Content uploaded by Allah Bakhsh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Allah Bakhsh on Mar 08, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
농업생명과학연구
55(1) pp.1-10
Print ISSN 1598-5504
Online ISSN 2383-8272
https://doi.org/10.14397/jals.2020.55.1.00
Journal of Agriculture & Life Science 55(1) pp.1-10
* Corresponding author: Seon-Tea Joo
Tel: +82-55-772-1943
Fax: +82-55-772-1949
E-mail: stjoo@gnu.ac.kr
Traditional Plant-based Meat Alternatives, Current,
and Future Perspective: a Review
Allah Bakhsh1·Se-Jin Lee1·Eun-Yeong Lee1·Young-Hwa Hwang2 and Seon-Tea Joo1,2,3*
1
Division of Applied Life Science (BK21), Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Korea
2
Institute of Agriculture & Life Science, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Korea
3
Department of Animal Science, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52852, Korea
Received: SEP. 14. 2020, Revised: JAN. 7. 2021, Accepted: JAN. 20. 2021
Abstract
It is well known that the world population is increasing at an incredible pace; subsequently, worldwide food production without
compromising the ecosystem is an enormous challenge for the global community. From the beginning of human civilization, meat plays
a vital role in acquiring proteins and other nutrients. Despite the indispensable part of the meat in the human diet, it is also considered
a critical factor in environmental alterations, greenhouse gas emissions, animal welfare, and land water usage. The excessive use of natural
resources and extensive animal production causes greenhouse gas emissions, which triggered reduced meat consumption and the need
for more novel meat alternatives. To overcome the extraordinary demand for red meat, the phenomena of meat alternatives or meat substitutes
evolved. Subsequently, meat analogs express a higher trend with low cost, safe consumption, and meaty structure and texture. Meat substitutes
are predominantly vegetable centered food products that comprise proteins from pulses, cereal, microorganisms, and other fillers and
flavorings mediators. Moreover, Meat products with texturized vegetable protein, mushroom, wheat gluten, pulses are considered an excellent
source of as a substitute for animal protein. Additionally, mycoprotein had an impressive profile, including higher protein, low fat,
health-promoting agents, with good taste and texture. However, there remains a gap in research articles focusing on the regular consumption
of meat substitutes. In the current review, an attempt has been made to summarize various types of meat substitutes, different protein
sources, production preparation methods, nutritional, functional properties, including current and future perspectives of meat alternatives.
Key words
–
Cereal protein, Legume protein, Meat analog, Soy protein, Textured vegetable protein
Introduction
The term “meat analog” denotes food products that are not
made from red meat exclusively; meat analogs are also referred
to as meat substitutes, fake meat, faux meat, or synthetic meat
(Ismail et al., 2020). It has been established previously that
food choice is strongly linked with human health and our environ-
ment's health, with excessive meat consumption often viewed
as detrimental for both factors (Tilman and Clark, 2014). For
instance, various protein types, e.g., soy protein, wheat gluten,
and bean flour, nuts, are considered excellent sources of a meat
alternative, producing similar taste and texture as meat. Similarly,
decades before, livestock was considered a principal protein
source before the nutritional changeover in the 20th century
(Grigg, 1995). Moreover, globally experts claim that food se-
curity is a critical issue with severe consequences in the future,
and therefore hassle significance of conversion is needed to
sustain meat consumption (Boland et al., 2013). Meat production
will be unsustainable by 2050 at current and projected con-
sumption rates. Meat substitutes open a large market for nutritious
protein alternatives that can provide similar taste, texture, and
nutrition density (Joshi et al., 2016). Likewise, the high demand
for red meat production and consumption has a potential threat
to the environment, land water, pollution, greenhouse gas emis-
sion, and endangering biodiversity (Machovina et al., 2015).
Globally, there is an insufficient supply of protein from natural
resources. To tackle the shortage of animal protein, meat analogs
are considered to be an alternative source. Therefore, plants,
insects, and microalgae are considered as a probable novel source.
The fundamental role of producing different types of meat analogs
has to diminish livestock's environmental effect.
2…Journal of Agriculture & Life Science 55(1)
Fig. 1. History of meat analogs. Source (Ism ail et al., 2020).
Several types of meat substitutes are available in the market,
known as a meat alternative or meat analogs. However, the
market stakes of current meat analogs are minor; it is projected
to be 1-2% compared to the red meat industry. Plant-based meat
substitutes that mimic the taste, texture, and appearance of ani-
mal-based products have surpassed 44,00 products worldwide.
The United Arab Emirates and China are considered the fastest
emergent vegan market worldwide, followed by Australia.
Numerous efforts have been made to produce the best meat
alternative to satisfy consumers' demand and reduce the limi-
tations of meat analogs' production and preparation. Still, technol-
ogy has several hindrances to create meat alternatives with
meat-like taste, texture, and nourishment (Elzerman, 2006).
In the current review, we attempt to discuss the impacts
of red meat production and population demands to estimate
the inflection point by which meat-rich diets become
unsustainable. We also evaluate the total available market for
meat alternatives, health safety, animal welfare, barriers to entry,
and future innovation opportunities.
Cons umption history of pl ant-based meat alternative s
1. Ancient times
The concept of an alternative to meat as a protein source existed
from ancient times, consisting of traditional products, i.e., tempeh,
tofu, and Seitan. Tofu, a standard meat analog, was developed
in China by the Han dynasty (206 BC
–
220 AD). The tofu was
extensively consumed throughout the Tang dynasty (618
–
907) and
probably spread to Japan during the later Tang or early Song
dynasty (Shurtleff & Aoyagi, 2013). The brief history of meat
analog during a different era of modification is shown (Fig. 1).
2. Early 20th period
In the early twentieth century, nut and cereal-based products
emerged, such as Nuttose and Protose, created by pioneers like
John Harvey Kellogg, to promote good health (Shurtleff &
Aoyagi, 2014). Moreover, besides traditional Asian products,
the concept of dry texturized vegetable protein was also evolved,
which was obtained from the extruded defatted soy meal, soy
protein concentrates, or wheat gluten (King & Lawrence, 2019).
3. Mid to late 20th period
Following the 2nd world war, tangible signs of progress were
made in the production and packaging industry, which added
significant developments in plant protein concentrates, isolates,
and textured proteins. These developments supported the for-
mation of soy-based meat alternatives throughout the time when
meat consumption was surging in several industrialized nations
through agricultural expansions and strengthened animal
farming. Targeted at a niche vegetarian demographic, products
such as Tofurky emerged in the US in 1980 (Pullen, 2018).
4. Early 21st period
Burger King is the first American meat alternative that entered
the food chain in 2002 as a traditional plant-based burger. In the
new millennium, consciousness about the well-being and sustain-
ability indications of users’ diets sustained to increase together with
the rising demand for alternatives to conventional meat (Green,
2019). The new era of products such as Impossible Burger and
Byeon Burger has created a new generation of analogs, which causes
the plant-based meat industry to be doubled. Supported by modern
Traditional Plant-based Meat Alternatives, Current, and Future Perspective: a Review … 3
Type of protein Source Reference
β
-conglycinin Soybean (Sun et al., 2008)
Glycinin, Vicilin Legumes (Kang et al., 2007)
Legumin, Albumins,
Globulins Glutelins Oilseeds (Marcone, 1999)
Gluten Gliadins
Glutenins
Wheat, rye,
and barley (Green and Cellier, 2007)
Mycoprotein Fusarium venenatum
(Filamentous fungus) (Denny et al., 2008)
Tabl e 2. Major non-meat protein sources suitable for meat analog
Ingredient Purpose Usage level (%)
Water Ingredient distribution,
Emulsification, juiciness, cost 50 to 80
Textured vegetable proteins: textured soy flour, textured soy
concentrate, textured wheat gluten, textured protein
combinations such as soy and wheat
Water binding, texture, and mouthfeel,
Appearance, protein fortification/nutrition
Source of insoluble fiber
10 to 25
Non-textured proteins: isolated soy proteins, functional soy
concentrate, wheat gluten, egg whites, whey proteins
Water binding, emulsification Texture/mouthfeel
Protein fortification/nutrition 4 to 20
Flavors/spices
Flavor, savory, meaty, roasted, fatty,
serumy Flavor enhancement (for example, salt)
Mask cereal notes
3 to 10
Fat/oil Flavor Texture/mouthfeel, Succulence,
Maillard reaction/browning l0 to 15
Binding agents: wheat gluten, egg whites,
gums and hydrocolloids, enzymes, starches
Texture/“bite,” water binding, may contribute to fiber content,
can determine production processing conditions 1-5
Coloring agents: caramel colors,
malt extracts, beet powder, FD&C colors Appearance/eye appeal, Natural or artificial 0 to 0.5
Table 1 . Typical meat analog ingredients and their purpose (Egbert and Borders, 2006; Malav et al., 2015)
developments in food science and manufacturing, plant-based meat
targets to mimic the taste, texture, appearance, and functionality,
of conventional sausages, burgers, and fillets. Furthermore, meat
alternatives, made from combinations of plant proteins, fats, gums,
spices, and extruders or unique processing technologies, have ach-
ieved robust consumer acceptability globally (Court E, 2018).
Ingredients of meat analogs
The major constituents used to establish meat alternatives
are soy proteins, myco proteins, cereal protein, vegetables, and
pulses. A fermentation process is followed for soy, and other
oilseed extracts proteins, various substrates, and microorganisms
are used to produce meat analogs (Kumar et al., 2017). Brief
descriptions of typical meat analogs ingredients and their func-
tion are presented in (Table 1). Plant proteins are a vital part
of meat substitutes, but shortly bacteria and mushrooms would
be probable novel supplements because they multiply rapidly
and are valued among consumers (Hegenbart, 2002). Similarly,
the Major non-meat protein sources suitable for meat analogs
are shown in (Table 2).
1. Soy Protein
Soy is well recognized to have tremendous nutritional and
functional assistance. It is considered a replacement for red
meat due to its proportional nutrients content and is extensively
used for individuals with cardiovascular diseases (Kumar et
al., 2017). On the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid
Score scale, soy protein was designated identical to animal pro-
tein with a score of 1.0, the maximum possible score (Hoffman
& Falvo, 2004). Soy proteins support diminished blood choles-
terol and lower coronary heart disease (Golbitz & Jordan, 2006).
Soy protein is used in products like meat-free sausages, chick-
en-style breasts, chicken-style nuggets, and products similar
to sliced cooked meats.
Consequently, textured vegetable protein is obtained from
defatted soy flour, from which soluble carbohydrate has been
detached, and the filtrate is textured by spinning or by extrusion.
It is considered to mimic meat muscle, thus providing a different
eating texture to other soy layouts because it allows for chewiness
and fibrous characteristics (Sadler, 2004). The textured vegetable
protein has also been used in various types of meat-free con-
venience products such as bean burgers and patties to reduce
the cost without lowering nutritional value (Penfield &
Campbell, 1990).
2. Legume protein
The legume family of plants accounts for 27% of primary
4…Journal of Agriculture & Life Science 55(1)
crop production worldwide and is second in importance only
to cereal grasses (Riascos et al. 2010). Protein is the main compo-
nent of a legumes-based diet. In many more species, seed protein
content varies from 20% to 30% of total dry weight (Riascos
et al. 2010). It has been established that legumes from numerous
sources like chickpea, lentil, lupine, and other types of the bean
are examined on characteristics such as gel formation emulsifica-
tion and foam stabilization, among them the most favorable
for meat analog was pea protein (Osen et al., 2014). Previously
researchers have effectively formulated meat analogs from pea
protein isolates (90% protein) in combination with gluten (80%
protein) and starch at high moisture, which has a fibrous texture
which was similar to chicken and fish meat (Elaine, 2009).
Legumes grain plays an essential role in human nutrition. In
several regions of the world, the legume protein is considered
poor man meat, particularly in the developing world (Riascos
et al., 2010). There is a tremendous increase in legumes-based
meat, especially in quality, texture, and other functional proper-
ties; the main reason could be economic values (Malav et al.,
2015).
3. Cereal protein
Cereals hold an essential spot in food crops, and the products
obtained from grain are of substantial importance in the food
processing industry. Cereal protein is used as seed, flour, or
flakes (Malav et al., 2015). Wheat protein is fundamentally
prepared from gluten that has been treated and extruded to
look like the texture of meat (Asgar et al., 2010). Food products
comprising wheat gluten delivers textured vegetable protein in-
gredients that can be applied as meat extenders and meat analog
products. In-ground meat patties gluten can be used as an ex-
tender and bind chunks for trimmings to generate rearranged
items. Gluten that has been hydrated could be extruded and
texturized and convert into fibers to produce numerous kinds
of meat substitutes (Malav et al., 2015).
4. Mycoprotein
The first product of mycoprotein to be marketed was begun
long before 1985. Mycoproteins are free of cholesterol, little
saturated fats with a good fatty acid profile, and fiber content
equivalent to other vegetarian protein sources. Mycoprotein
can considerably reduce blood cholesterol levels because of
its fibrous nature (Denny et al., 2008). The mycelia of fila-
mentous fungus are highly preferred for a meat substitute since
mycelia's fibrous arrangement resembles the final product. For
the preparation of products that resemble mycoprotein, the bind-
ing agent obtained from egg albumin is mixed with fungal
biomass and added with flavoring agents and the rest of the
components depending upon the final product (Denny et al.,
2008). The heating process causes protein binders to form the
gel, which sticks together with the hyphae. The product obtained
had similar textural characteristics resembles meat products
(Rodger, 2001).
5. Coloring agents
The quality of meat alternatives depends significantly on
color and variations of color. Thus, coloring agents are consid-
ered an essential entity in meat additives (Kyriakopoulou et
al., 2019). Cumin, carotene, and turmin pigments are considered
heat-stable coloring agents and preferred among consumers
(Vrljic et al., 2018). Heat-labile colorants and reducing sugars
are used in various combinations based on color preparation,
which resembles the final product (Rolan et al., 2008). Besides,
lowering sugar content can be added as a browning mediator;
subsequently, they can counter the amine protein groups in
a Maillard-type reaction, which shows similarity with meat's
browning (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019).
Predominantly in plant-based meat, coloring agents are ap-
plied as coloring solutions before the extrusion process. The
other way of mixing colorants with proteins consisting of materi-
al entered the extruder or injected into the extruder barrel (Orcutt
et al., 2008). Regardless accessibility of coloring agents in meat
analogs, the color of meat analogs is not standard quality; the
way to solve this problem is to insert acidulants such as citric
acid, lactic acid, or acetic or their combinations (Orcutt et al.,
2008). However, a particular solution has a limitation as an
alteration in pH leads to deterioration of protein and variation
in taste of the ultimate final product. Furthermore, along with
the coloring agents, color retention aids such as maltodextrin
and hydrated alginate are used to inhibit or control the color
migration from the dyed structured meat analog (Orcutt et al.,
2008).
6. Flavors and other ingredients
Good flavor and taste are significant criteria for an average
consumer to accept a meat analog (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019).
Along with iron complexes savory spicing, meat, and savory
aroma, their precursors are currently used as flavoring agents
in meat analogs (Fraser et al., 2017). Amino acid-containing
sugar and sulfur play an essential part in expanding meat flavor
(Hsieh et al., 1980). Moreover, the mushroom concentrate can
also be used as a flavor formulate and flavor enhancer in place
of monosodium glutamate or hydrolyzed vegetable protein.
Sodium, calcium, potassium, and magnesium improved the meat
analogs' functional potentials when applied in combination with
plant proteins (Singh et al., 1997).
Traditional Plant-based Meat Alternatives, Current, and Future Perspective: a Review … 5
Company Product Country
Quorn Foods Low-fat Chicken UK
Melissa Foods Soy Taco Canada
Marlow Foods Quorn UK
Turtle Island Foods Tofurky USA
Sogolwek Quinoa Based Meat Patties Israel
Veggie Patch Meatless Meat Balls USA
Mute Soybadi India
Sol cuisine Meatless Burgers Canada
Gardein Crispy Chicken UK
Sources (Bryan, 2012)
Table 3. Commercially available meat analogs in market and their brand names
Preparation and processing of meat analog
Meat analog products are currently manufactured by two
fundamental processes, through either thermoplastic extrusion
or fiber spinning. Thermoplastic extrusion involves adapting
production processes that are more commonly associated with
the making of ready-to-eat cereal products. Extruders are simple
and are considered to be a cost-effective method of accom-
modating large-scale productions. It also provides the con-
ditions that are crucial to the formation of the desirable fibers.
The wet mix is mixed in a heated vessel at a temperature
lower than the proteins' coagulation temperature. The high tem-
perature helps lower the dough's viscosity and allows for a
more homogenized mixing process. Special caution must be
taken not to overmix the dough as it has been known to sub-
stantially decrease the number of fibers formed (Boyer, 1954).
Extruders should be set to the temperature in which the protein
used will start to solidify for max efficiency. Gluten and soy
proteins coagulate at 75 °C and 68 °C, respectively. Since
the extruder also cooks the product, the extruder's inner walls'
temperature should be within the range of 77 °C to 149 °C.
Turbulent conditions caused by aggressive mixing and agitation
should be avoided during processing as it contributes to the
undesirable formation of randomly oriented, non-meat like
fibers. Unidirectional and parallel fibers can only be formed
through extruding and stretching under none turbulent or lami-
nar conditions. Laminar flow condition occurs under low veloc-
ities where the fluid in question flows smoothly with over-
lapping layers, and it is typically characterized by having a
Reynolds number below 2000. However, this depends on the
system and can vary significantly in complex fluids (Choueiri
et al., 2018). Stretching of the meat analog would take place
simultaneously during the extrusion. Ideally, the amount of
linear expansion of the protein dough should be around 50%
in either direction (Boyer, 1954).
The fiber spinning method is not commonly used to produce
meat analogs due to its complexity, and it also negates one
of the critical advantages of meat analogs. This production
method increases production cost, eliminating the advantage
of creating an inexpensive meat/protein substitute. The fiber
spinning techniques were adopted from the spun fiber method
to create synthetic fibers in the textile industry. In general,
fibers are made by creating filaments out of the protein used
as the starting material. The process begins through the dis-
persion of proteins into a dispersing medium such as an alkaline
aqueous solution. This dispersion is then fed through a spinner-
et, a device used to extrude a polymer solution to form fibers,
and deposited into an acidic salt solution with a pH range
of 5.6 to 6.4 enhanced coagulation. After exiting the spinneret's
small die, the filaments would have a diameter of around 0.003
inches. These filaments are then stretched and elongated until
the average thickness is about 20 microns (Boyer, 1954). The
excess salt solution is then removed from the fibers through
squeezing or centrifuging before further processing. After the
drying process, edible binders such as proteins, starches, ce-
reals, dextrins, carboxymethylcellulose, or a combination of
them, are added to keep the fibers physically tied together
through functioning as an adhesive or serving as a matrix
in which the fibers embedded. The fibers are then passed
through a bath of melted fat and pressed together to form
the final product. The meat analog is then cut into a suitable
length for either packaging and distribution or further process-
ing (Boyer, 1954).
Common meat substitutes
Several types of meat substitutes are available globally with
different tastes, flavors, and textures. Table 3 is a list of various
types of meat substitutes with a brand name in various countries.
6…Journal of Agriculture & Life Science 55(1)
Fig. 2. Traditional plant-based meat analog.
1. Soy meat/ Texture vegetable protein
Soy meat or texture vegetable protein is produced from
soybeans primarily in Asian countries (Fig. 2A). The pro-
duction method is somewhat laborious, however the end prod-
uct has a fibrous consistency, which is very similar to meat.
With different seasonings, a great variety of flavors can be
achieved. Soy meat is extremely rich in protein with over
50 percent protein contents, but the protein content drops when
texture vegetable protein is rehydrated (Riaz, 2005). The texture
vegetable protein has been developed in the USA and in-
troduced to the European market in the late 1960s, with modest
success. The quality of texture vegetable protein has been
improved for the last 40 years. The textured vegetable protein
is produced using hot extrusion of defatted soy proteins, result-
ing in expanded high protein chunks, nuggets, strips, grains,
and other shapes. The denatured proteins give textured vegeta-
ble protein textures similar to meat. The fibrous, insoluble,
porous textured vegetable protein can soak up water or other
liquids a multiple of its weight. The texture vegetable protein
can be consumed directly or added as a meat extender in
meat analog. The dissimilarity between meat extenders and
meat analogs is the reliance on raw materials for texturization
by extruders (Riaz, 2004). If cooked alone, meat extenders
are not analogous to meat in appearance, texture, or mouthfeel.
These types of textured products are mixed with meat for
further processing to improve overall functional properties.
On the other hand, meat analogs are considerably similar to
meat in appearance, color, flavor, and texture when hydrated
and cooked (Riaz, 2004).
2. Tofu
Tofu is a traditional Asian foodstuff and a basis for meat
replacements made from soy protein (Fig. 2B). In meat alter-
natives, soybeans are considered widely recognized; they pro-
duce an outstanding protein, calcium, and iron source. Tofu
is a plant-based meat alternative and is also well known among
consumers as bean curd, with tremendous nutritional and health
benefits. Tofu is popular plant-based food in various countries,
including Korea, India, America, Australia, Cambodia, China,
Europe, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand,
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam (Pal et al., 2019).
It is typically manageable in the slab, and it is highly penetrable
and freely takes tastes of steeps, pulps, and extra dressing (Malav
et al., 2015). Due to the absence of cholesterol and dietary
fibers and low energy values, tofu has unique nutritional value
(Stanojević et al., 2010). Tofu has specific nutritional standards
due to dietetic fibers, cholesterol, and low energy value. The
physiological values of tofu are incredible due to the high content
of minerals and vitamins (Wang and Murphy,1994). Tofu is
a good source of protein, vitamins (A, C, D, E, K, and the
B vitamins, such as riboflavin, thiamine, niacin, pantothenic
acid, biotin, vitamin B-6, vitamin B-12, and folate), and minerals
(calcium, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, iron, zinc, man-
ganese, selenium, and copper). Besides, tofu is also a rich source
of omega-3 fatty acids that are needed for good health. Tofu
also provides the required amino acids, which are crucial to
healthy and balanced diets. It is mentioned that one block of
hard tofu, weighing 122 grams (g), contains 177 calories, 5.36
g of carbohydrate, 12.19 g of fat, 15.57 g of protein, 421 mg
of calcium, 282 mg of phosphorus, 178 mg of potassium, 65
mg of magnesium, 3.35 mg of iron, 2 mg of zinc, and 27
micrograms of folate (Pal et al., 2019).
3. Tempeh
Tempeh is an Indonesian-based meat alternative manufac-
tured from fermented soybean cake and cooked soybeans, e.g.,
rice and millet, shared with the Rhizopus oligoporus culture
(Fig. 2C). Tempeh is available commercially in different forms
like strip, cake, and cookery context; it is considered tofu because
it comprises entire soybeans it has a thicker, “meatier”
consistency. Fermented soybean cake, or ‘tempeh,’ is an out-
standing low-cost source of protein, having on an average of
19.5% protein, which matches favorably with chicken (21%),
beef (20%), eggs (13%), and milk (3%). Moreover, with the
enzymatic protease process, mold is produced during the fermen-
tation, the soluble protein content in tempeh rises abruptly,
making it extra consumable than unfermented soybeans (Astuti
et al., 2000). Tempeh has the essential properties of nutritional
benefits, including high protein, fiber, and extra nutrients. It
also benefits from covering Vitamin B12, a by-product of the
fermentation process (Liem et al., 1977).
Traditional Plant-based Meat Alternatives, Current, and Future Perspective: a Review … 7
4. Wheat gluten / Seitan
Seitan is another kind of vegetarian meat analog known as
wheat meat or wheat gluten (Fig. 2D). Seitan is achieved through
the continuous washing process of wheat flour dough until the
chewy mass, or proteinaceous gluten is produced. Seitan is
chewy and flavorful meat alternative with an excellent option
for a population with no sensitivity toward gluten, although
individuals showing sensitivities toward gluten avoided the prod-
uct (Schepker, 2012). Seitan-based meat substitutes like vegeta-
rian burgers, sausages, and nuggets are considered cheapest,
and the main reason is it produced from simple raw material.
Seitan products are easy to handle, and it could be seasoned
and prepared in multiple ways. Furthermore, around the world,
the wheat crop is intuitive to most countries. Hence, the potential
production of Seitan is possible worldwide. Seitan consistency
is exceptionally similar to the chewy fibers that establish meat's
uniformity (Schmidinger, 2012).
5. Fibers from lupines
For vegetarian meat production, sweet lupines are used in
many ways. Previously a Dutch company, Meatless B.V., suc-
cessfully prepared 100% vegetable fibers from lupine or wheat.
Several types of fibers are produced with different shapes, colors,
and flavors. Meatless fibers replace a large portion of meat;
the primary purpose is to developed hybrid products and meat
alternatives (Schmidinger, 2012). Recently there are other lu-
pines-based meat alternatives, but these products still have not
made access to the relevant market until now (Fig. 2E).
6. Sufu
Sufu is a fermented soybean curd and a vastly flavored,
lenient creamy cheese-type product that can be used in the
same way as cheese. There are several native processors of
sufu in China, with mold-fermented sufu being the most popular
product (Han et al., 2001). Traditionally, in the western world,
sufu has been known as Chinese or bean cake or fermented
tofu. By action of mold, sufu is a combined product of soybean
and curd. The primary consumption comes from the Chinese.
Three major steps are involved in the manufacturing of sufu
preparation, molding, and brining. After overnight washing and
soaking soybeans and then grounded with water to dry bean
ratio 10:1 is typically used. The groundmass is boiled for about
2 min, and the hot mass is strained through a cloth bag.
Magnesium and calcium salts have been used for the curdling
process (Han et al., 2001). To subtract the curdling whey, the
curd is turned into a wooden tray lined with cloth and hard-press-
ed (Elzerman 2006). Typical sufu is shown in (Fig. 2F).
7. Rice-based products
Risofu is rice-based burgers and sausages produced by a
U.S. company named Bahama Rice Burger (Fig. 2G). Risofu
is derived from the Italian word riso, which means rice and
tofu, meaning rice tofu. The company developed the product
with inspiration from the Shan region of Thailand, where
rice-based tofu is made. Risofu mixes white, brown, and wild
rice to obtain as many nutrients as possible (Schmidinger, 2012).
8. Algae
Algae could also be a potential precursor of vegetarian meat
alternatives, together with cereals, rice, edible oils, and thicken-
ing agents. Algae is another promising and novel source of
protein consisting of seaweed and microalgae (Fig. 2H). Seaweed
is a multicellular organism and complex. Meanwhile, microalgae
are grouped as a single-celled organism (Chlorella and the dia-
tom) and multicellular forms (kelp) (McKellar et al., 2019).
Microalgae-based meat analogs are grown in many environments
and less impact on the environment than beef, pork, and chicken
(Smetana and Heinz, 2019).
9. Animal welfare
Annually more than 56 billion farmed animals are slaughtered,
countless of which go through enormous discomfort in the proc-
ess (Joshi et al., 2016). Consumers, particularly from developed
countries, are concerned about the treatment of livestock. Some
are questioning animals' treatment and the ethical justification
for using animals in human food production (Croney et al.,
2012). To improve animal welfare, plant-based meat alternatives
and Vitro meat can both widely reduce the number of animals
farmed to minimize the burden on animal protein requirements
globally (Croney et al., 2012).
In a broader agricultural system, traditional meat production,
primarily obtained from ruminants, is considered a vital agricul-
tural system (Hou et al., 2008). Moreover, currently, the pro-
duction of cultured meat techniques researchers cannot elimi-
nate animal products' usage (Post, 2012). Excluding livestock
from food production is not the only way to address animal
well-being complications. Other options involve redesigning
husbandry systems and employing conventional breeding
technologies. Cloning is another technology that is used to
increase the genetic improvement of agricultural animal species.
However, this particular technique may have some negative
impacts on animal welfare. While keeping animal welfare in
mind previously, a trial has been carried out in cattle with
a total of 2,170 implanted embryos; only 106 live offspring
were born. At the same time, 24 of them died soon after birth.
8…Journal of Agriculture & Life Science 55(1)
On closer look, 11 of these 24 offspring had severe physiological
abnormalities, including digestive abnormalities, skeletal prob-
lems, deformities in the urinary tract, and respiratory failure
(Cibelli et al., 2002).
11 . Nutritional and health aspects
The Health benefits and nutritional value of certain foods
are well recognized based on their composition. The fundamental
dietary drive of meat in the diet is providing protein of out-
standing quality. In case the meat is entirely exchanged for
meat-analog product, the particular product should provide a
similar nutritional value. It has been established that a meat
analog with a protein content of up to 30% with a low fat/lipid
level can be an excellent alternative to meat from a nutritional
perspective. Concerning public health benefits, meat substitutes
had a wide range of potential as a functional food (Sadler,
2004). The meat proteins have great biological value with a
reasonable volume of vitamins and minerals, which improve
the nutritional value of meat products. However, meat cannot
be recommended due to its high-fat content. The meat also
includes cholesterol and a greater quantity of saturated fatty
acids. Atherosclerosis or clogging of the arteries leads to a
heart attack caused by saturated fat in meat, whereas in
plant-based meat, a considerable amount of linolenic acid is
present (Key et al., 1999). To provide a high quality of protein
in the diet is the primary purpose of meat in the diet. From
a nutritional perspective, it has been suggested that meat sub-
stitutes consisting of 30% protein with a lower quantity of fat
can be an excellent replacer to meat (Kyriakopoulou et al.,
2019). Previously it has been reported that plant-based meat
has various health assistances, e.g., reducing obesity-induced
metabolic dysfunction (Wanezaki et al., 2015), cardiovascular
disease (Craig, 2010), cancer (Goldberg, 2003), retaining anti-
cancer, anti-inflammation activity, and immune activity (Nakata
et al., 2017). Consequently, improving clinical indices in Type
2 diabetes (Clifton, 2011) improves weight loss and weight
maintenance (Kristensen et al., 2016).
Environmental aspects of meat analogs
Greenhouse gas is an environmental calamity, and food activ-
ity is considered responsible for 30% of greenhouse gas emis-
sions (Smetana et al., 2015). Consumer awareness has been
amplified at increasing food demand (Steinfeld et al., 2006).
Moreover, ecological and socio-economic activities, such as
food safety, deforestation, and pollution, are of greater
significance. Grossly livestock contributes a significant portion
of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide 9%, methane
39%, and nitrous oxide 65% (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Based
on soy and grain's total production, approximately 40% of the
entire grain and 75% of whole soy are being utilized for animal
feeding. Land as the whole of the planet, 30% is dedicated
to animal production, which is considered 70% of total arable
land (Kumar et al., 2017). Furthermore, extensive livestock pro-
duction and expansion had a tremendous effect on limited natural
resources, and it is considered a key factor in the deforestation
of forests and greenery (Pimentel & Pimentel, 2003). Thus,
meat analogs are considered the best alternatives to overcome
the overproduction of livestock and produce environ-
ment-friendly meat products that could reduce the burden on
our planet's natural resources.
Food marketing will be very complicated; a flow toward
more sophisticated meat alternatives is booming up. Food manu-
facturers face a significant challenge to provide nutritious, eco-
nomical, and healthy foods to ensure that food products have
tempting taste and texture. Genetic engineering silencing can
increase the quality of plant-based food products (Asgar et al.,
2010). Meat production by conventional methods reaches its
edges, additional increases in production will require innovative
technologies and techniques. In the current meat industry, only
traditional meat and limited types of meat alternatives are present
in the market place. The red meat industry's future perspective
through artificial meat and technologies will keep the meat
industry's current pace to cope with increased consumer demand
with time. As the demand for meat surges, the resources available
shrink, and the monitoring environment convert, more intricate
conventional meat production will probably suffer high costs,
making meat more expensive.
Similarly, when the price of conventional meat increases,
the demand for more inexpensive meat substitutes will surges.
The principal foodstuffs which are likely to produce strong
opposition for traditional meat are meat substitutes manufactured
from plant or insect proteins. These products are the most striking
to manufactures and have the lowermost obstacles to
commercialization. This may create momentum for meat, partic-
ularly red meat, into the most incredible end of the market.
Previously research and development have reported that
meat-like structure can be achieved using plant-based in-
gredients, such as soy and legumes, and with a combination
of different technologies like extrusion and shearing process.
Although due to the oxidation process, off-flavor complaints
have been reported alongside these ingredients can produce
highly nutritional products (Rackis et al., 1979). Covering these
odors is a choice, but imitating the particular meat taste is
relatively tricky (Claeys et al., 2004). Consequently, new com-
pounds had been explored, which could change the color and
aroma, which can mimic the properties' appearances and taste
of meat products. The mouth feeling of meat analog is a vital
parameter; new methods are being incorporated to assimilate
Traditional Plant-based Meat Alternatives, Current, and Future Perspective: a Review … 9
water, fat, and flavoring constituents to improve sensorial prop-
erties (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019). Besides the sensory feature,
consumer behavior can be affected by price, nutritional proper-
ties, food labels, country origin, and health claims (Gadema
& Oglethorpe, 2011). Previous reports have confirmed that’s
consumers' behavior is regularly affected if the meat product
fulfills the numerous aspects of a particular meat analog. The
meat analogs can be adjusted by formula and by collecting
components to satisfy a range of consumer demands. Regarding
the dietary benefits of the altered protein-rich ingredients and
by merging deferent sources, the health benefits can be manifold
(Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019).
Saturated fat and cholesterol are considered hazardous to
health; plant protein, unlike meat, did not include these two
compounds. Subsequently, Plant-based meat analog secured its
place in the diet of health-conscious and economically poor
consumers. The phytochemicals and fibrous nature of
plant-based meat analog are considered desirable in a diet. The
food products we generally consume should be higher in protein,
easily accessible, financially sustainable, and environmentally
safe. Consumers’ requirements of high protein can efficiently
overcome by quality plant-based meat analogs. Additionally,
vegan food is consumed easily than non-vegetarian food. It
includes low LDL cholesterol and physiologically active com-
pounds such as protease inhibitors, phytosterols, saponins, and
isoflavones. Meat analogs will help solve the global food crisis,
but more astonishingly, it will slow down climate change and
animal welfare issues. Due to their superior dietary profile,
entirely meat-free, plant-based meat analogs have a reasonably
good chance to secure their food market position than traditional
vegan products.
References
Asgar M, Fazilah A, Huda N, Bhat R and Karim A. 2010.
Non-meat protein alternatives as meat extenders and meat
analogs. Compr. 9: 513-529.
Astuti M, Meliala A, Dalais FS and Wahlqvist ML. 2000. Tempe,
a nutritious and healthy food from indonesia. Asia Pac.
J. Clin. Nutr. 9: 322-325.
Boland MJ, Rae AN, Vereijken JM, Meuwissen MP, Fischer
AR, Van Boekel MA, Rutherfurd SM, Gruppen H,
Moughan PJ and Hendriks WH. 2013. The future supply
of animal-derived protein for human consumption.
Trends Food Sci. Technol. 29: 62-73.
Boyer RA. 1954. High protein food product and process for
its preparation. U.S. Patent 2,682,466.
Bryan S. 2012. Meat analogs in industry future.
http://www.meatpoultry.com (2020.5.20.).
Choueiri GH, Lopez JM and Hof B. 2018. Exceeding the asymp-
totic limit of polymer drag reduction. Phys. Rev. Lett.
120: 124-501.
Cibelli JB, Campbell, KH, Seidel GE, West MD and Lanza
RP. 2002. The health profile of cloned animals. Nat.
Biotechnol. 20: 13-14.
Claeys E, De Smet S, Balcaen A, Raes K and Demeyer D.
2004. Quantification of fresh meat peptides by sds-page
in relation to ageing time and taste intensity. Meat Sci.
67: 281-288.
Clifton PM. 2011. Protein and coronary heart disease: The role
of different protein sources. Curr. Atheroscler. 13:
493-498.
Court E. 2018. Beyond meat products out of stock at whole foods
stores due to high demand. https://www.plantbasednews.org/
lifestyle/beyondmeat- (2020.6.2.).
Craig WJ. 2010. Nutrition concerns and health effects of vegeta-
rian diets. Nutr. Clin. Pract. 25: 613-620.
Croney CC, Apley M, Capper JL, Mench JA and Priest S.
2012. Bioethics symposium: The ethical food movement:
What does it mean for the role of science and scientists
in current debates about animal agriculture? J. Anim.
Sci. 90: 1570-1582.
Denny A, Aisbitt B and Lunn J. 2008. Mycoprotein and health.
Nutr. Bull. 33: 298-310.
Egbert R and Borders C. 2006. Achieving success with meat
analogs. Food. Technol. 60: 28-34.
Elaine W. 2009. Pea protein could challenge soy as meat
analogue. http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk (2020.6.15.).
Elzerman H. 2006. Substitution of meat by NPFs: Sensory prop-
erties and contextual factors. Envir. Pol. 45: 116-122.
Fraser R, Brown POR, Karr J, Holz-Schietinger C and Cohn
E. 2017. Methods and compositions for affecting the
flavor and aroma profile of consumables. U.S. Patent
9,808,029.
Gadema Z and Oglethorpe D. 2011. The use and usefulness
of carbon labelling food: A policy perspective from a
survey of U.K. supermarket shoppers. Food Policy 36:
815-822.
Golbitz P and Jordan J. 2006. Soyfoods: Market and products.
Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL, pp.1-21.
Goldberg G. 2003. Plants: Diet and health. Report of the British
Nutrition Foundation Task Force, Oxford: British
Nutrition Foundation/Blackwell.
Green E. 2019. Food discovery: “The Adventurous Consumer”
tipped as top trend for by Innova Market Insights.
https://www.foodingredientsfirst (2020.6.7).
Green PHR and Cellier C. 2007. Celiac disease. N. Engl. J.
Med. 357: 1731-1743.
Grigg D. 1995. The nutritional transition in western europe.
10 …Journal of Agriculture & Life Science 55(1)
J. Hist. Geogr. 21: 247-261.
Han BZ, Rombouts FM and Robert Nout MJR. 2001. A Chinese
fermented soybean food. Int J. Food. Microbiol. 65: 1-9.
Hegenbart S. 2002. Soy: The beneficial bean. Food Product
Design 2002(12): 83-97.
Hoffman JR and Falvo MJ. 2004. Protein which is best? J.
Sports. Sci. Med. 3: 118-130.
Hou FJ, Nan ZB, Xie YZ, Li XL, Lin HL and Ren JZ. 2008.
Integrated crop-livestock production systems in China.
Rangeland J. 30: 221-231.
Hsieh Y, Pearson A and Magee W. 1980. Development of
a synthetic meat flavor mixture by using surface response
methodology. J. Food Sci. 45: 1125-1130.
Ismail I, Hwang YH and Joo ST. 2020. Meat analog as future
food: A review. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 62: 111-120.
Joshi I, Param S, Irene and Gadrre M. 2016. Saving the plant:
The market for sustainable meat alternatives.
https://scet.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/up-
loads/CopyofFINALSavingThePlanetSustainableMeat
Alternatives.pdf (2020.6.3).
Kang, IH, Srivastava P, Ozias-Akins P and Gallo M. 2007.
Temporal and spatial expression of the major allergens
in developing and germinating peanut seed. Plant
Physiol. 144: 836-845.
Key TJ, Davey GK and Appleby PN. 1999. Health benefits
of a vegetarian diet. Nutr. Soc. 58: 271-275.
King T and Lawrence S. 2019. Meat the alternative-Australia's $3
billion opportunity. https://www.foodfrontier.org/wpcon-
tent/uploads/2019/09/Meat_the_Alternative_FoodFrontier.pdf
(2020.6.3).
Kristensen MD, Bendsen NT, Christensen SM, Astrup A and
Raben A. 2016. Meals based on vegetable protein sources
(beans and peas) are more satiating than meals based
on animal protein sources (veal and pork)-a randomized
cross-over meal test study. Food Nutr. Res. 60: 32634.
Kumar P, Chatli M, Mehta N, Singh P, Malav O and Verma
AK. 2017. Meat analogues: Health promising sustainable
meat substitutes. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr 57: 923-932.
Kyriakopoulou K, Dekkers B and Van Der Goot AJ. 2019.
Plant-based meat analogues. In Sustainable meat pro-
duction and processing. Galanakis CM. pp.103-126. ed.
Elsevier Academic Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA.
Liem I, Steinkraus K and Cronk T. 1977. Production of vitamin
b-12 in tempeh, a fermented soybean food. Appl.
Environ. Microbiol. 34: 773-776.
Machovina B, Feeley KJ and Ripple WJ. 2015. Biodiversity
conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption.
Sci. Total Environ. 536: 419-431.
Malav O, Talukder S, Gokulakrishnan P and Chand S. 2015.
Meat analog: A review. Crit Rev Food Sci. Nutr. 55:
1241-1245.
Marcone MF. 1999. Biochemical and biophysical properties
of plant storage proteins: A current understanding with
emphasis on 11S seed globulins. Food Res. 32: 79-92.
McKellar S, Lasek M, Day J, Muñoz A and Tzafestas K. 2019.
Future food sources: Market developments and in-
tellectual property landscape. https://www.ip-pragmatics.com/
media/1214/ip-pragmatics-future-food-sources-white-paper_
jan2019.pdf (2020.5.28).
Nakata T, Kyoui D, Takahashi H, Kimura B and Kuda T. 2017.
Inhibitory effects of soybean oligosaccharides and wa-
ter-soluble soybean fibre on formation of putrefactive
compounds from soy protein by gut microbiota.
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 97:
173-180.
Orcutt MW, Sandoval A, Mertle TJ, Mueller I, Altemueller
PA and Downey J. 2008. Meat compositions comprising
colored structured protein products. U.S. Patent
12,061,843.
Osen R, Toelstede S, Wild F, Eisner P and Schweiggert-Weisz
U. 2014. High moisture extrusion cooking of pea protein
isolates: Raw material characteristics, extruder re-
sponses, and texture properties. J. Food Eng. 127: 67-74.
Pal M, Devrani M and Ayele Y. 2019. Tofu: A popular food
with high nutritional and health benefits. Food &
Beverages Processing. New Delhi India, pp.54-55.
Penfield MP and Campbell AM. eds. 1990. Experimental food
science (3rd ed.). Academic Press, San Diego,
pp.294-330.
Pimentel D and Pimentel M. 2003. Sustainability of meat-based
and plant-based diets and the environment. Am. J. Clin.
Nutr. 78: 660-663.
Post MJ. 2012. Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and
prospects. Meat Sci. 92: 297-301.
Pullen JP. 2018. Tofurky wants to save the world, one
Thanksgiving roast at a time. It’s now sold 5 million.
http://fortune.com/longform/tofurky-vegan-vegetarian-
thanksgiving-recipes-company-founding/ (2020.6.20).
Rackis J, Sessa D and Honig D. 1979. Flavor problems of
vegetable food proteins. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 56:
262-271.
Riascos JJ, Weissinger AK, Weissinger SM and Burks AW.
2010. Hypoallergenic legume crops and food allergy:
Factors affecting feasibility and risk. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 58: 20-27.
Riaz MN. 2004. Proteins in food processing. In Texturized
soy protein as an ingredient. Yada RY. pp.517-557. ed.
Woodhead Publishing Limited, England.
Riaz MN. 2005. Textured soy protein utilization in meat and
Traditional Plant-based Meat Alternatives, Current, and Future Perspective: a Review … 11
meat analog products. In Soy applications in food. Riaz
MN. pp.155-184. ed. Boca Raton.
Rodger G. 2001. Production and properties of mycoprotein as
a meat alternative. Food Technol. 55: 36-41.
Rolan T, Mueller I, Mertle TJ, Swenson KJ, Conley C, Orcutt
MW and Mease LE. 2008. Ground meat and meat analog
compositions having improved nutritional properties.
U.S. Patent 11,963,375.
Sadler MJ. 2004. Meat alternatives market developments and
health benefits. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 15: 250-260.
Schepker K. 2012. Meet the meatles(s)-A guide to vegetarian
meat substitutes. pp.1-13. https://holisticprimarycare.net/top -
ics/cooking-for-health/meet-the-meatless-a-guide-to-vegetarian-
meat-substitutes-sp-135270867/ (2020.5.20).
Schmidinger K. 2012. Worldwide alternatives to animal derived
foods-overview and evaluation models-solutions to glob-
al problems caused by livestock. PhD Thesis, University
of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, VA, Austria.
Shurtleff W and Aoyagi A. 2013. History of tofu and tofu
products (965 CE to 2013). California: Soyinfo Centre,
p.5. http://www.soyinfocenter.com/pdf/163/Tofu.pdf
(2020.6.26).
Shurtleff W and Aoyagi A. 2014. History of meat alternatives.
California: Soyinfo Centre, p.36. http://www.soyinfocenter.com
/pdf/179/MAL.pdf (2020.6.6).
Singh RB, Rao K, Anjaneyulu AR, Rao KS and Dubey P.
1997. Effect of caseinates on physico-chemical, textural
and sensory properties of chicken nuggets from spent
hens. J. Food Sci. Technol. 34: 316-319.
Smetana S and Heinz V. 2019. Sustainability of meat substitutes:
Plant analogues, microalgae, insects and cultured meat.
ICoMST 2019 65th International Congress of Meat
Science and Technology: Potsdam, German.
Smetana S, Mathys A, Knoch A and Heinz V. 2015. Meat
alternatives: Life cycle assessment of most known meat
substitutes. Int. J. Life Cycle Ass. 20: 1254-1267.
Stanojević SP, Barać MB, Pešić MB, Milovanović MM and
Vučelić-Radović BV. 2010. Protein composition in tofu
of corrected quality. Acta Period. Technol. 41: 77-86.
Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, Rosales
M and De Haan C. 2006. Livestock's long shadow:
Environmental issues and options. Food & Agriculture
Org. http://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm
Sun P, Li D, Li Z, Dong B and Wang F. 2008. Effects of
glycinin on IgE-mediated increase of mast cell numbers
and histamine release in the small intestine. J. Nutr.
Biochem. 19: 627-633.
Tilman D and Clark M. 2014. Global diets link environmental
sustainability and human health. Nature 515: 518-522.
Vital RJ, Bassinello PZ, Cruz QA, Carvalho RN, De Paiva
J and Colombo AO. 2018. Production, quality, and ac-
ceptance of tempeh and white bean tempeh burgers.
Foods 7: 136.
Vrljic M, Solomatin S, Fraser R, Brown POR, Karr J,
Holz-Schietinger C, Eisen M and Varadan R. 2018.
Methods and compositions for consumables. U.S. Patent
10,039,306.
Wanezaki S, Tachibana N, Nagata M, Saito S, Nagao K, Yanagita
T and Kohno M. 2015. Soy β-conglycinin improves obe-
sity-induced metabolic abnormalities in a rat model of
nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Obes. Res. Clin. Pract.
9: 168-174.
Wang HJ and Murphy PA. 1994. Isoflavone content in commer-
cial soybean foods. J. Agric. Food Chem. 42: 1666-1673.