4.6 Review

Potential Alternatives of Animal Proteins for Sustainability in the Food Sector

期刊

FOOD REVIEWS INTERNATIONAL
卷 39, 期 8, 页码 5703-5728

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/87559129.2022.2094403

关键词

Meat analogs; in vitro meat; edible insects; single-cell proteins; consumer acceptance; sustainability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With the increasing global population, meeting the demand for animal protein through conventional methods is impossible. To ensure sustainable supply, a holistic approach involving plant-based meat analogs, in vitro meat, insects, and single-cell proteins is required. However, there are challenges in technology, food safety, and regulation.
With the ever-increasing global population, it is impossible to meet the demand for animal protein by relying only on conventional methods due to the depleting natural resources. It is very challenging to ensure a sustainable supply of animal proteins from a single source or form and requires a holistic approach by using all suitable options. The present review critically reviewed various technological, sustainability, nutritional value, regulatory framework, food safety challenge, and prospect aspects of plant-based meat analogs, in vitro meat, edible insect, and single-cell proteins as suitable candidates for future food security and supply of animal protein in a sustainable way. For in vitro meat, the technological challenge in the supply of raw inputs, large-size bioreactors, and scale-up remains a major issue. Although having a lower environmental impact, the acceptance of edible insects to more comprehensive sections and associated food safety risks remains a major concern. There is a need for uniform and proper regulations of these alternatives/novel foods across the globe, covering various aspects throughout the food supply chain. Plant-based meat analogs, in vitro meat, insects, and single-cell proteins along with conventional meat can meet the demand for high-quality protein in the near future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据