Course:CONS200/2025FL1/Meat the Alternatives: A New World of Proteins

Sustainable proteins are foods that meet the current nutrient needs of humans, while having a minimal environmental impact and are supportable sources of protein. The need for these sustainable food sources is growing as global population increase means that protein demands are rising as well, leading many to become concerned as to whether current food systems will be able to support everyone long term (Godfray et al., 2018).

Alternative protein sources, like legumes, soy products, nuts/seeds, and whole grains, as well as lab grown meats are now being considered instead of the traditional protein sources to ensure sustainable living. These alternative protein sources may be necessary to reduce the environmental impact of the current food industry (Jafarzadeh et al., 2024), and feed global populations.

In addition to for environmental reasons, plant-based and other alternative proteins are also being considered for their potential health and economic advantages. Decreasing animal protein consumption and eating more plants has been shown to improve population health (Satija et al., 2018). The market for alternative proteins has also been increasing within recent years, as the food industry becomes more innovative and people have begun to look for more sustainable food options (Tziva et al., 2020). However despite this, alternative protein sources face many barriers, including nutritional concerns, whether consumers are willing to reduce meat consumption, and more.

With the rapidly increasing demand for protein around the world, and the damage that traditional animal-based protein sources does to ecosystems, researchers are doubting if the current system can be continued long term (Herrero et al., 2017). This had led to alternative protein sources joining the conversation of the future of food and nutrition. This wiki shows the environmental, nutritional, and economic factors of animal-based and alternative protein sources, highlighting both their benefits and their downsides, and considers their future in a sustainable world.

Environmental Impacts of Animal vs. Alternative Proteins

Animal-based proteins have far greater environmental costs than other alternative proteins. Proteins like lamb and beef produce substantially greater green-house gas emissions and use more farmland per unit of protein, while having a larger water footprint compared to the majority of plant-based alternatives (Poore, 2018). Plant-based proteins (soy, legumes, pulses) and other new plant-based options like insect proteins, have almost the same amount of nutritional benefits with far fewer carbon emissions.

The emerging technology of lab grown meats are showing a promising future to alternative proteins. Incorporating lab grown meats into diets will cut carbon emissions and the lives of livestock by a lot but not zero, as animals are still needed to be harvested for this process, and some carbon is still emitted (Chriki et al., 2020).

Livestock expansion is a major driver of tropical deforestation, with a large cause of this being producing feed for livestock. Cattle ranching alone has cleared important biodiverse plots of the Amazon rainforest, contributing to the large-scale habitat loss, accelerating species decline and displacement of indigenous communities who rely on these systems. Shifting calories to crops and diversifying plant production typically spares or restores land (Davis et al., 2015). Meta-analyses and modelling work further show that broad adoptions of plant-forward diets could cut carbon emissions, shrink agriculture land use, and relieve pressure on needed freshwater resources at the global story (Springmann, 2016).

For environmental resilience and conservation, plant-based diets show greater benefits as they reduce greenhouse gases, conserve land and water, limit deforestation and pollution, and offer a achievable way to reduce humanity's ecological footprint.

Nutritional Comparison and Health Benefits

Animal proteins are often seen as “complete” as they contain all essential amino acids in the most optimal proportions, while providing readily absorbed micronutrients such as iron and vitamin b12. The downside of these animal proteins is that they also contain higher levels of saturated fat, which is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

Many plant-based proteins such as legumes, cereals, nuts, and seeds offer enough total proteins but often lack one or more essential amino acids and can contain anti nutritional factors that reduce mineral absorption (Thakur et al., 2023). Upcoming alternatives such as insect derived proteins and lab grown meat that are capable of providing amino acid profiles similar to conventional meat with insect proteins adding additional fiber unsaturated fats and micronutrients, though long-term health impacts remain limited. Studies show that substituting animal protein with plant-based sources has been linked to lowering the risk of heart disease, obesity, and specific cancers due to the reduced saturated fat intake and the presence of fiber with the phytochemicals that support digestive and metabolic health (Ong et al., 2020).

However, highly plant dependent diets may increase the likelihood of deficiencies in vitamin B12, iron or omega 3 fatty acids if not properly supplemented. Overall, adding these diverse protein sources, including plant, insect and cultured options, can reduce chronic disease, global food security, and contribute to more sustainable dietary patterns while meeting human nutritional requirements.

Economic and Policy Perspectives

From an economic and policy perspective, animal-based and alternative protein sources operate quite differently interns of market, production costs, and support. Traditional animal protein production remains deeply embedded within agricultural economics worldwide, benefiting from already set up structures and facilities, supply chains that have been around for a long time, and large government subsidies that favor meat and dairy products (Herrero et al., 2015). On the contrary, alternative protein industries, particularly plant-based, insect-based, and lab grown meat sectors are rather new and face high initial costs to set up the infrastructure, technological barriers, and a small amount of large farming systems (Tziva et al., 2020). While plant-based proteins stand on top of the alternative protein market due to lower production costs and established crop systems, insect proteins and lab-grown meat remain significantly more expensive per unit of protein, limiting their affordability and accessibility (Rubio et al., 2020).

Despite these issues global investment in alternative proteins has increased, driven by growing consumer demand and corporate involvement from major food companies using hybrid and plant-based product lines (Sexton et al., 2019). This economic shift has important impacts on labor and agriculture, as expanding alternative protein markets could rebuild employment patterns within livestock, crop farming, and food manufacturing. However, equity concerns remain a prominent question among this transition, as the high costs of alternative proteins may restrict their benefits primarily to high-income regions, while low-income populations continue to rely heavily on animal proteins for affordable nutrition (Herrero et al., 2017). These economic and policy dynamics highlight both the transformative potential and the structural challenges of integrating alternative proteins into global food systems.

Conclusion: A Path Toward Sustainable Diets

As global demand for protein continues to rise with population growth, the sustainability of the current animal-based protein system has become increasingly concerning. Animal-based proteins are still important sources of nutrition and financial stability for many communities, especially the farming community. However their high environmental costs, including greenhouse gas emissions, habitat degradation, and water use, raise serious concerns about their sustainability. In contrast, alternative protein sources, particularly plant-based, insect-derived, and lab grown proteins demonstrate a strong potential to reduce environmental impact while still supporting the nutritional needs of the global population.

From a nutritional point of view, both animal and alternative proteins offer some advantages and disadvantages. While animal proteins provide have key amino acids and other nutrients, plant-based and other non meat proteins are associated with a decrease in the risks of chronic disease and can support health goals for the public. However, the challenges, such as nutrient availability, dietary balance, as well as public and societal acceptance are important considerations. Economically, typical animal protein production benefits from having already established infrastructure and policy support, whereas alternative proteins face high initial costs to produce and technological barriers. This highlights the need for supportive policies, continuing technological innovation, as well as equal and affordable access to ensure that the benefits of proteins alternatives are available around the world.

In conclusion, no single protein source offers a complete sustainable solution to the environmental, nutritional, and economic pressures facing global food systems. Instead, the best way forward is to combine the better, more sustainable livestock practices with more alternative protein sources. Through continuing innovation and research, as well as improving research, and helping the public make smarter food choices, the current food system can become better for the environment, human health, and become sustainable.

References

Chriki, S., & Hocquette, J.-F. (2020). The Myth of Cultured Meat: A Review. Frontiers in Nutrition, 7(7). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2020.00007

Ong, S., Choudhury, D., & Naing, M. W. (2020). Cell-based meat: Current ambiguities with nomenclature. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 102, 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2020.02.010

Edwards, P., Cech, P., Sitters, J., & Olde Venterink, H. (2022). Long-Term Effects of Cattle Ranching on Soil Nitrogen and Phosphorus Balances in a Savanna Ecosystem. Rangeland Ecology & Management, 84, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2022.05.006

Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J., Lorimer, J., Pierrehumbert, R. T., Scarborough, P., Springmann, M., & Jebb, S. A. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science, 361(6399). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5324

Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Power, B., Bogard, J. R., Remans, R., Fritz, S., Gerber, J. S., Nelson, G., See, L., Waha, K., Watson, R. A., West, P. C., Samberg, L. H., van de Steeg, J., Stephenson, E., van Wijk, M., & Havlík, P. (2017). Farming and the geography of nutrient production for human use: a transdisciplinary analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health, 1(1), e33–e42. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(17)30007-4

Jafarzadeh, S., Qazanfarzadeh, Z., Majzoobi, M., Sheiband, S., Oladzadabbasabad, N., Esmaeili, Y., Barrow, C. J., & Timms, W. (2024). Alternative Proteins; A Path to Sustainable Diets and Environment. Current Research in Food Science, 9(100882), 100882–100882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crfs.2024.100882

Davis, K F, & D'Odorico, P. (2015). Livestock intensification and the influence of dietary change: A calorie-based assessment of competition for crop production. Science of the Total Environment, 538, 817–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.08.126

Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts through Producers and Consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216

Satija, A., & Hu, F. B. (2018). Plant-based diets and cardiovascular health. Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine, 28(7), 437–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcm.2018.02.004

Springmann, M., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2016). Analysis and Valuation of the Health and Climate Change Cobenefits of Dietary Change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(15), 4146–4151. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523119113

Tziva, M., Negro, S. O., Kalfagianni, A., & Hekkert, M. P. (2019). Understanding the protein transition: The rise of plant-based meat substitutes. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.09.004

Yuwares Malila, Owolabi, I. O., Tanai Chotanaphuti, Napat Sakdibhornssup, Elliott, C. T., Wonnop Visessanguan, Nitsara Karoonuthaisiri, & Awanwee Petchkongkaew. (2024). Current challenges of alternative proteins as future foods. Npj Science of Food, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41538-024-00291-w

Herrero, M., Wirsenius, S., Henderson, B., Rigolot, C., Thornton, P., Havlík, P., de Boer, I., & Gerber, P. J. (2015). Livestock and the Environment: What Have We Learned in the Past Decade? Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 40(1), 177–202. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-031113-093503

Kivimaa, P., Bergek, A., Matschoss, K., & van Lente, H. (2020). Intermediaries in accelerating transitions: Introduction to the special issue. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.03.004

Rubio, N. R., Xiang, N., & Kaplan, D. L. (2020). Plant-based and cell-based Approaches to Meat Production. Nature Communications, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20061-y

Sexton, A. E., Garnett, T., & Lorimer, J. (2019). Framing the future of food: The contested promises of alternative proteins. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 2(1), 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848619827009

Thakur, D., Věroslava Hadincová, Renáta Schnablová, Synková, H., Haisel, D., Wilhelmová, N., Tomáš Dostálek, & Zuzana Münzbergová. (2023). Differential effect of climate of origin and cultivation climate on structural and biochemical plant traits. Functional Ecology, 37(5), 1436–1448. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14291