Received: 4 April 2020 Revised: 12 June 2020 Accepted: 9 July 2020

DOI: 10.1111/1541-4337.12610

COMPREH ENSIVE REVIEWS IN FOOD SCIENCE AND FOOD SAFETY

A review of research on plant-based meat alternatives:

Driving forces, history, manufacturing, and consumer
attitudes

Jiang He1,2 Natasha Marie Evans1 Huaizhi Liu1 Suqin Shao1

1Guelph Research and Development

Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada, Guelph, Ontario, Canada
2College of Life and Environmental
Science, Hunan University of Arts and
Science, Changde, Hunan, China
Correspondence
Suqin Shao, Guelph Research and Devel-
opment Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada, Guelph, ON N1G 5C9, Canada.
Email: suqin.shao@canada.ca
Funding information
Education department of Hunan
province China, Grant/Award Num-
ber: 18B399; China Scholarship Coun-
cil (CSC), Grant/Award Number: CSC
201908430017; Agriculture Agri-Food
Canada, Grant/Award Number: J-000991
Abstract
The topic of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) has been discussed for sev-
eral decades, but it has only recently become one of the hottest topics in the food
and research communities. With the purpose of investigating the current situa-
tion of scientific research on PBMA and determining future research opportuni-
ties, the driving forces for PBMA development, a brief history of its progression,
key technologies required for production, and the resulting consumer attitudes
are summarized. Environmental, human health, and animal welfare concerns
are the main factors that have driven the development of PBMA. Although its
history can trace back to ancient Asian civilizations, the first generation of PBMA
originated in 1960s and a new generation of PBMA designed for carnivore was
developed in recently years. Structuring methods such as extrusion and shear
cell techniques have been widely studied, but improvements toward the over-
all appearance and flavor, biological and chemical safety control, as well as the
selection of protein sources are also very important for PBMA production. The
consumer acceptance of PBMA remains unsatisfactory but is continually improv-
ing. Based on those knowledge, future research opportunities include developing
more effective strategies for consumer education, providing more scientific evi-
dence for the health properties of PBMA, finding more suitable protein sources
to improve the quality of the final products, improving the appearance and flavor,
further examining and securing the chemical safety, exploring the structure for-
mation mechanism during the extraction or shearing processes, and developing
methods and standards for a quality evaluation of PBMA.

KEYWORDS
color, consumer attitude, driving forces, flavor, food safety, history of development, plant-based
meat alternative, structuring

1 INTRODUCTION lution as it has been linked to the brain growth and

development within prehistoric Homo sapiens (Williams
Throughout history, humans have considered meat to be & Hill, 2017). Globally, beef, pork, and chicken products
an essential part of their diet (Stanford & Bunn, 2001). are the highest in demand, with the United States and
The consumption of meat has been key for human evo- Australia topping the charts for the highest annual meat

Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2020;1–18. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/crf3 © 2020 Institute of Food Technologists
R 1
2 PLANT-BASED MEAT ALTERNATIVES. . .
consumption (Ritchie, 2019). Due to an increase in global
population and rapid economic development, the last two
decades have seen a 58% growth in the global demand
for meat (Whitnall & Pitts, 2019). By 2018, approximately
320 tonnes of meat was consumed worldwide (Whitnall &
Pitts, 2019), and it is predicted that the market will expand
15% by 2027 (OECD/FAO, 2018). However, the inefficien-
cies of meat production compared to crop harvesting and
the negative impacts from the consumption of meat on
human health have become topics of concern in recent
years (Godfray et al., 2018; Marinova & Bogueva, 2019).
Due to these increasing concerns, food industries are look-
ing for ways to introduce meat alternatives made from
nonanimal proteins, but with similar appearances, mouth-
feel, and smells, to traditional meat, to consumer mar-
kets (Kumar et al., 2017; Malav, Talukder, Gokulakrish-
nan, & Chand, 2015). The food research community is cur-
rently looking into two major varieties of meat analogues,
culture-based meats (also clean meat, in vitro meat) (Bhat
& Fayaz, 2011; Hocquette, 2016) and plant-based meat,
which is constructed from proteins extracted from plants
with the appropriate structuring processes (Joshi & Kumar,
2015; Wild et al., 2014). In addition, fungi-based meat alter-
natives such as Quorn™ products (Peregrin, 2002; Wiebe,
2004) and insect-based meat analog products, including
insect-based burgers from Coop (Swiss food retailer) and
insect fortified burger from Bugfoundation (Germany food
company) (Ismail, Hwang, & Joo, 2020), have also been
marketed in recently years.
Culture-based meat is produced through tissue engi-
neering techniques (Bhat & Bhat, 2011; Noor, Radhakr-
ishnan, & Hussain, 2016). Currently, this in vitro tech-
nique has been used in a laboratory to artificially cre-
ate a hamburger, as proof that the notion can be applied
to the food industry (Dekkers, Boom, & van der Goot,
2018). Although processed fungi-based meat, such as burg-
ers and sausages, has been available on the retail market for
decades, the production process is relatively complex and
requires high amounts of energy (Dekkers, Boom, et al.,
2018). As for insect-based meat substitutes, the main hur-
dle for its development and production is the acceptance of
consumers. Considering the technical robustness and scal-
ability for the production, as well as the long consumption
history of traditional processed plant-based protein foods
(such as tofu and tempeh) in Asia, plant-based meat has
the potential to become a mainstream product among all
commercial meat alternatives. In fact, due to the recent
development of various plant-based meat brands, such as
Beyond meat ™, Impossible food ™, and Light life ™, pub-
lic media has stated that 2019 has been the year of plant-
based burgers.
Plant-based meat alternative (PBMA) has become one
of the hottest topics in the academic community, and thus
original research articles and review papers outlining dif-
ferent emphasis on this topic have been published. For
example, Dekkers, Boom, et al. (2018) and Kumar (2016)
summarized the key technological developments for plant-
based meat analogues, with a focus on the structuring
processes. Hu, Otis, and McCarthy (2019) and Smetana,
Mathys, Knoch, and Heinz (2015) used life cycle impact
assessment techniques to evaluate the sustainability of
plant-based meat products. The health benefits (Neacsu,
McBey, & Johnstone, 2017; Sadler, 2004) and the consumer
perceptions (Bryant, Szejda, Deshpande, Parekh, & Tse,
2019; Slade, 2018; Wild et al., 2014) of PBMA have also
been surveyed and reviewed. However, it is believed that
an inclusive review on PBMA is currently lacking in pub-
lished literature. With the purpose of providing the gen-
eral picture of the current situation of scientific research
on PBMA and therefore identifying the gaps to determine
future research opportunity, related scientific literatures
that published in the past two decades were searched in
Agricola databases and CAB databases. The literatures
were then summarized into four aspects, that is, the driv-
ing forces for PBMA development, its history, manufactur-
ing, and consumer attitudes toward PBMA. Our percep-
tions on each aspect were then provided along with our
general opinions on this topic.
2 DRIVING FORCES FOR PBMA
DEVELOPMENT: ENVIRONMENTAL AND
HEALTH CONCERNS
The development of PBMA is driven by a series of forces.
In many undeveloped countries, animal protein is consid-
ered a limited resource (Schönfeldt & Hall, 2012), thus the
development of PBMA is a choice to help fulfill the popu-
lation’s protein needs and prevent protein–energy malnu-
trition (Tziva, Negro, Kalfagianni, & Hekkert, 2019). How-
ever, the most important driving forces for PBMA devel-
opment include the environmental, health, and animal
welfare concerns that have arisen through traditional meat
production and consumption (Joshi & Kumar, 2015; Sadler,
2004; Shimshony & Chaudry, 2005; Tziva et al., 2019).
2.1 The environmental concerns of
traditional meat production
Valuable resources, such as land, water, and energy, are
needed for all food production; however, the efficiency,
that is, a comparison of the food produced through the use
of natural resources, is different for each food system (de
Vries & de Boer, 2010; Gerbens-Leenes, Moll, & Uiterkamp,
2003; Reijnders & Soret, 2003). For instance, different
PLANT-BASED MEAT ALTERNATIVES. . .
livestock, such as ruminant and nonruminant animals,
and the same types of livestock living under different sys-
tems, such as free ranged versus caged environments, have
different energy requirements (Fu et al., 2015; Herrero
et al., 2013). Although technology development in these
meat production processes can help to achieve a higher
efficiency (Castellini, Boggia, Paolotti, Thoma, & Kim,
2012; Fu et al., 2015), they are still much less energy effi-
cient than the growth and harvesting of plants (Pimentel
& Pimentel, 2003; Reijnders & Soret, 2003). For instance, a
significant quantity of crops such as grains and fossil fuels
is needed to use as feed and to power the farm facilities
required to maintain livestock (Sabate & Jehi, 2019). Tradi-
tional meat production is considered an intrinsically inef-
ficient process, due to the fact that over 70% of the energy
used during production is either lost through excrements
or is consumed during animal body growth and devel-
opment (Djekic, 2015; Röös, Sundberg, Tidåker, Strid, &
Hansson, 2013). Using data obtained from published life
cycle assessment (LCA) studies and other sources, Rei-
jnders and Soret (2003) summarized that the land use,
water requirement, fossil fuel requirement, and phosphate
rock requirement for meat protein food production are sev-
eral or even a dozen times higher than for soybean-based
protein foods.
Reijnders and Soret (2003) also summarized that the
emission of acidifying substances, biocides, and copper
from meat protein food production is also higher than that
from soybean-based protein food production, especially
the emission of copper, which is over 100 times higher.
Along with the inefficient utilization of natural resources
during meat production, the process acts as a source of
serious environmental damage. Due to this, each life stage
of meat products has been widely studied and evaluated
through the LCA for their resulting consequences on the
ecosystem. Published LCA studies of the environmental
impacts from livestock products have been well summa-
rized and further reviewed by several scholars. Accord-
ing to the evaluation of de Vries and de Boer (2010),
beef requires the most resources for production and is the
largest contributor to global warming of all the other ani-
mal products on the market. The greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from animal and crop products, which were
expressed as CO2 equivalents (CO2 -Ceq ), were reviewed
by Tilman and Clark (2014), according to a total of 555
LCA analyses. It indicated that plant-based foods have
lower GHG emissions than animal-based foods. The study
further outlined that legume production causes approxi-
mately 250 times less emissions than ruminant meat, such
as beef and lamb.
Systematic review has indicated that dietary change is
an effective approach to reduce GHG emissions and also
land use demand (Hallström, Carlsson-Kanyama, & Bör-
3
jesson, 2015). For example, vegan diet can achieve 25% to
55% reduction of GHG emissions and 50% to 60% reduction
of land use demand, and partially replacing meat by plant-
based food can also reach about 5% reduction of GHG emis-
sions and 15% reduction of land use demand (Hallström
et al., 2015). Van Mierlo, Rohmer, and Gerdesse (2017)
once conducted a study to select a suitable meat replacer
that poses similar nutritional value but lower environmen-
tal impact. Four types of modeled meat replacers, includ-
ing vegetarian, vegan, insect-based, and fortification-free,
were compared, and the result indicated that vegan replac-
ers can reduce up to 87% of indictors such as climate
change, land use, and fossil fuel depletion (Van Mierlo
et al. 2017). Fresán and Sabaté (2019) also estimated that
progression from current omnivore diets to vegan and
ovo-lacto vegetarian diets can achieve about 50% and 35%
decrease of GHG emissions, respectively. Therefore, shift-
ing the global food production system to more sustainable
means by focusing on plant-based alternatives will help to
protect limited natural resources and ensure that a sustain-
able environment can be maintained for human survival.
2.2 The health concerns of traditional
meat consumption
Traditionally, meat acts to provide humans with the nec-
essary nutrients and energy to function throughout the
day (Stanford & Bunn, 2001). Despite this, the WHO’s
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has
determined that processed meat is in fact carcinogenic
(Group1), whereas red meat such as beef is a probable
source of cancer (Group 2A) to humans (Bouvard et al.,
2015; Godfray et al., 2018). These classifications come from
evidence that links these categories of meat to colorectal
cancer (Bouvard et al., 2015; Godfray et al., 2018). Unfor-
tunately, most of the meat currently on the market is pro-
cessed, such as smoked meat, ham, bacon, and sausages,
whereas beef and pork, which are globally the most con-
sumed meats, both belong within the red meat category.
The health impacts of meat consumption have raised great
concerns within the scientific community and public con-
sumers. Epidemiological studies and meta-analyses are a
few of the methods commonly used to estimate the health
impacts of the consumption of meat (Bouvard et al., 2015;
Larsson & Wolk, 2006; Norat, Lukanova, Ferrari, & Riboli,
2002; Richi et al., 2015). Controlled animal models and cell
line-based trials have also been conducted to further deter-
mine the effects of meat on the body (Kruger & Zhou,
2018). Although direct evidence is still insufficient, the
reviewed studies outline that there is correlation between
high consumptions of processed and red meats with ele-
vated mortality rates.
4 PLANT-BASED MEAT ALTERNATIVES. . .
The (probably) carcinogenic property of processed and
red meat could be ascribed to the toxicants that arise dur-
ing the production process (Bouvard et al., 2015; John-
son, 2017) as well as the presence of rich saturated fatty
acids (Wolk, 2017) within these products. Polycyclic aro-
matic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Ledesma, Rendueles, & Díaz,
2016; Nisha, Kumar, Arivudainambi, Umer, & Khan, 2015),
N-nitrosamines (Cantwell & Elliott, 2017; Herrmann,
Duedahl-Olesen, & Granby, 2015), and heterocyclic aro-
matic amines (HAAs) (ur Rahman, Sahar, Khan, &
Nadeem, 2014; Raza, Shabbir, Khan, Suleria, & Sultan,
2015) are well-known mutagenic agents that are typical
process-induced toxicants in meat products. It has also
been well confirmed that those with diets high in saturated
fatty acids have a higher risk for chronic diseases due to an
increased presence of low-density lipoproteins in the body
(Ruiz-Núñez et al., 2014; Siri-Tarino, Sun, Hu, & Krauss,
2010). Other hazardous factors in processed meat and (or)
red meat include heme iron, which has the potential to
increase the chance of stomach and esophageal cancers
(Ward et al., 2012), and the presence of high levels of salt,
which can cause spikes in blood pressure (Blaustein et al.,
2011).
Meat-borne infections are also a health concern asso-
ciated with meat consumption, such as the variant
Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, which is believed to be caused
by the transmission of pathogens from bovine spongiform
encephalopathy-contaminated beef products to humans
(Chen, Wang, & Wu, 2013). The outbreak of the viral
African swine fever in countries such as China between
2018 and 2019 is another example of a potential infec-
tion from meat consumption (Zhang, Hayes, Ji, Li, &
Zlong, 2019; Zhou et al., 2018). In addition, the wide use
of antibiotics as veterinary drugs for livestock might result
in antibiotic resistance (Bernier-Lachance et al., 2020;
Cuny, Layer, Hansen, Werner, & Witte, 2019). These antibi-
otic resistance genes might transfer from farm animals to
human pathogens, hence resulting in the development of
superbugs with multidrug resistance, such as methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus aureus (Bernier-Lachance et al.,
2020; Cuny et al., 2019).
In a review, Fresán and Sabaté (2019) stated that not
only environmental benefit but also human health benefit
could be achieved by changing the current dietary patterns
to plant-based diets. Numerous studies have indicated the
health benefits associated with the replacement of ani-
mal sources of protein with plant-based proteins, including
reduced risks of type 2 diabetes, heart diseases, and strokes
(Fehér, Gazdecki, Véha, Szakály, & Szakály, 2020; Godfray
et al., 2018). A model study even estimated a 6% to 10%
reduction of global mortality rate, associated with the tran-
sition from heavy meat to plant-based diets (Springmann,
Godfray, Rayner, & Scarborough, 2016). In recent years,
many consumers have aimed to reduce or altogether avoid
the consumption of meat as the harmful health impacts
have continued to gain attention (Leahy, Lyons, & Tol,
2010). As PBMAs pose similar mouth feel and other prop-
erties to meat product, it can help the meat eaters shift their
current dietary patterns. Therefore, the development of a
wider variety of PBMA is a possible way to decrease the
global meat consumption and maintain human health.
2.3 The animal welfare concerns of
traditional meat production
Modern neuroscience considers that consciousness exists
in nonhuman animals (Burghardt, 2009). Thus, the well-
being and suffering of animals cannot be ignored. Leg-
islations have been issued in numerous developed coun-
tries to ensure that animal needs are met (Englefield,
Blackman, Starling, & McGreevy, 2019; Miele, Lomellini-
Dereclenne, Mounier, & Veissier, 2017). Several govern-
ment and nongovernment animal welfare organizations,
such as the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE),
have been established to further support animals. How-
ever, the meat industry is an area with serious concerns
for animal care; livestock are often faced with stressful sit-
uations during treatment on farms, transport, and slaugh-
ter (Grandin, 2014). For animal welfare organizations, it
is deemed unacceptable to rear and slaughter animals for
food (Shimshony & Chaudry, 2005), so these organizations
hope that plant-based alternatives can be used to replace
traditional meat production. In many Western societies,
rising concerns for animal welfare have become one of the
main driving forces for the consumer shift toward vegetar-
ianism (Hopwood, Bleidorn, Schwaba, & Chen, 2020).
Animal welfare problems often arise from poor farm
management practices. For instance, livestock may be sub-
jected to beatings, throwing, or kicking on farms (Grandin,
2014). Additionally, health issues, which may arise from
breeding, are often severely neglected by farmers (Grandin,
2014). For example, cattle are frequently left to suffer
from advanced ocular neoplasia, whereas pigs may suc-
cumb to necrotic rectal prolapse (Grandin, 2014). Factory
farming systems, where livestock are reared in extremely
high densities, are another major source of animal wel-
fare issues (Shields & Greger, 2013). These farming sys-
tems bring about elevated levels of stress and a higher risk
for diseases (Buller, Blokhuis, Jensen, & Keeling, 2018).
For instance, livestock are denied of their natural behav-
iors, through invasive procedures like castration, and often
exhibit abnormal actions, such as cannibalism (Shields
& Greger, 2013). Although alternative farming methods,
such as free range, can help to alleviate these issues, new
concerns have been brought to attention (Buller et al.,
PLANT-BASED MEAT ALTERNATIVES. . .
2018). Free-range livestock are at risk for predation by
wild animals and experience reduced biosecurity (Buller
et al., 2018). Additional animal welfare issues are caused
by the artificial selection of livestock with desired produc-
tion properties. For instance, chickens have an increased
probability of developing leg deformities or ascites, due to
their high growth rate and large breast muscles (Shields &
Greger, 2013).
Serious concerns for animal treatment also widely exist
during transport and slaughter processes. High death rates
and injuries are very common during transport to slaugh-
terhouses (Grandin, 2014). For instance, animals may be
driven off trucks through the use of excessive force, which
can lead to additional wounds (Grandin, 2014). Although
improved transport systems and experienced drivers can
reduce the harm to animals (Schuetze, Schwandt, Maghi-
rang, & Thomson, 2017), these issues cannot be completely
eliminated. However, the slaughter process is where the
main concerns for animal treatment exist. According to
the standard of animal welfare, the pain and distress of
livestock should be kept to a minimum during slaughter
(Koknaroglu & Akunal, 2013). Standard operating proce-
dures, such as preslaughter stunning (Velarde, Fàbrega,
Blanco-Penedo, & Dalmau, 2015), together with auditing
programs (Grandin, 2010) have been established to help
maintain reliable animal welfare standards in slaughter-
houses. However, the well-being of animals can be com-
promised by the improper handling of stun devices or
the use of employees that lack proper training (Grandin,
2014). For example, an investigation in a Mexican slaughter
plant demonstrated that only 51% of cattle become insen-
sible after a single shot and 10% vocalize during the stun-
ning process (Miranda-de la Lama et al., 2012). Moreover,
according to another survey of U.S. beef plants, 2% of cattle
will vocalize, despite the relatively high standards main-
tained within these plants (Grandin, 2002).
Therefore, as consumers have become increasingly
aware of the treatment and lifestyle of livestock, many have
developed serious concerns for the overall well-being of
the animals. This apprehension, along with environmental
and health benefits, has been a major contribution for the
shift toward vegetarianism and veganism in many Western
societies (Hopwood et al., 2020).
3 HISTORY OF PBMA DEVELOPMENT:
FROM TRADITIONAL TO UP-TO-DATE
The consumption of processed plant-based protein prod-
ucts can trace back to the ancient civilizations in coun-
tries such as China and India. Plant-based protein prod-
ucts such as tofu (Shurtleff & Aoyagi, 2013), tempeh (Babu,
Bhakyaraj, & Vidhyalakshmi, 2009), and seitan (Day, 2011)
5
have been documented in these countries since ancient
times. These traditional plant-based products are typically
used as a protein alternative in Buddhist and vegetarian
dishes. With the increasing number of vegetarians (Leahy
et al., 2010), particularly in developed countries, further
plant-alternative products have been developed. During
the 1960s, textured vegetable protein (TVP) was invented
and the concept of PBMA was further advanced as TVP
was used as the main ingredient for vegan versions of
meat-based dishes, such as burgers and bacon (Riaz, 2011;
Riaz, 2001). In recent years, corporations such as Impos-
sible Foods and Beyond Meat have developed a new gen-
eration of PBMA to satisfy meat eaters. The newest ver-
sions of PBMA have similar structures, comparable smells,
and even a bloody appearance to help mimic animal meat,
which has proven to be popular among consumers.
3.1 Traditional processed plant-based
protein products
Records of tofu-making can be traced back to 2000 years
ago in the Chinese Han Dynasty. Historically, soymilk was
prepared and coagulated with salt or acid to form curds,
and the resulting curds were then pressed into solid white
blocks (Chang & Hou, 2003). As the technology of tofu
production was then introduced to other East and South-
west Asia countries, such as Japan, Vietnam, and Thai-
land, many varieties of the product began to emerge. The
production methods, texture, flavor, and use of tofu were
slightly different for each variation, but the general princi-
ples were similar (Shurtleff & Aoyagi, 2013).
Tempeh is another meat alternative made from soy-
beans, which originated in Indonesia a few centuries ago
(Babu et al., 2009). For tempeh preparation, soybeans are
soaked, dehulled, and partly cooked first, and then well
fermented by Rhizopus fungus to obtain a solid structure.
The prepared soybeans are commonly wrapped in banana
leaves or suitable plastic materials to obtain moderate aer-
ate conditions that are necessary for mold growth without
excessive sporulation. The fungi and mold that grows on
the soybeans solidifies the whole beans into a nutty, con-
densed cake. For a high-quality tempeh, a compound cake
is created by binding and permeating the soybeans with a
white mycelium (Owen & Owen, 2011).
Seitan, also known as wheat gluten (WG), is another
kind of traditional PBMA, which was invented in China
during the 6th century (Mal’a, Baranová, Marcinčáková, &
Nagy, 2010). Seitan is different from tempeh and tofu, as it
is made from gluten, a major protein found in wheat. Dur-
ing the production of seitan, water is used to wash a wheat
flour dough until each of the starch granules are removed
and the sticky insoluble gluten is left as an elastic mass.
6 PLANT-BASED MEAT ALTERNATIVES. . .
The resulting elastic mass is structurally similar to meat,
leading to its referral as wheat meat or gluten meat (Day,
2011). A distinct property of WG is that it can be manipu-
lated and shaped to look like special meat products such as
vegan chicken wings and vegan mock ducks.
3.2 The first generation of PBMA
(PBMA 1.0)
With the motivations of religious beliefs, animal rights,
health benefits, and personal preferences, the number of
vegetarians has dramatically increased, especially in devel-
oped Western countries (Leahy et al., 2010), and the market
demand for PBMA has increased accordingly. Although
tofu, tempeh, and seitan are now widely considered as meat
alternatives, they are not traditionally seen as meat sub-
stitutes in their countries of origin. In addition, the con-
sumer approval and demand for these meat alternatives
is considerably low in Western countries (Dekkers, Boom,
et al., 2018). Therefore, with the rise of modern PBMA, TVP
is among the most popular options for consumers (Riaz,
2001, 2011).
Initially TVP was a registered trademark, but it is now
used to define special kind of products. These special prod-
ucts are derived from edible vegetable protein mixed with
minor ingredients or chemicals (Riaz, 2001, 2011). This
fusion is then used to create similar structural and tex-
tural properties as consumable meats (Riaz, 2001, 2011).
Although soybeans are currently the largest global source
of protein alternatives, other vegetable protein, such as
glandless cottonseed flour, canola or rape seed concen-
trates, and defatted peanut flour, can be used as raw materi-
als for PBMA as well (Riaz, 2001, 2011). TVP products with
similar textures and tastes to meat can be created by several
special technologies, with extrusion being the most widely
used method (Kearns, Rokey, Huber, & Applewhite, 1989;
Kinney, Weston, & Bauman, 2019). More detailed informa-
tion about technologies for TVP production will be dis-
cussed later. Marketed meat alternative products that are
based on TVP include analogues of hamburger patties, hot
dogs, bacon, lunch meat, and ground beef.
3.3 The new generation of PBMA
(PBMA 2.0)
Both traditional PBMA and the first generation of TVP-
based products are well accepted by vegetarians, who do
not desire the taste of real meat (Rohall, Ballintine, Vow-
els, Wexler, & Goto, 2009; Wild et al., 2014). However, meat
consumers are often not satisfied with the appearance, fla-
vor, and taste of these products when considered as meat
alternatives (Rohall et al., 2009; Wild et al., 2014), lead-
ing to the development of advanced PBMA in recent years.
These products also rely on technologies that are used
for TVP production to form a meat-like texture, but their
appearance, nutritional facts, aroma, and taste are also
very similar to authentic meat products. Beyond Meat™,
Light life™, and Impossible Foods™ are notable manufac-
turers of these new generation products. The nutritional
facts of a few commercially available plant-based burg-
ers and beef burgers are listed in Table 1, and it can be
found that the nutritional facts, such as energy, protein,
and fat contents, of the new plant-based burgers from
Beyond Meat™, Light life™, and Impossible Foods™ are
more similar to beef burgers than other plant-based burg-
ers. The new generation of PBMA also aims to have a sim-
ilar appearance and color to fresh raw meat. For exam-
ple, Beyond Meat and Light life use beet juice or pow-
der to “bleed” their burger paddy, whereas Impossible
Foods employs soy leghemoglobin in its burger products
to create a red color (Bohrer, 2019). Another contribution
of soy leghemoglobin in plant-based burgers is the iron-
rich heme, which contributes to the characteristic flavor of
meat released during the cooking process (Fraser, Brown,
Karr, Holz-Schietinger, & Cohn, 2018). Currently, burger
patties are the primary product of this new generation
of PBMA, although other products such as ground beef,
sausage, bacon, and hotdogs are also available.
4 MANUFACTURING OF PBMA
PRODUCTION: NOT ONLY THE
STRUCTURING PROCESS OF PROTEIN
As the production of traditional plant-based protein prod-
ucts, such as tofu, tempeh and seitan, has been generally
introduced in Section 3.1, only the production of PBMA
1.0 and PBMA 2.0 is reviewed here. The manufacturing of
meat alternatives includes at least three key points, that is,
create a meat-like structure, create a meat-like appearance,
and create a meat-like flavor. In addition, the selection of
plant-protein sources and safety controls are also essential
for PBMA production.
4.1 The structuring process of
plant-based proteins
The structuring process is the most important step for
PBMA production because it is the foundation of meat-
like texture formation. The characteristic and dominant
feature of consumable meat is its fibrous structure and
texture (Listrat et al., 2016); thus during PBMA produc-
tion, the structuring process aims to develop a fibrous
structure by plant-based protein. The techniques used dur-
ing the structuring process for the creation of different
PLANT-BASED MEAT ALTERNATIVES. . . 7

meat analogues, including both reputable techniques that

(mg/100 g)
have been incorporated into the food industry as well as
newly developed procedures, have been well summarized

10.09

0.84
0.84
4.20

4.20
3.36
3.72

3.72
1.68
by Dekkers, Boom, et al. (2018). These processing tech-
Fe
niques can be divided into two strategies, bottom-up and
top-down. Within the bottom-up methodology, each struc-
(mg/100 g)

tural component is combined to generate the final PBMA

product, whereas with the top-down procedure, a fibrous

442.48
300.88
420.45

327.43
226.67

477.88
345.13

451.33
76.16
texture is created through the formation of a biopoly-
Na

mer blend. Among these techniques, commercial opera-

tions for PBMA processing often use the top-down strategy
(g/100 g)

extrusion, due to its robustness and ability to mass produce

Dietary
fiber

on a large scale (Kinney et al., 2019). However, other newly

0.00
0.00
4.00

0.88
3.54
2.65
3.41
5.31

1.77

developed top-down strategies such as shear cell technol-

ogy are still on the pilot scale (Krintiras, Diaz, Van Der
Carbohydrate

Goot, Stankiewicz, & Stefanidis, 2016; Krintiras, Göbel,

Van der Goot, & Stefanidis, 2015). Other techniques such as
(g/100 g)

wet spinning (Rampon, Robert, Nicolas, & Dufour, 1999),

10.62

18.67

0.00
9.09

electrospinning (Miyoshi, Toyohara, & Minematsu, 2005),

7.96
3.54
2.65
A brief comparison of nutrition facts among some commercially available plant-based burgers and beef burger

8.85

5.31

mixing with hydrocolloids (Kweldam, 2011), and ice/freeze

structuring (Hassas-Roudsari & Goff, 2012) are also applied
Cholesterol

to the structuring of plant-based protein, but only at the

(mg/100 g)

research stage. Among each of the techniques, sheer cell

70.80

and extrusion are among the most practical options for

62.91
57.52
0.00

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

0.00

future PBMA production, whereas the others are either

of higher environmental impact or less robust (Dekkers,
fat (g/100 g)

Boom, et al., 2018).

Saturated

Extrusion is a well-developed technology in the food

industry (Maskan & Altan, 2016). It was first designed to
0.40
0.44
0.45

7.08
7.96
6.62
6.19
2.21
5.31

manufacture pasta products during the 1930s (Berk, 2018;

Sevatson & Huber, 2000). This process involves the trans-
Note. Data obtained and calculated according to the information on the product package.

formation and molding of food mixtures by driving them

(g/100 g)

through a die, applying heat and pressure, and using a

15.04
12.39

22.12
15.93

16.81
13.91
4.67
8.85
Fat

5.11

mechanical shear to obtain the desired sizing (Maskan &

Altan, 2016). A typical extrusion process can be divided
into three steps, that is, the initial preparation of the food
(g/100 g)
Protein

material before the addition into the extruder, the ingre-

15.04
17.70
17.70
17.05

13.27
19.21
16.81
16.81

dients are then cooked and mixed together to obtain a

9.33

homogeneous texture within the barrel of the extruder,

and finally the resulting product is left to cool in a die to
(kcal/100 g)

maintain its final shape (Kyriakopoulou, Dekkers, & van

der Goot, 2019). During the early stages, only low-moisture
Energy

238.94

274.34
221.24

221.24
198.68
146.67

212.39
176.99
147.73

extrusion in single-screw extruder was utilized for the

production of dry and expanded TVP products that can
soak up water due to their sponge-like organizations (Kin-
Great value Meatless burger

M&M Classic Beef Burger

Pre Grass Fed Beef burger

ney et al., 2019). In the early 1980s, twin-screw extruders

Yves Veggie bistro burger

Great value Beef burger

that were more advantageous than the single-screw coun-

Wholly veggie burger

terpart were developed (Sevatson & Huber, 2000). Twin-

Impossible burger
Light life Burger

screw extruders could achieve higher energy efficiency and

Beyond burger

more consistent heat distribution (Van Zuilichem, Stolp, &

TA B L E 1

Product

Janssen, 1983). In addition, twin-screw extruders possess

more versatility that can achieve the production of meat
analogues by high-moisture extrusion, a technique used to
8 PLANT-BASED MEAT ALTERNATIVES. . .
manufacture fibrous products with at least 50% moisture
by hydrating the food mixture during the extrusion pro-
cess (Kinney et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019). Comparing to
products manufactured by low-moisture extrusion, high-
moisture extruded plant-based protein can obtain well-
defined fiber structure and enhanced visual appearance
and mouth feel (Pietsch, Emin, & Schuchmann, 2017; Yao,
Liu, & Hsieh, 2004).
Additional reviews on the impacts of the various param-
eters of extruder operation, such as the temperature within
the barrel and the screw speed, on products using soy and
pea proteins as the main ingredients have been carried out
(Chen, Wei, Zhang, & Ojokoh, 2010; Lin, Huff, & Hsieh,
2002; Pietsch et al., 2017; Rehrah, Ahmedna, Goktepe, &
Yu, 2009). The quality of the final product is determi-
nate by a group of process parameters, hence multi-factor
experimental design, such as response surface methodol-
ogy, was mainly used for the optimization of extrusion pro-
cess of different plant-based protein sources (Omohimi,
Sobukola, Sarafadeen, & Sanni, 2014; Rehrah et al., 2009).
Several studies have found that the texturization of the
final product is heavily dependent on the temperature
of the extrusion process (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019). For
instance, to create the fibrous texture through cross-linked
reactions, specific melting temperatures must be carefully
chosen (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019). Additionally, a higher
barrel temperature can help to enhance the expansion,
contraction, and the water absorption of the final products
(Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019). In comparison to the moisture
content and temperature, most studies revealed that screw-
speed is a minor impact factor to the quality of the final
PBMA (Omohimi et al., 2014; Rehrah et al., 2009; Samard,
Gu, & Ryu, 2019). In addition, the percentage of soluble
and insoluble components within the ingredients is also
very significant for the structure formation, as the cross-
linking of proteins is prevented by high portions of insolu-
ble compounds (Dekkers, Boom, et al., 2018). In early stage,
the process and design involved with extrusion produc-
tion was largely relied on empirical knowledge (Dekkers,
Boom, et al., 2018; Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019). However,
attention to the precise mechanism for the formation of
the fibrous structure in extrusion has been increased in
recently years. Mechanisms of the texturization of soy and
pea proteins have been discussed and summarized by sev-
eral research teams (Murillo, Osen, Hiermaier, & Ganzen-
müller, 2019; Samard et al., 2019).
The extrusion technique is widely used by the food
industry as it permits for the mass production of meat ana-
logues with high energy efficiency. However, shear cell
technology is a more energy-efficient structuring process
that was introduced about a decade ago (Grabowska et al.,
2016; Manski, van der Goot, & Boom, 2007). This proce-
dure, which was inspired by the effect of shear flow on
dough, has been found to be effective for the production of
meat analogues when functioning at raised temperatures
(Grabowska et al., 2016). Shear-induced structuring can be
achieved with small size shear cell (Krintiras et al., 2015)
or through the use of a Couette Cell (Krintiras et al., 2016).
The Couette Cell procedure can be accomplished through
treatments involving heat and simple shear; however, the
final structure of the meat analogue is determined by its
composition as well as the set conditions during produc-
tion, such as the process temperature, process time, and
the shear rate. Structured products of several plant-based
materials, including soy protein concentrate (Grabowska
et al., 2016), soy protein isolate (SPI)–WG blends (Dekkers,
Emin, Boom, & van der Goot, 2018; Schreuders et al., 2019),
and SPI–pectin blends (Dekkers, Hamoen, Boom, & van
der Goot, 2018), have been successfully achieved through
this technology.
Depending on the processing conditions, fibrous, lay-
ered, or homogeneous samples can be obtained; however,
fibrous structures are optimal due to consistently higher
anisotropy indices. Similar to the extrusion technology,
several studies have also demonstrated that the process-
ing temperature is the most important parameter for shear-
induced structuring (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019). In a lab-
scaled study where SPI-WG was used as the raw material,
Krintiras et al. (2015) demonstrated that the optimum pro-
cessing conditions for enhanced fiber structure formation
included processing for 15 min, then rotating the raw mate-
rials at 30 RPM, and finally, heating the mixture at 95 ◦ C.
During another up-scaled study by Krintiras et al. (2016), a
final product with 30-mm thickness was obtained through
shear-induced structuring. However, meat analogues pro-
duced through the extrusion process can typically obtain
a final thickness of only 5 to 10 mm. Therefore, although
shear cell technology is still on the pilot scale, it brings
about new opportunities to improve the flexibility in prod-
uct shape.
4.2 Techniques for creating meat-like
appearance and flavor
Color is often the first element to be noticed for food
products; hence, it is a main contributor to the percep-
tion in taste and overall product acceptance by consumers
(Spence, 2015). Generally, uncooked fresh meat poses a
red color that turns brown upon cooking. Meat ana-
logues should strive to obtain a similar appearance to real
meat by mimicking both the initial color and the result-
ing color changes during cooking. However, most plant-
based protein ingredients, such as gluten and soy, are orig-
inally yellow or beige in nature (Kyriakopoulou et al.,
2019). Within the first generation of PBMA, the browning
PLANT-BASED MEAT ALTERNATIVES. . .
process of meat was replicated by using coloring ingredi-
ents or adding precursor substances. Caramel colors and
malt extracts are typical heat stable coloring ingredients
that can provide the final product with a brown appear-
ance (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019; Malav et al., 2015). Addi-
tionally, reducing sugars can be added as browning agents
as they are capable of forming brown substances dur-
ing cooking through Maillard reaction with the amine
groups in protein (Rolan et al., 2008). In the new gener-
ation of PBMA, the red color of raw products has been
obtained through the addition of beet juice/powder or
soy leghemoglobin (Bohrer, 2019). The thermal stability
and pH sensitivity of the coloring agents are of great
importance for their successful application in PBMA (Kyri-
akopoulou et al., 2019). Thermally unstable coloring agents
will degrade during the cooking process and may bring
about an unacceptable color appearance. To ensure that
the coloring effect is optimal, the pH range of a given color-
ing agent should match that of the meat analogue. Color-
ing agents can either be mixed with the protein products
before the structuring process or they can be integrated
with the semistructured plant-based materials during the
structuring process (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019). Moreover,
hydrated alginate and maltodextrin are two examples of
coloring agent additives that aid in retaining the desired
color by reducing the color migration within the final
product (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019; Richards, Hargrove,
Erazo-Castrejon, & Alagurajan, 2019). Despite the numer-
ous coloring agents and application methods available in
the food industry, the overall color appearance of PBMA
remains low in quality. Further research is needed to more
effectively resemble the color of both raw and cooked
meat.
Food flavor is another influential element that plays
a significant role in product acceptance (Kim, Yang, &
Chung, 2017). The process of flavor formation is consid-
erably more complex than color formation, and flavoring
agents can be divided into volatile and nonvolatile com-
pounds that are related to the aroma and taste, respec-
tively. Meat has an umami taste, which mainly originates
from the presence of monosodium glutamate and inosine
monophosphate, as well as various small organic acids
(Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019). In contrast, it has been deter-
mined that wide assortments of compounds are related to
the aroma of meat products (Aaslyng & Meinert, 2017).
When heat is applied, these compounds mainly form via
Maillard reactions and lipid degradation (Aaslyng & Mein-
ert, 2017). Due to the complexity of the compounds associ-
ated with the fragrance of meat, it has proven to be quite
challenging to mimic the aroma of meat in PBMA (Kumar
et al., 2017; Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019). Although Mail-
lard reactions and lipid degradation can also be carried out
during the cooking of PBMA, the slight differences that
9
exist between the reactions in PBMA and meat products
cause a great variance of the resulting aroma compounds
(Kumar et al., 2017). In addition, raw meat only requires
one thermal treatment for consumption; however, PBMA
requires much more intricate treatments. During the struc-
turing process, high heat and pressure are required and
the cooking of PBMA involves further heat treatments.
Our analysis of flavor compounds demonstrated a signif-
icant difference between beef burgers and the first and
new generation of plant-based burgers (data unpublished).
Although it is difficult, there has been some progress in the
flavor mimicking process of PBMA. It has been demon-
strated that the addition of aromatic ingredients such as
spices and salt to plant-based food mixtures both before
and after the extrusion process can help to generate flavor-
ful and fragrant final products (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019).
Some of the additives that have helped to create the impres-
sion of aromatic meat in PBMA products include the vita-
min thiamine, amino acids, and reducing sugars (Fraser,
Brown, et al., 2018). In addition, chicken- and beef-like fra-
grances have been produced from soybean-hydrolyzed pro-
tein under specific reaction conditions (Wu, Baek, Gerard,
& Cadwallader, 2000). Nonetheless, additional research is
required to further develop meat-like aromas in PBMA
products.
4.3 The selection of plant-protein
sources
The structure organization of PBMA is dependent on pro-
tein properties, such as the ability to retain liquids as
well as its gelation and solubilizing capabilities (Dekkers,
Boom, et al., 2018). In addition, different types of pro-
teins can induce altered appearances, flavors, nutrition,
and health impacts within the final product. Therefore,
selecting a suitable protein source remains one of the key
aspects for PBMA production. Currently, a wide variety
of plant-based protein are used for the industrial manu-
facture of meat analogues, but soy and peas are the pri-
mary source due to low costs and the possession of some
properties similar to meat (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2019). The
quality of PBMA could be heightened by exploring new
protein sources to partially or completely replace tradi-
tional protein alternatives. Asgar, Fazilah, Huda, Bhat, and
Karim (2010) and Jones (2016) have previously discussed
the potential of nonmeat proteins as the main ingredients
for meat analogues through the analysis of various func-
tional and nutritional properties. According to the summa-
rized data, proteins obtained from legumes such as chick-
peas and soybeans are ideal for PBMA production due to
their functional properties, whereas proteins from insects
and zein are among the most cost-efficient options (Jones,
10
2016). Additional studies have concluded that oilseeds
provide an adequate source of amino acids, particularly
when paired with dry foods such as cereal (Asgar et al.,
2010).
Chiang, Loveday, Hardacre, and Parker (2019) have
determined that PBMA blends with 30% WG mixed with
soy protein produce the closest physiochemical properties
to meat. Thus, this discovery demonstrated the potential
of WG as a protein source in meat alternatives. Moreover,
many research groups have drawn their interests toward
microalgae spirulina (Arthrospira platensis), which can be
suitable as a meat alternative due to its high levels of pro-
tein. The results of Grahl et al. (2018) indicated that supple-
menting 30% to 50% spirulina to soy protein still can obtain
well-structured final products, although increased amount
of spirulina will induce a negative impact on the flavor.
Caporgno et al. (2020) further demonstrated that reducing
moisture levels in the final product could help the forma-
tion of the fibrous structure when up to 50% microalgae
biomass has been added. Generally, adding small amount
of microalga to the PBMA products is a desirable option.
Mushroom is technically not a plant, but it is another
great option for meat analogue production, due to the fact
that mushrooms are rich in sulfur-containing amino acids,
which can help to achieve a meaty flavor (Kumar et al.,
2017). In addition, mushrooms are rich in biological activ-
ity components, which can provide many health benefits,
including antitumor potential (Rathore, Prasad, & Sharma,
2017).
Some waste biomasses pose as a potential source of pro-
tein for PBMA due to the high levels of protein present.
For example, Zhang, Liu, et al. (2019) was successful in uti-
lizing peanut protein biomass waste with high-moisture
extrusion to produce meat analogues. This method is
highly desirable as it helps to reduce waste products and
aids to decrease the amount of resources needed for food
production. Additionally, the commercialization of edible
insects and insect-based meat alternatives has begun in
Western countries, along with the gradual acceptance by
a number of consumers (Megido et al., 2016). As there may
be difficulties in mass producing insect-based meat alter-
natives to fulfill global market requirements, a solution
could include partially incorporating insect-based protein
into PBMA.
4.4 The safety control of PBMA
Like every food product, food safety is an essential aspect
for PBMA production. Although the microbial and chemi-
cal safety of meat products has been well researched, there
is limited scientific data related to the safety of PBMA.
Unfortunately, PBMAs have a greater risk of microbial
PLANT-BASED MEAT ALTERNATIVES. . .
growth and reproduction as they provide high-moisture
environments with a neutral pH. In a European research
project (“LikeMeat”), the microbial control of PBMA was
studied, and it was determined that when the extrusion
products were exposed to high temperatures, both the lab-
and pilot-scale procedures demonstrated similar results in
the bacteriocidal and sporicidal effects (Wild et al., 2014).
The results showed that on average there were less than
100 colony forming units per gram of extruded product
(Wild et al., 2014); however, further contamination could
be introduced through the surrounding environment or
even through the addition of nonsterile food ingredients
after the extrusion process (Sagoo et al., 2009). Conse-
quently, the study of the microbial quantification in PBMA
products led to the conclusion that postextrusion thermal
treatments must be carried out to elongate the commercial
shelf life (Wild et al., 2014). When further sterilization was
applied to intermediate and final meat substitutes, a sig-
nificant reduction in microbial activity was observed when
stored at 6 ◦ C for prolonged periods (Wild et al., 2014). In
summary, the expiry date of intermediate goods from the
“LikeMeat” project that have not undergone further treat-
ments with heat and preservatives is similar to that of con-
sumable meat (Wild et al., 2014). Therefore, it is highly rec-
ommended that the system for the storage and handling
of PBMA remains similar to that of raw meat (Wild et al.,
2014).
It is essential to ensure the chemical safety of meat
goods for consumers. Process-induced hazard chemicals,
such as PAHs (Ledesma et al., 2016; Nisha et al., 2015), N-
nitrosamines (Cantwell & Elliott, 2017; Herrmann et al.,
2015), and HAAs (ur Rahman et al., 2014; Raza et al.,
2015), have been detected in various meat products. Due
to the presence of these harmful chemicals in processed
meat, these products have been labeled as Group 1 by the
IARC as they are carcinogenic to humans. In food products
such as smoked and grilled meats, PAHs can arise through
the combustion of organic material or through the par-
tial combustion of charcoal (Andrée, Jira, Schwind, Wag-
ner, & Schwägele, 2010; Engel, Ratel, Bouhlel, Planche,
& Meurillon, 2015). N-nitrosamines are mainly formed by
reactions between nitrogen oxide and amines, for exam-
ple, the cooking of pork meat brings about the forma-
tion of N-nitrosoproline (Andrée et al., 2010; Engel et al.,
2015). HAAs include more than 20 compounds and are
classified as aminoimidazoazaarenes and carbolines. The
former is produced through Maillard reactions that are
activated through cooking temperatures of approximately
150 to 200 ◦ C, whereas the latter forms at tempera-
tures greater than 250 ◦ C when radical reactions begin
to take place (Andrée et al., 2010; Engel et al., 2015).
Based on how these toxicants are formed, it is believed
that PBMA products may also possess these compounds;
PLANT-BASED MEAT ALTERNATIVES. . .
however, scientific literature lacks sufficient data to come
to a conclusion. Recently, our group has carried out the
screening and detection of toxic compounds, such as N-
nitrosamines and PAHs, in commercially available PBMA.
Despite the fact that most of the targets were undetectable
in all samples cooked under recommended conditions,
N-nitrosodiethylamine was detected in one cooked sam-
ple at a concentration of 15.19 ± 1.21 µg/kg (data unpub-
lished). Other contaminants, such as heavy metals and pes-
ticides that originate from ingredients or the surround-
ing environment, have not been tested. Thus, additional
research must be carried out to further evaluate the chemi-
cal food safety of PBMA, and the control measures for these
chemical contaminants must be explored. Generally, the
use of high-quality ingredients for PBMA production and
cooking with the appropriate time and temperature would
serve as effective strategies; however, supplementary sci-
entific data are needed to support these assumptions. In
addition, the safety evaluation of certain special ingredi-
ents used in PBMA is also imperative. For instance, the
safety of Pichia pastoris-expressed soy leghemoglobin pro-
tein, which was used as a flavor catalyst for PBMA, was
previously evaluated by Fraser, Shitut, Agrawal, Mendes,
and Klapholz (2018) and no toxicological concern was
raised.
5 CONSUMER ATTITUDE TO PBMA:
STILL A BIG CHALLENGE
Although replacing meat in our diet with PBMA can pro-
vide health and environmental benefits (Hallström et al.,
2015; Fresán & Sabaté, 2019), the majority of consumers
remain unwilling to completely transit from the consump-
tion of meat to PBMA (Slade, 2018). Until recently, both
traditional and first generation PBMA products have been
mainly targeted toward vegetarians and occasional meat
eaters, who do not expect similar textures and tastes to
meat from plant protein alternatives. Nevertheless, the lat-
est products from the new generation of PBMA aim to
be almost indistinguishable from traditional meat prod-
ucts, in hopes that those with mild to high meat diets
will become target consumers. As consumer behavior is
influenced by a number of factors (Hawkins & Mothers-
baugh, 2010), persuading these consumers to accept PBMA
over traditional meat is not an easy task. For achieving
a high acceptance of PBMA, the food industry can work
toward improving the quality of plant-based alternatives,
such as the structural and sensory resemblance to meat.
Additional factors that affect the consumer attitude toward
PBMA include education, personal income, and social
media.
11
5.1 Consumer attitude to vegetarian
diet
The consumer attitude toward vegetarian diets became a
hot topic in the area of “appetite” (Corrin & Papadopou-
los, 2017; Janssen, Busch, Rödiger, & Hamm, 2016; Van-
honacker, Van Loo, Gellynck, & Verbeke, 2013), and ques-
tionnaires and literature reviews have been carried out
to help identify the barriers consumers face with adopt-
ing a nonmeat diet (Corrin & Papadopoulos, 2017; Lea,
Crawford, & Worsley, 2006; Pohjolainen, Vinnari, & Joki-
nen, 2015). From these studies, it was determined that
the largest perceived barrier for switching diets was the
enjoyment of eating meat (Corrin & Papadopoulos, 2017;
Lea et al., 2006; Pohjolainen et al., 2015). The distinct tex-
ture, taste, and odor of meat products bring about spe-
cial feelings when consumed, whereas a vegetarian diet
simply cannot fully simulate such a feeling. A health bar-
rier also exists, due to the fact that many consumers con-
sider vegetarian diets to be nutritionally unbalanced as
meat is thought to provide humans with essential nutrients
for function (Corrin & Papadopoulos, 2017). Convenience
barriers, such as difficulties in preparing tasty vegetarian
food and limited options at restaurants, also deter people
from switching to plant-based diets (Lea et al., 2006). Addi-
tionally, many people have well-established eating habits
and are unwilling to alter their regimes (Pohjolainen et al.,
2015). For instance, most people, particularly those who are
elderly, strongly believe that their diets have been bene-
ficial to their health and will continue to play a valuable
role for the rest of their lives. There are also information
barriers, which prevent consumers from obtaining knowl-
edge on the benefits of plant-based diets (Pohjolainen et al.,
2015). Some consumers find that there is a social barrier
preventing them from changing diets, as they may find
it difficult to avoid meat when most of their family and
friends religiously consume meat (Lea et al., 2006). Finally,
there is a financial barrier because many consumers per-
ceive vegetarian diets to be much more costly than tra-
ditional meat diets (Pohjolainen et al., 2015). Although
the identification of these barriers is based on vegetarian
diets rather than PBMAs, they are undoubtedly also impor-
tant barriers that often prevent consumers from accepting
PBMA.
5.2 Influence factors of consumer
attitude to PBMA
There are many published works that have used cus-
tomer surveys to directly assess consumer attitudes toward
PBMA along with common influencing factors. According
12
to these works, the acceptance of most PBMA remains low
and the factors that influence consumer attitude toward
PBMA can be divided into personal factors, including indi-
vidual food preferences and particular motives for choos-
ing certain foods, and factors regarding the product itself,
such as the sensory effect of PBMA. According to a the-
oretical experiment on the selection of consumer goods,
carried out by Slade (2018), if both the price and taste of
meat and PBMA were equivalent, approximately 65% of
shoppers would continue to buy traditional meat products,
whereas only 21% would choose the plant-based alterna-
tives. The research of Hoek et al. (2011) illustrated that
some of the significant factors stopping meat eaters from
accepting meat substitutes included how PBMA remains
unfamiliar to the majority of consumers, plus the taste
and texture does not compare to traditional meat prod-
ucts. Based on group discussions and taste sessions, Elzer-
man, Van Boekel, and Luning (2013) concluded that there
are many positive aspects associated with meat analogues,
such as ease of preparation, health benefits, as well as tasti-
ness. However, many consumers are deterred from choos-
ing plant-based alternatives due to the belief that vegetar-
ian products are more expensive, a shortage of informa-
tion provided by the packaging, as well as the resulting
sensory aspects such as the dry and compact textures of
meat analogues (Elzerman et al., 2013). In their subsequent
research work, various combinations of meat-substituted
meals were assessed by consumers and the results indi-
cated that the meal context, such as the type of dish, acts
as a major influence on the acceptance of meat alterna-
tives (Elzerman, Hoek, Van Boekel, & Luning, 2011; Elz-
erman, Hoek, van Boekel, & Luning, 2015). In addition,
a repeated consumption test indicated that an increased
liking for meat substitutes was observed and it was deter-
mined that after approximately 20 exposures of three dif-
ferent protein dishes, including a traditional meat, meat-
like, and nonmeat dish, consumers no longer had a partic-
ular preference for any of the meals (Hoek et al., 2013)
5.3 Strategies to improve the consumer
acceptance of PBMA
The consumer attitude toward new products is critically
important for a successful launch into the food market;
hence, breaking the identified barriers that prevent the
acceptance of meat analogues is an urgent task for the
PBMA industry. Overcoming individual-related barriers
would require extended periods of social education and
guidance to improve consumers’ familiarity with PBMA
products and awareness toward personal health and envi-
ronment benefits (Vainio, Irz, & Hartikainen, 2018). For
example, several approaches to help consumers reduce
PLANT-BASED MEAT ALTERNATIVES. . .
their overall meat consumption have been adopted in
Western societies, such as incorporating designated meat-
less days into the week. These strategies were evaluated by
de Boer, Schösler, and Aiking (2014) to outline the differ-
ent strengths and weaknesses observed from each strat-
egy. Hence, these tactics can be used to pave the way
for the gradual reduction in the global consumption of
meat, whereas, for product-related obstacles, significantly
improving the likeness to meat through sensory stimula-
tion is imperative for the appeal of PBMA to frequent meat
consumers (Hoek et al., 2011). There also need to be a
higher emphasis on consumer views and evaluations based
on meal types rather than solely the similarities of PBMA
to traditional meat (Elzerman et al., 2015). In addition, it
is important to take into account the convenience-related
issues and reducing portion sizing during new PBMA
product development (Schösler, De Boer, & Boersema,
2012).
The consumer attitude toward PBMA continues to be
a challenge for the overall reduction of global meat con-
sumption; however, the situation is continually improv-
ing. In one aspect, more and more people gradually shift
toward vegetarianism. For example, according to the esti-
mation of Leahy et al. (2010), about 22% of the world pop-
ulation is vegetarian, and nearly 34% of Indians are vege-
tarian. In another aspect, due to the joint effort of whole
society that including public media, consumer awareness
and acceptance of PBMA continues to rise, especially in
some special group. For example, according to a recently
published survey (Bryant et al., 2019), those in the United
States who are politically liberal and have more informa-
tion regarding PBMA are the target consumers for these
products. However, in China, some of the key motives for
shoppers to choose meat alternatives include the taste, its
sustainability, and perceived health benefits (Bryant et al.,
2019). Meanwhile in India, consumers interested in PBMA
include meat eaters, higher income groups, as well as those
with greater levels of education and knowledge of PBMA
(Bryant et al., 2019).
6 CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK
The topic of PBMA is not new; it has been a subject of dis-
cussion for several decades. However, with the increasing
concerns on sustainable development and human health,
it has become one of the hottest topics both in the food
industry and research community. It is very important to
understand the current research status to guide further
studies on this topic. In this paper, the driving forces for
PBMA development, a brief history of PBMA, several key
technologies for PBMA manufacture, and consumer atti-
tudes toward PBMA products are summarized. Generally,
PLANT-BASED MEAT ALTERNATIVES. . .
the promotion of PBMA development was mainly due to
environmental, human health, and animal welfare con-
cerns and its origins can be traced back to ancient Asian
civilizations; however, it entered the food market in West-
ern countries during the 1960s. The technologies required
for structuring PBMA, the gradual improvements in fla-
vor and appearance, as well as the safety controls involved
during manufacturing and the selection of protein sources
are four of the most important aspects to keep in mind
for PBMA production. Although consumer acceptance of
PBMA is not widespread, it has gradually improved in
recent years. Therefore, according to these summariza-
tions, further improving consumer acceptance is the most
pressing matter for the development of PBMA. This can be
accomplished by raising consumer awareness about PBMA
and improving the overall quality of these products. For
more details, additional research on the following aspects
should be carried out in the future.
1. There should be a further understanding on factors pre-
venting consumer acceptance of PBMA products. Once
this has been thoroughly studied, a reasonable strategy
should be developed to help educate consumers and
provide a guide for improving the awareness toward
PBMA health benefits and environmental sustainabil-
ity. As the awareness improves, the market for PBMA
products will undoubtedly grow.
2. Additional scientific evidence needs to be obtained for
the superior health proprieties of PBMA compared to
traditional meat in order to persuade consumers of
its benefits. Besides, from the nutritional perspective,
PBMA might be inferior to whole plant-based foods
that are minimally processed and therefore maximally
retain the nutrition. However, the health and nutri-
tional image of PBMA can be improved by adding
health-promoting food ingredients to the products.
3. Finding additional suitable plant-based protein sources
for PBMA production is a potential route to improve the
quality of the final products, such as the texture, appear-
ance, flavor, and nutrition. For example, the amino acid
profile of PBMA products can be balanced by using dif-
ferent combinations of protein sources during PBMA
production.
4. Previous studies indicated that the inferior appearance
and flavor to meat is one of the main reasons why the
consumption of PBMA products is not widely accepted.
Further improving the appearance and flavor of PBMA
is the bottleneck for its production, and it can be broken
by exploring more suitable color and flavoring agents.
5. Further investigations must be carried out on the safety
aspects of PBMA, especially with respect to the chemi-
cal safety. For example, the foodomics approach, espe-
cially mass spectrum-based techniques, can be used to
13
identify the presence of exogenous contaminants and
(or) process-induced toxicants in PBMA.
6. It is also important to further strengthen other related
research, including the structure formation mechanism
during the extrusion and shear processes, as well as the
methods and standards for quality evaluation. The for-
mer is the basis for further improvements on the struc-
turing of PBMA products and the latter is the basis for
the quality control during PBMA production.
AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S
This work is supported in part by Agriculture Agri-
Food Canada under Grant J-000991, scholarship from
China Scholarship Council (CSC) under Grant CSC
201908430017, and Education department of Hunan
province China under Grant 18B399.
AU T H O R CO N T R I B U T I O N S
Jiang He and Suqin Shao conceived and designed the
review. Jiang He and Huaizhi Liu drafted the manuscript.
Natasha Marie Evans and Suqin Shao revised and edited
the manuscript.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
ORCID
Jiang He https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9910-5798
REFERENCES
Aaslyng, M. D., & Meinert, L. (2017). Meat flavour in pork and beef—
From animal to meal. Meat Science, 132, 112–117.
Andrée, S., Jira, W., Schwind, K. H., Wagner, H., & Schwägele, F.
(2010). Chemical safety of meat and meat products. Meat Science,
86(1), 38–48.
Asgar, M., Fazilah, A., Huda, N., Bhat, R., & Karim, A. (2010). Non-
meat protein alternatives as meat extenders and meat analogs.
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science And Food Safety, 9(5), 513–
529.
Babu, P. D., Bhakyaraj, R., & Vidhyalakshmi, R. (2009). A low cost
nutritious food “tempeh”—A review. World Journal of Dairy &
Food Sciences, 4(1), 22–27.
Berk, Z. (2018). Extrusion. In Z. Berk (Ed.), Food process engineering
and technology (3rd ed., pp. 373–349). Cambridge, MA: Academic
Press.
Bernier-Lachance, J., Arsenault, J., Usongo, V., Parent, É., Labrie,
J., Jacques, M., . . . Archambault, M. (2020). Prevalence and char-
acteristics of Livestock-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphy-
lococcus aureus (LA-MRSA) isolated from chicken meat in the
province of Quebec, Canada. PLoS One, 15(1), e0227183.
Bhat, Z. F., & Bhat, H. (2011). Tissue engineered meat-future meat.
Journal of Stored Products Postharvest Research, 2(1), 1–10.
Bhat, Z. F., & Fayaz, H. (2011). Prospectus of cultured meat—
Advancing meat alternatives. Journal of Food Science Technology,
48(2), 125–140.
14
Blaustein, M. P., Leenen, F. H., Chen, L., Golovina, V. A., Hamlyn,
J. M., Pallone, T. L., . . . Wier, W. G. (2011). How NaCl raises blood
pressure: A new paradigm for the pathogenesis of salt-dependent
hypertension. American Journal of Physiology-Heart Circulatory
Physiology, 302(5), H1031–H1049.
Bohrer, B. M. (2019). An investigation of the formulation and nutri-
tional composition of modern meat analogue products. Food Sci-
ence and Human Wellness, 8(4), 320–329.
Bouvard, V., Loomis, D., Guyton, K. Z., Grosse, Y., Ghissassi, F. E.,
Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., . . . Corpet, D. (2015). Carcinogenicity of con-
sumption of red and processed meat. The Lancet Oncology, 16(16),
1599–1600.
Bryant, C. J., Szejda, K., Deshpande, V., Parekh, N., & Tse, B. (2019). A
survey of consumer perceptions of plant-based and clean meat in
the USA, India, and China. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems,
3, 11.
Buller, H., Blokhuis, H., Jensen, P., & Keeling, L. (2018). Towards farm
animal welfare and sustainability. Animals, 8(6), 81.
Burghardt, G. M. (2009). Ethics and animal consciousness: How rub-
ber the ethical ruler? Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 499–521.
Cantwell, M., & Elliott, C. (2017). Nitrates, nitrites and nitrosamines
from processed meat intake and colorectal cancer risk. Journal of
Clinical Nutrition & Dietetics, 3(4), 27.
Caporgno, M. P., Böcker, L., Müssner, C., Stirnemann, E., Haberkorn,
I., Adelmann, H., . . . Mathys, A. (2020). Extruded meat analogues
based on yellow, heterotrophically cultivated Auxenochlorella pro-
tothecoides microalgae. Innovative Food Science Emerging Tech-
nologies, 59, 102275.
Castellini, C., Boggia, A., Paolotti, L., Thoma, G. J., & Kim, D. (2012).
Environment and life cycle analysis of organic meat production
and processing. In S. C. Ricke, J. E. Van Loo, M. G. Johnson, & A.
O’Bryan (Eds.), Organic meat production and processing (pp. 113–
134). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Chang, K., & Hou, H. J. (2003). Science and technology of tofu mak-
ing. In Y. H. Hui, S. Ghazala, D. M. Graham, K. D. Murrell, & W.
K. Nip (Eds.), Handbook of fruits and vegetable processing (pp. 443–
478). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
Chen, C. C., Wang, Y. H., & Wu, K. Y. (2013). Consumption of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) contaminated beef and the risk
of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Risk Analysis, 33(11), 1958–
1968.
Chen, F. L., Wei, Y. M., Zhang, B., & Ojokoh, A. O. (2010). System
parameters and product properties response of soybean protein
extruded at wide moisture range. Journal of Food Engineering,
96(2), 208–213.
Chiang, J. H., Loveday, S. M., Hardacre, A. K., & Parker, M. E. (2019).
Effects of soy protein to wheat gluten ratio on the physicochemical
properties of extruded meat analogues. Food Structure, 19, 100102.
Corrin, T., & Papadopoulos, A. (2017). Understanding the attitudes
and perceptions of vegetarian and plant-based diets to shape
future health promotion programs. Appetite, 109, 40–47.
Cuny, C., Layer, F., Hansen, S., Werner, G., & Witte, W. (2019).
Nasal colonization of humans with occupational exposure to raw
meat and to raw meat products with methicillin-susceptible and
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Toxins, 11(4), 190.
Day, L. (2011). Wheat gluten: Production, properties and application.
In G. O. Phillips & P. A. Williams (Eds.), Handbook of food proteins
(pp. 267–288). Oxford, UK: Woodhead Publishing.
PLANT-BASED MEAT ALTERNATIVES. . .
de Boer, J., Schösler, H., & Aiking, H. (2014). “Meatless days” or “less
but better”? Exploring strategies to adapt Western meat consump-
tion to health and sustainability challenges. Appetite, 76, 120–128.
de Vries, M., & de Boer, I. J. (2010). Comparing environmental
impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments.
Livestock Science, 128(1–3), 1–11.
Dekkers, B. L., Boom, R. M., & van der Goot, A. J. (2018). Structuring
processes for meat analogues. Trends in Food Science Technology,
81, 25–36.
Dekkers, B. L., Emin, M. A., Boom, R. M., & van der Goot, A. J.
(2018). The phase properties of soy protein and wheat gluten in a
blend for fibrous structure formation. Food Hydrocolloids, 79, 273–
281.
Dekkers, B. L., Hamoen, R., Boom, R. M., & van der Goot, A. J.
(2018). Understanding fiber formation in a concentrated soy pro-
tein isolate-pectin blend. Journal of Food Engineering, 222, 84–92.
Djekic, I. (2015). Environmental impact of meat industry–current sta-
tus and future perspectives. Procedia Food Science, 5, 61–64.
Fehér, A., Gazdecki, M., Véha, M., Szakály, M., & Szakály, Z. (2020).
A comprehensive review of the benefits of and the barriers to the
switch to a plant-based diet. Sustainability, 12(10), 4136.
Elzerman, J. E., Hoek, A. C., Van Boekel, M. A., & Luning, P. A. (2011).
Consumer acceptance and appropriateness of meat substitutes in
a meal context. Food Quality Preference, 22(3), 233–240.
Elzerman, J. E., Hoek, A. C., van Boekel, M. J., & Luning, P. A. (2015).
Appropriateness, acceptance and sensory preferences based on
visual information: A web-based survey on meat substitutes in a
meal context. Food Quality Preference, 42, 56–65.
Elzerman, J. E., Van Boekel, M. A., & Luning, P. A. (2013). Explor-
ing meat substitutes: Consumer experiences and contextual fac-
tors. British Food Journal, 115(5), 700–710
Engel, E., Ratel, J., Bouhlel, J., Planche, C., & Meurillon, M. (2015).
Novel approaches to improving the chemical safety of the meat
chain towards toxicants. Meat Science, 109, 75–85.
Englefield, B., Blackman, S. A., Starling, M., & McGreevy, P. D.
(2019). A review of Australian animal welfare legislation, regula-
tion, codes of practice, and policy, and their influence on stake-
holders caring for wildlife and the animals for whom they care.
Animals, 9(6), 335.
Fraser, R., Brown, P. O., Karr, J., Holz-Schietinger, C., & Cohn, E.
(2018). US Patent No. 9,700,067 B2. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office.
Fraser, R. Z., Shitut, M., Agrawal, P., Mendes, O., & Klapholz, S.
(2018). Safety evaluation of soy leghemoglobin protein preparation
derived from Pichia pastoris, intended for use as a flavor catalyst in
plant-based meat. International Journal of Toxicology, 37(3), 241–
262.
Fresán, U., & Sabaté, J. (2019). Vegetarian diets: planetary health and
its alignment with human health. Advances in Nutrition, 10(Sup-
plement_4), S380–S388.
Fu, D., Zhang, D., Xu, G., Li, K., Wang, Q., Zhang, Z., . . . Qu, L. (2015).
Effects of different rearing systems on meat production traits and
meat fiber microstructure of Beijing-you chicken. Animal Science
Journal, 86(7), 729–735.
Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., Moll, H., & Uiterkamp, A. S. (2003). Design
and development of a measuring method for environmental sus-
tainability in food production systems. Ecological Economics,
46(2), 231–248.
PLANT-BASED MEAT ALTERNATIVES. . .
Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J.,
Lorimer, J., . . . Jebb, S. A. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and
the environment. Science, 361(6399), eaam5324.
Grabowska, K. J., Zhu, S., Dekkers, B. L., de Ruijter, N. C., Gieteling,
J., & van der Goot, A. J. (2016). Shear-induced structuring as a tool
to make anisotropic materials using soy protein concentrate. Jour-
nal of Food Engineering, 188, 77–86.
Grahl, S., Palanisamy, M., Strack, M., Meier-Dinkel, L., Toepfl, S., &
Mörlein, D. (2018). Towards more sustainable meat alternatives:
How technical parameters affect the sensory properties of extru-
sion products derived from soy and algae. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction, 198, 962–971.
Grandin, T. (2002). Return-to-sensibility problems after penetrating
captive bolt stunning of cattle in commercial beef slaughter plants.
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 221(9),
1258–1261.
Grandin, T. (2010). Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants. Meat
Science, 86(1), 56–65.
Grandin, T. (2014). Animal welfare and society concerns finding the
missing link. Meat Science, 98(3), 461–469.
Hallström, E., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., & Börjesson, P. (2015). Envi-
ronmental impact of dietary change: A systematic review. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 91, 1–11.
Hassas-Roudsari, M., & Goff, H. D. (2012). Ice structuring proteins
from plants: Mechanism of action and food application. Food
Research International, 46(1), 425–436.
Hawkins, D. I., & Mothersbaugh, D. L. (2010). Consumer behavior:
Building marketing strategy: Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Herrero, M., Havlík, P., Valin, H., Notenbaert, A., Rufino, M. C.,
Thornton, P. K., . . . Obersteiner, M. (2013). Biomass use, produc-
tion, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global
livestock systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
110(52), 20888–20893.
Herrmann, S. S., Duedahl-Olesen, L., & Granby, K. (2015). Occur-
rence of volatile and non-volatile N-nitrosamines in processed
meat products and the role of heat treatment. Food Control, 48,
163–169.
Hocquette, J.-F. (2016). Is in vitro meat the solution for the future?
Meat Science, 120, 167–176.
Hoek, A. C., Elzerman, J. E., Hageman, R., Kok, F. J., Luning, P. A., &
de Graaf, C. (2013). Are meat substitutes liked better over time? A
repeated in-home use test with meat substitutes or meat in meals.
Food Quality Preference, 28(1), 253–263.
Hoek, A. C., Luning, P. A., Weijzen, P., Engels, W., Kok, F. J., &
De Graaf, C. (2011). Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A
survey on person-and product-related factors in consumer accep-
tance. Appetite, 56(3), 662–673.
Hopwood, C. J., Bleidorn, W., Schwaba, T., & Chen, S. (2020). Health,
environmental, and animal rights motives for vegetarian eating.
PLoS One, 15(4), e0230609.
Hu, F. B., Otis, B. O., & McCarthy, G. (2019). Can plant-based meat
alternatives be part of a healthy and sustainable diet? JAMA,
322(16), 1547–1548.
Ismail, I., Hwang, Y. H., & Joo, S. T. (2020). Meat analog as future
food: A review. Journal of Animal Science and Technology, 62(2),
111–120.
Janssen, M., Busch, C., Rödiger, M., & Hamm, U. (2016). Motives of
consumers following a vegan diet and their attitudes towards ani-
mal agriculture. Appetite, 105, 643–651.
15
Johnson, I. T. (2017). The cancer risk related to meat and meat prod-
ucts. British Medical Bulletin, 121(1), 73–81.
Jones, O. G. (2016). Recent advances in the functionality of non-
animal-sourced proteins contributing to their use in meat analogs.
Current Opinion in Food Science, 7, 7–13.
Joshi, V., & Kumar, S. (2015). Meat Analogues: Plant based alterna-
tives to meat products—A review. International Journal of Food
Fermentation Technology, 5(2), 107.
Kearns, J. P., Rokey, G. J., Huber, G. R., & Applewhite, T. (1989).
Extrusion of texturized proteins. In T. H. Applewhite (Ed.), Pro-
ceedings of the World Congress: Vegetable protein utilization in
human foods and animal feedstuffs (pp. 353–362). Champaign, IL:
The American Oil Chemists Society.
Kim, M. R., Yang, J. E., & Chung, L. (2017). Study on sensory charac-
teristics and consumer acceptance of commercial soy-meat prod-
ucts. Journal of the Korean Society of Food Culture, 32(2), 150–161.
Kinney, M., Weston, Z., & Bauman, J. (2019). Plant-based meat manu-
facturing by extrusion. Washington, DC: The Good Food Institute.
Koknaroglu, H., & Akunal, T. (2013). Animal welfare: An animal sci-
ence approach. Meat Science, 95(4), 821–827.
Krintiras, G. A., Diaz, J. G., Van Der Goot, A. J., Stankiewicz, A. I.,
& Stefanidis, G. D. (2016). On the use of the Couette Cell technol-
ogy for large scale production of textured soy-based meat replac-
ers. Journal of Food Engineering, 169, 205–213.
Krintiras, G. A., Göbel, J., Van der Goot, A. J., & Stefanidis, G. D.
(2015). Production of structured soy-based meat analogues using
simple shear and heat in a Couette Cell. Journal of Food Engineer-
ing, 160, 34–41.
Kruger, C., & Zhou, Y. (2018). Red meat and colon cancer: A review
of mechanistic evidence for heme in the context of risk assessment
methodology. Food Chemical Toxicology, 118, 131–153.
Kumar, P., Chatli, M., Mehta, N., Singh, P., Malav, O., & Verma,
A. K. (2017). Meat analogues: Health promising sustainable meat
substitutes. Critical Reviews in Food Science Nutrition, 57(5), 923–
932.
Kumar, S. (2016). Meat Analogs “Plant based alternatives to meat
products: Their production technology and applications”. Crit-
ical Reviews in Food Science Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10408398.2016.1196162
Kweldam, A. C. (2011). US Patent No. 7,998,518. Washington, DC: U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office.
Kyriakopoulou, K., Dekkers, B., & van der Goot, A. J. (2019). Plant-
based meat analogues. In C. M. Galanakis (Ed.), Sustainable meat
production and processing (pp. 103–126). Amsterdam, the Nether-
lands: Elsevier.
Larsson, S. C., & Wolk, A. (2006). Meat consumption and risk of
colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Interna-
tional Journal of Cancer, 119(11), 2657–2664.
Lea, E. J., Crawford, D., & Worsley, A. (2006). Public views of the ben-
efits and barriers to the consumption of a plant-based diet. Euro-
pean Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 60(7), 828–837.
Leahy, E., Lyons, S., & Tol, R. S. (2010). An estimate of the number of
vegetarians in the world. ESRI working paper. Dublin, Ireland: The
Economic and Social Research Institute.
Ledesma, E., Rendueles, M., & Díaz, M. (2016). Contamination of
meat products during smoking by polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons: Processes and prevention. Food Control, 60, 64–87.
Lin, S., Huff, H., & Hsieh, F. (2002). Extrusion process parame-
ters, sensory characteristics, and structural properties of a high
16
moisture soy protein meat analog. Journal of Food Science, 67(3),
1066–1072.
Listrat, A., Lebret, B., Louveau, I., Astruc, T., Bonnet, M., Lefaucheur,
L., . . . Bugeon, J. (2016). How muscle structure and composition
influence meat and flesh quality. The Scientific World Journal,
2016, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/3182746
Mal’a, P., Baranová, M., Marcinčáková, D., & Nagy, J. (2010).
Organoleptic evaluation of poultry meat products with wheat
protein–seitan, coloured by microbial natural pigment. Assam
University Journal of Science and Technology, 5(1), 1–5.
Malav, O. P., Talukder, S., Gokulakrishnan, P., & Chand, S. (2015).
Meat analog: A review. Critical Reviews in Food Science Nutrition,
55(9), 1241–1245.
Manski, J. M., van der Goot, A. J., & Boom, R. M. (2007). Advances
in structure formation of anisotropic protein-rich foods through
novel processing concepts. Trends in Food Science Technology,
18(11), 546–557.
Marinova, D., & Bogueva, D. J. S. E. (2019). Planetary health and
reduction in meat consumption. Sustainable Earth, 2(1), 3.
Maskan, M., & Altan, A. (2016). Advances in food extrusion technology.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Megido, R. C., Gierts, C., Blecker, C., Brostaux, Y., Haubruge, É.,
Alabi, T., & Francis, F. J. F. Q. (2016). Consumer acceptance of
insect-based alternative meat products in Western countries. Food
Quality Preference, 52, 237–243.
Miele, M., Lomellini-Dereclenne, A. C., Mounier, L., & Veissier,
I. (2017). Implementation of the European legislation to pro-
tect farm animals: A case-study on French inspections to find
solutions to improve compliance. Animal Welfare Journal, 26(3),
311–321.
Miranda-de la Lama, G. C., Leyva, I. G., Barreras-Serrano, A., Pérez-
Linares, C., Sánchez-López, E., María, G. A., & Figueroa-Saavedra,
F. (2012). Assessment of cattle welfare at a commercial slaughter
plant in the northwest of Mexico. Tropical Animal Health and Pro-
duction, 44(3), 497–504.
Miyoshi, T., Toyohara, K., & Minematsu, H. (2005). Preparation of
ultrafine fibrous zein membranes via electrospinning. Polymer
International, 54(8), 1187–1190.
Murillo, J. S., Osen, R., Hiermaier, S., & Ganzenmüller, G. (2019).
Towards understanding the mechanism of fibrous texture forma-
tion during high-moisture extrusion of meat substitutes. Journal
of Food Engineering, 242, 8–20.
Neacsu, M., McBey, D., & Johnstone, A. (2017). Meat reduction and
plant-based food: Replacement of meat: Nutritional, health, and
social aspects. In S. R. Nadathur, J. P. D. Wanasundara, & L. Scan-
lin (Eds.), Sustainable protein sources (pp. 359–375). Amsterdam,
the Netherlands: Elsevier.
Nisha, A., Kumar, V. D., Arivudainambi, S., Umer, M., & Khan, M.
(2015). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in processed meats: A
toxicological perspective. Research Journal of Chemistry Environ-
mental Innovation, 19(6), 72–76.
Noor, S., Radhakrishnan, N. S., & Hussain, K. (2016). Newer trends
and techniques adopted for manufacturing of in vitro meat
through “tissue-engineering” technology: A review. International
Journal Biotech Trends and Technology, 6(4), 14–19.
Norat, T., Lukanova, A., Ferrari, P., & Riboli, E. (2002). Meat con-
sumption and colorectal cancer risk: Dose-response meta-analysis
of epidemiological studies. International Journal of Cancer, 98(2),
241–256.
PLANT-BASED MEAT ALTERNATIVES. . .
Omohimi, C. I., Sobukola, O. P., Sarafadeen, K. O., & Sanni, L. O.
(2014). Effect of thermo-extrusion process parameters on selected
quality attributes of meat analogue from mucuna bean seed flour.
Nigerian Food Journal, 32(1), 21–30.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and
Food and Agriculture Organization (OECD/FAO). (2018). OECD-
FAO Agricultural Outlook 2018–2027. https://doi.org/10.1787/agr_
outlook2018-en
Owen, S., & Owen, R. (2011). Tempeh: The past, present and possible
future of a fermented soybean. In H. Saberi (Ed.), Cured, smoked,
and fermented: Proceedings of the oxford symposium on food and
cooking (pp. 221–247). Oxford, UK: Oxford Symposium.
Peregrin, T. (2002). Mycoprotein: Is America ready for a meat sub-
stitute derived from a fungus? Journal of the Academy of Nutrition
Dietetics, 102(5), 628.
Pietsch, V. L., Emin, M. A., & Schuchmann, H. P. (2017). Process
conditions influencing wheat gluten polymerization during high
moisture extrusion of meat analog products. Journal of Food Engi-
neering, 198, 28–35.
Pimentel, D., & Pimentel, M. (2003). Sustainability of meat-based and
plant-based diets and the environment. The American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 78(3), 660S–663S.
Pohjolainen, P., Vinnari, M., & Jokinen, P. (2015). Consumers’ per-
ceived barriers to following a plant-based diet. British Food Jour-
nal, 117(3), 1150–1167
Rampon, V., Robert, P., Nicolas, N., & Dufour, E. (1999). Protein struc-
ture and network orientation in edible films prepared by spinning
process. Journal of Food Science, 64(2), 313–316.
Rathore, H., Prasad, S., & Sharma, S. (2017). Mushroom nutraceuti-
cals for improved nutrition and better human health: A review.
PharmaNutrition, 5(2), 35–46.
Raza, A., Shabbir, M., Khan, M., Suleria, H. A. R., & Sultan, S. (2015).
Effect of thermal treatments on the formation of heterocyclic aro-
matic amines in various meats. Journal of Food Processing Preser-
vation, 39(4), 376–383.
Rehrah, D., Ahmedna, M., Goktepe, I., & Yu, J. (2009). Extrusion
parameters and consumer acceptability of a peanut-based meat
analogue. International Journal of Food Science Technology, 44(10),
2075–2084.
Reijnders, L., & Soret, S. (2003). Quantification of the environmental
impact of different dietary protein choices. The American Journal
of Clinical Nutrition, 78(3), 664S–668S.
Riaz, M. (2011). Texturized vegetable proteins. In G. O. Phillips, & P.
A. Williams (Eds.), Handbook of food proteins (pp. 395–418). Ams-
terdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
Riaz, M. N. (2001). Textured soy protein and its uses. Agro Food Indus-
try Hi Tech, 12(5), 28–31.
Richards, M. P., Hargrove, M., Erazo-Castrejon, S., & Alagurajan,
J. (2019). US Patent No. US20190200650A1. Washington, DC: U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office.
Richi, E. B., Baumer, B., Conrad, B., Darioli, R., Schmid, A., &
Keller, U. (2015). Health risks associated with meat consumption:
A review of epidemiological studies. International Journal for Vita-
min and Nutrition Research, 85(1–2), 70–78.
Ritchie, H. (2019). Which countries eat the most meat. BBC News.
Rohall, S., Ballintine, J., Vowels, J., Wexler, L., & Goto, K. (2009).
Who’s your patty? Consumer acceptance and sensory properties
of burger patties made with different types of meat or plant-based
products. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 7(SI), 01–06.
PLANT-BASED MEAT ALTERNATIVES. . .
Rolan, T., Mueller, I., Mertle, T. J., Swenson, K. J., Conley, C., Orcutt,
M. W., & Mease, L. E. (2008). US Patent No. US20080268112A1.
Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Röös, E., Sundberg, C., Tidåker, P., Strid, I., & Hansson, P. A. (2013).
Can carbon footprint serve as an indicator of the environmental
impact of meat production? Ecological Indicators, 24, 573–581.
Ruiz-Núñez, B., Kuipers, R. S., Luxwolda, M. F., De Graaf, D.
J., Breeuwsma, B. B., Dijck-Brouwer, D. J., & Muskiet, F. A.
(2014). Saturated fatty acid (SFA) status and SFA intake exhibit
different relations with serum total cholesterol and lipopro-
tein cholesterol: A mechanistic explanation centered around
lifestyle-induced low-grade inflammation. The Journal of Nutri-
tional Biochemistry, 25(3), 304–312.
Sabate, J., & Jehi, T. (2019). Determinants of sustainable diets. In J.
Sabate (Ed.), Environmental nutrition (pp. 181–196). Amsterdam,
the Netherlands: Elsevier.
Sadler, M. J. (2004). Meat alternatives—market developments and
health benefits. Trends in Food Science Technology, 15(5), 250–
260.
Sagoo, S., Little, C., Greenwood, M., Mithani, V., Grant, K., McLauch-
lin, J., . . . Threlfall, E. (2009). Assessment of the microbio-
logical safety of dried spices and herbs from production and
retail premises in the United Kingdom. Food Microbiology, 26(1),
39–43.
Samard, S., Gu, B. Y., & Ryu, G. H. (2019). Effects of extrusion types,
screw speed and addition of wheat gluten on physicochemical
characteristics and cooking stability of meat analogues. Journal of
the Science of Food and Agriculture, 99(11), 4922–4931.
Schönfeldt, H. C., & Hall, N. G. (2012). Dietary protein quality and
malnutrition in Africa. British Journal of Nutrition, 108(S2), S69–
S76.
Schösler, H., De Boer, J., & Boersema, J. J. (2012). Can we cut out
the meat of the dish? Constructing consumer-oriented pathways
towards meat substitution. Appetite, 58(1), 39–47.
Schreuders, F. K., Dekkers, B. L., Bodnár, I., Erni, P., Boom, R. M.,
& van der Goot, A. J. (2019). Comparing structuring potential of
pea and soy protein with gluten for meat analogue preparation.
Journal of Food Engineering, 261, 32–39.
Schuetze, S. J., Schwandt, E. F., Maghirang, R. G., & Thomson, D. U.
(2017). Transportation of commercial finished cattle and animal
welfare considerations. The Professional Animal Scientist, 33(5),
509–519.
Sevatson, E. R. I. C., & Huber, G. R. (2000). Extruders in the food
industry. In M. N. Riaz (Ed.), Extruders in food applications (pp.
167–204). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Shields, S., & Greger, M. (2013). Animal welfare and food safety
aspects of confining broiler chickens to cages. Animals, 3(2), 386–
400.
Shimshony, A., & Chaudry, M. (2005). Slaughter of animals for
human consumption. Revue Scientifique et Technique-Office Inter-
national des Epizooties, 24(2), 693.
Shurtleff, W., & Aoyagi, A. (2013). History of tofu and tofu products
(965 CE to 2013). Lafayette, CA: Soyinfo Center.
Siri-Tarino, P. W., Sun, Q., Hu, F. B., & Krauss, R. M. (2010). Satu-
rated fatty acids and risk of coronary heart disease: Modulation by
replacement nutrients. Current Atherosclerosis Reports, 12(6), 384–
390.
Slade, P. (2018). If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences
for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite, 125, 428–437.
17
Smetana, S., Mathys, A., Knoch, A., & Heinz, V. (2015). Meat alterna-
tives: Life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(9), 1254–1267.
Spence, C. (2015). On the psychological impact of food colour.
Flavour, 4(1), 21.
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.
Stanford, C. B., & Bunn, H. T. (2001). Meat-eating and human evolu-
tion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Tilman, D., & Clark, M. (2014). Global diets link environmen-
tal sustainability and human health. Nature, 515(7528), 518–
522.
Tziva, M., Negro, S., Kalfagianni, A., & Hekkert, M. (2019). Under-
standing the protein transition: The rise of plant-based meat sub-
stitutes. Environmental Innovation Societal Transitions, 35, 217–
231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.09.004
ur Rahman, U., Sahar, A., Khan, I., & Nadeem, M. (2014). Production
of heterocyclic aromatic amines in meat: Chemistry, health risks
and inhibition. A review. LWT-Food Science Technology, 59(1),
229–233.
Vainio, A., Irz, X., & Hartikainen, H. (2018). How effective are mes-
sages and their characteristics in changing behavioural intentions
to substitute plant-based foods for red meat? The mediating role
of prior beliefs. Appetite, 125, 217–224.
Van Mierlo, K., Rohmer, S., & Gerdessen, J. C. (2017). A model for
composing meat replacers: Reducing the environmental impact
of our food consumption pattern while retaining its nutritional
value. Journal of Cleaner Production, 165, 930–950.
Van Zuilichem, D. J., Stolp, W., & Janssen, L. P. B. M. (1983). Engineer-
ing aspects of single-and twin-screw extrusion-cooking of biopoly-
mers. Journal of Food Engineering, 2(3), 157–175.
Vanhonacker, F., Van Loo, E. J., Gellynck, X., & Verbeke, W.
(2013). Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food
choices. Appetite, 62, 7–16.
Velarde, A., Fàbrega, E., Blanco-Penedo, I., & Dalmau, A. (2015). Ani-
mal welfare towards sustainability in pork meat production. Meat
Science, 109, 13–17.
Wang, Q., Liu, L., Zhang, J., Zhu, S., Liu, H., Shi, A., & Hu, H. (2019).
US Patent No. US10375981B2. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office.
Ward, M. H., Cross, A. J., Abnet, C. C., Sinha, R., Markin, R. S., &
Weisenburger, D. D. (2012). Heme iron from meat and risk of ade-
nocarcinoma of the esophagus and stomach. European Journal of
Cancer Prevention, 21(2), 134–138.
Whitnall, T., & Pitts, N. (2019). Global trends in meat consumption.
Agricultural Commodities, 9(1), 96.
Wiebe, M. G. (2004). Quorn TM myco-protein-overview of a success-
ful fungal product. Mycologist, 18(1), 17–20.
Wild, F., Czerny, M., Janssen, A. M., Kole, A. P., Zunabovic, M., &
Domig, K. J. (2014). The evolution of a plant-based alternative to
meat. From niche markets to widely accepted meat alternatives.
Agro Food Industry Hi-Tech, 25(1), 45–49.
Williams, A. C., & Hill, L. J. (2017). Meat and nicotinamide: A causal
role in human evolution, history, and demographics. International
Journal of Tryptophan Research, 10, 1–23.
Wolk, A. (2017). Potential health hazards of eating red meat. Journal
of Internal Medicine, 281(2), 106–122.
18 PLANT-BASED MEAT ALTERNATIVES. . .

Wu, Y. F., Baek, H., Gerard, P., & Cadwallader, K. R. (2000). Develop- Zhou, X., Li, N., Luo, Y., Liu, Y., Miao, F., Chen, T., . . . Tian, K. (2018).
ment of a meat-like process flavoring from soybean-based enzyme- Emergence of African swine fever in China, 2018. Transboundary
hydrolyzed vegetable protein (E-HVP). Journal of Food Science, Emerging Diseases, 65(6), 1482–1484.
65(7), 1220–1227.
Yao, G., Liu, K. S., & Hsieh, F. (2004). A new method for character-
izing fiber formation in meat analogs during high-moisture extru-
sion. Journal of Food Science, 69(7), 303–307.
Zhang, J., Liu, L., Jiang, Y., Faisal, S., Wei, L., Cao, C., . . . Wang, How to cite this article: He J, Evans NM, Liu H,
Q. (2019). Converting peanut protein biomass waste into “double Shao S. A review of research on plant-based meat
green” meat substitutes using a high-moisture extrusion process: alternatives: Driving forces, history, manufacturing,
A multiscale method to explore a process for forming a meat-like and consumer attitudes. Compr Rev Food Sci Food
fibrous structure. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry, 67(38),
Saf. 2020;1–18.
10713–10725.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12610
Zhang, W., Hayes, D. J., Ji, Y., Li, M., & Zlong, T. (2019). African
swine fever in China: An update. Agricultural Policy Review,
2019(1), 2.