VITO, Gothenburg, pp 65–69 Nemecek T, Frick C, Dubois D, Gaillard G (2001) Comparing farming systems at crop rotation level by LCA. Proc. Int. Conf. LCA Foods. SIK, VITO, Gothenburg, pp 65–69
go back to reference Nonhebel S, Raats J (2007) Environmental impact of meat substitutes: comparison between Quorn and pork. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. LCA foods. Gothenburg, Sweden, pp 73–75 Nonhebel S, Raats J (2007) Environmental impact of meat substitutes: comparison between Quorn and pork. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. LCA foods. Gothenburg, Sweden, pp 73–75
go back to reference Oonincx DG, de Boer IJ (2012) Environmental impact of the production of mealworms as a protein source for humans—a life cycle assessment. PLoS ONE 7 Oonincx DG, de Boer IJ (2012) Environmental impact of the production of mealworms as a protein source for humans—a life cycle assessment. PLoS ONE 7
go back to reference Pelletier N (2008) Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions. Agric Syst 98:67–73CrossRef Pelletier N (2008) Environmental performance in the US broiler poultry sector: life cycle energy use and greenhouse gas, ozone depleting, acidifying and eutrophying emissions. Agric Syst 98:67–73CrossRef
go back to reference Pelletier N, Arsenault N, Tyedmers P (2008) Scenario modeling potential eco-efficiency gains from a transition to organic agriculture: life cycle perspectives on Canadian canola, corn, soy, and wheat production. Environ Manag 42:989–1001CrossRef Pelletier N, Arsenault N, Tyedmers P (2008) Scenario modeling potential eco-efficiency gains from a transition to organic agriculture: life cycle perspectives on Canadian canola, corn, soy, and wheat production. Environ Manag 42:989–1001CrossRef
go back to reference Pennington DW, Margni M, Ammann C, Jolliet O (2005) Multimedia fate and human intake modeling: spatial versus nonspatial insights for chemical emissions in western Europe. Environ Sci Technol 39:1119–1128CrossRef Pennington DW, Margni M, Ammann C, Jolliet O (2005) Multimedia fate and human intake modeling: spatial versus nonspatial insights for chemical emissions in western Europe. Environ Sci Technol 39:1119–1128CrossRef
go back to reference Pfister S, Bayer P (2014) Monthly water stress: spatially and temporally explicit consumptive water footprint of global crop production. J Clean Prod 73:52–62CrossRef Pfister S, Bayer P (2014) Monthly water stress: spatially and temporally explicit consumptive water footprint of global crop production. J Clean Prod 73:52–62CrossRef
go back to reference Pfister S, Bayer P, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2011) Environmental impacts of water use in global crop production: hotspots and trade-offs with land use. Environ Sci Technol 45:5761–5768CrossRef Pfister S, Bayer P, Koehler A, Hellweg S (2011) Environmental impacts of water use in global crop production: hotspots and trade-offs with land use. Environ Sci Technol 45:5761–5768CrossRef
go back to reference Raats J (2007) Meat (substitutes) comparing environmental impacts. A case study comparing Quorn and pork. Training thesis at Centre for Energy and Environmental Studies, University of Groningen. Retrieved from http://www.temoa.info/node/209029. University of Groningen Raats J (2007) Meat (substitutes) comparing environmental impacts. A case study comparing Quorn and pork. Training thesis at Centre for Energy and Environmental Studies, University of Groningen. Retrieved from http://​www.​temoa.​info/​node/​209029. University of Groningen
go back to reference Roy P, Nei D, Orikasa T et al (2009) A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J Food Eng 90:1–10CrossRef Roy P, Nei D, Orikasa T et al (2009) A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J Food Eng 90:1–10CrossRef
go back to reference Schau EM, Fet AM (2008) LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:255–264CrossRef Schau EM, Fet AM (2008) LCA studies of food products as background for environmental product declarations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:255–264CrossRef
go back to reference Shiklomanov IA (2003) World water resources at the beginning of the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Shiklomanov IA (2003) World water resources at the beginning of the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
go back to reference Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T et al (2006) Livestock’s long shadow. Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T et al (2006) Livestock’s long shadow. Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome
go back to reference Tijhuis MJ, Ezendam J, Westenbrink S et al. (2011) Replacement of meat and dairy by more sustainable protein sources in the Netherlands. Quality of the diet. RIVM Letter Report 350123001/2011 Tijhuis MJ, Ezendam J, Westenbrink S et al. (2011) Replacement of meat and dairy by more sustainable protein sources in the Netherlands. Quality of the diet. RIVM Letter Report 350123001/2011
go back to reference Tuomisto H, De Mattos M (2010) Life cycle assessment of cultured meat production. 7th Int. Conf. Life Cycle Assess. Agri-Food Sect. 22nd–24th Sept. 2010, Bari, Italy Tuomisto H, De Mattos M (2010) Life cycle assessment of cultured meat production. 7th Int. Conf. Life Cycle Assess. Agri-Food Sect. 22nd–24th Sept. 2010, Bari, Italy
go back to reference Tuomisto HL, de Mattos MJT (2011) Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environ Sci Technol 45:6117–6123CrossRef Tuomisto HL, de Mattos MJT (2011) Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environ Sci Technol 45:6117–6123CrossRef
go back to reference Tuomisto HL, Roy AG (2012) Could cultured meat reduce environmental impact of agriculture in Europe? 8th Int. Conf. LCA Agri-Food Sect. Rennes, Fr. 2–4 Oct. 2012 Tuomisto HL, Roy AG (2012) Could cultured meat reduce environmental impact of agriculture in Europe? 8th Int. Conf. LCA Agri-Food Sect. Rennes, Fr. 2–4 Oct. 2012
go back to reference Van Huis A, Van Itterbeeck J, Klunder H et al. (2013) Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security, FAO Forest. FAO, United Nations, Rome Van Huis A, Van Itterbeeck J, Klunder H et al. (2013) Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security, FAO Forest. FAO, United Nations, Rome
go back to reference Van Zeist WJ, Marinussen M, Broekema R et al. (2012) LCI data for the calculation tool Feedprint for greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization. Wet Milling Industry Van Zeist WJ, Marinussen M, Broekema R et al. (2012) LCI data for the calculation tool Feedprint for greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization. Wet Milling Industry
go back to reference Vermeulen SJ, Campbell BM, Ingram JSI (2012) Climate change and food systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:195–222CrossRef Vermeulen SJ, Campbell BM, Ingram JSI (2012) Climate change and food systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:195–222CrossRef
go back to reference Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R et al. (2013) Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the Ecoinvent database version 3. Ecoinvent Report 1(v3). St. Gallen Weidema BP, Bauer C, Hischier R et al. (2013) Overview and methodology. Data quality guideline for the Ecoinvent database version 3. Ecoinvent Report 1(v3). St. Gallen
go back to reference Wiedemann S, McGahan E, Poad G (2012) Using life cycle assessment to quantify the environmental impact of chicken meat production Wiedemann S, McGahan E, Poad G (2012) Using life cycle assessment to quantify the environmental impact of chicken meat production
go back to reference Williams A, Audsley E, Sandars D (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities: Defra project report IS0205 Williams A, Audsley E, Sandars D (2006) Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities: Defra project report IS0205
go back to reference Williams AG, Audsley E, Sandars DL (2006b) Energy and environmental burdens of organic and non-organic agriculture and horticulture. Asp Appl Biol 79:19–23 Williams AG, Audsley E, Sandars DL (2006b) Energy and environmental burdens of organic and non-organic agriculture and horticulture. Asp Appl Biol 79:19–23
go back to reference Zschieschang E, Pfeifer P, Schebek L (2012) Modular Server–Client–Server (MSCS) approach for process optimization in early R&D of emerging technologies by LCA. Leveraging Technol. a Sustain. World. Springer, pp 119–124 Zschieschang E, Pfeifer P, Schebek L (2012) Modular Server–Client–Server (MSCS) approach for process optimization in early R&D of emerging technologies by LCA. Leveraging Technol. a Sustain. World. Springer, pp 119–124
Metadata
Title
Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes
Authors
Sergiy Smetana
Alexander Mathys
Achim Knoch
Volker Heinz
Publication date
01-09-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment / Issue 9/2015
Print ISSN: 0948-3349
Electronic ISSN: 1614-7502
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0931-6

Other articles of this Issue 9/2015

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 9/2015 Go to the issue