Exploring the health benefits and production challenges of alternative proteins

By Priyanjana Pramanik, MSc.Reviewed by Benedette Cuffari, M.Sc.Aug 20 2024

In a recent study published in npj Science of Food, researchers review the health benefits of alternative protein sources and the challenges associated with their production.

Study: Current challenges of alternative proteins as future foods. Image Credit: barmalini / Shutterstock.com

The need for alternative sources of protein

As the global population is expected to approach 9.7 billion by 2050, it remains crucial to ensure the adequate and sustainable production of nutritious food. The demand for protein is especially concerning, as traditional sources like livestock are insufficient and significantly contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Expanding agriculture to meet predicted protein demands will inevitably threaten biodiversity and accelerate environmental degradation. As a result, significant investments have been made in improving the appearance and texture of alternative protein (AP) products to more closely resemble animal-based products.

The AP market currently comprises plant-based, insect-based, and microbe-derived protein sources, as well as cultured meat and seafood products. In 2023, the AP market size was estimated at $15.3 billion United States dollars (USD) and is expected to reach $26.5 billion USD by 2030.

Although APs offer promising solutions to environmental and health issues, they are associated with several challenges including consumer acceptance, high production costs, and regulatory issues. Despite growing interest and market potential, the AP industry must overcome these obstacles to become sustainable and widely accepted protein sources for the future.

Environmental benefits and impacts

APs offer significant environmental benefits as compared to traditional livestock products. Cultivating high-protein plants and microbes, as well as farming insects, produce significantly less GHG emissions, in addition to reduced land and water requirements.

For example, plant-based protein production emits 40-100 times less GHGs and uses 20-50 times less land than livestock. Farming for insects like mealworms has also been shown to produce up to 75 times less GHG emissions than livestock farms, in addition to occupying 102 times less land and producing 35 times less water. Microbe-based protein sources are particularly efficient, as they use up to 2,000 times less land as compared to traditional protein sources.

Despite these advantages, the environmental impact of cultured meat remains unclear due to its early development stage, as well as the high energy and resource demands of current technologies. Thus, continuous updates and assessments are needed to minimize the potential environmental impact of APs.

Challenges in AP production

The production of APs is associated with several challenges, particularly in replicating the taste, texture, and nutritional profiles of traditional proteins due to molecular and physicochemical differences. As a result, plant and insect proteins often require extensive processing to achieve similar textures.

High-temperature extrusion, which is a common method for creating meat analogs, is energy-intensive and may not fully replicate the sensory experience of real meat, thus causing these products to often be perceived as dry or fibrous. Moreover, while microbial proteins like mycoprotein may closely resemble animal-based products, they still require further development to resemble these sensory characteristics.

Current technologies for the production of cultured meat are not economically viable for large-scale production. Furthermore, the bioreactors used in these processes require precise conditions to prevent contamination and ensure consistent quality.

Flavor and nutritional profile

APs inherently have distinct flavors that differ from animal products, including the bean-like taste of some plant proteins or earthy notes in insect proteins, which can be difficult to mask. Although flavoring agents can be incorporated into these products, consumers often prefer products with fewer additives.

APs often have a different amino acid profile as compared to animal proteins and may even lack essential amino acids like lysine. Likewise, some APs, particularly those derived from insects or microbes, have varying nutritional content based on species and processing methods.

Many consumers remain skeptical of the health benefits associated with APs, particularly as some products are classified as ultra-processed foods. Ensuring that these products are nutritious, safe, and comparable to traditional proteins in both taste and texture is crucial for their broader acceptance.

Conclusions

Future trends and opportunities for APs include diversifying protein sources, such as algae, seaweed, and water plants, due to their rapid growth and high protein content.

Technologies like supercritical fluid extraction and high-pressure processing can improve protein extraction. Cultured meat and seafood production is advancing with gene-editing and fermentation technologies.

Nevertheless, challenges remain, such as ensuring safety, reducing allergenicity, and understanding the health effects of APs on gut microbiomes. Improving the cost efficiency of AP production, advancing current analytical methods, and developing clear guidelines to ensure consumer safety is also needed to support the future growth of the AP industry.