Replace (meat protein replacement)
This option deals with using existing non-animal-derived ingredients to substitute proteins from animals and fish. While from a product innovation standpoint, it may not be considered significantly innovative, the process of considering replacement options utilises the latest developments in computer – digital databases and machine learning. A significant amount of data including food composition, nutritional composition and recipes is publicly available23,24,25. It provides a fruitful ground to utilise machine and deep learning approaches for food design26.
Taking this approach, Eatkind Technologies Private Limited (India) has developed an AI-based tool (EatKind27) to replace meat, egg and dairy ingredients in a recipe for a plant-based one. The EatKind site turns any recipe into a plant-based one by posting it in the site’s search box.
Modify (non-meat source of proteins)
The next option is using existing sources of proteins, such as insects and plants, as non-animal or/and fish proteins sources.
Insect based
Entomophagy, the consumption of insects as food, has been a common practice in many cultures for centuries28. Insects have great potential as a sustainable animal protein source due to their low impact on resources, e.g. emitting less greenhouse gases, requiring less water and space29.
The data from various comparative analyses30,31,32 of the protein and other nutrients content in edible insects and animal-derived meat have demonstrated that both edible insects and animal-derived meat have varied nutritional content with more profound variations in edible insects30. The latter was considered to be due to the diversity of individual species32. Edible insects have a higher protein content than animal meat31, ranging from 23.1 g to 35.2 g per 100 g among edible insect species and 19.2 g to 21.5 per 100 g in different types of meat31. In regard to the nutrition value, it seems that it is not possible to explicitly state that edible insects would have a higher nutritional value than animal-derived meat, because of the differences in the content of individual nutrients in edible insects and animal-derived meat30,31. In addition to this, this analysis would be impacted by using different nutrient profiling models30.
An estimated 2 billion people33 across Africa, Asia, Central and South America, and Australia consume insects and there is an increased interest in Western countries in insects as a potential source of food. The Edible Insects Market size is estimated at USD 3.20 billion in 2023, and is expected to reach USD 7.60 billion by 2028, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 18.89% in 2023-202834. Two main factors contribute to this trend: (1) the growing acceptance of insect-based food in Western societies35 and (2) their lower environmental impact to address the food security challenge. This rapid growth is supported by increasing investments. While the edible insects’ market is highly fragmented34, it has attracted more than USD 1.3 billion in funding to date with more than half of it in the past couple of years36. Increasing investment in the startups’ research and development (R&D) also comes from partnerships with existing companies. For example, Protirax announced a strategic partnership with Tyson Foods, one of the world’s largest food companies37, Ÿnsect launched a dog feed brand in the US in collaboration with Pure Ultra Simple LLS, a dog food start-up (US)38.
To help scale up the edible insect-based business globally, many government organisations are developing programmes and initiatives including a collaboration between the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), AgriFutures Australia and the International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) resulting in the creation of the Emerging Insect Technology Hub (EIT-Hub) that aims to bring together industry stakeholders, scientists and investors to discuss issues linked to emerging insect technologies around insects as food, animal feed and fertiliser39. The other example is the ‘Insectrial Revolution’ project which received USD 7.5 million from the UK government’s Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (ISCF). This project focusses on the construction of the country’s first large-scale industrial insect farm run on food waste. It is being led by led by the insect-farming company Entocycle (UK) and brings together a consortium of 15 partners providing their diverse expertise and ranging from academic partners and multinational companies, e.g. insects technology expertise (BetaBugs, Better Origin, Fera); science (DurhamUniversity, University of Stirling, University of Warwick, Scottish Aquaculture Innovation Centre); waste management (not-for-profit environmental organisation Zero Waste Scotland) and a multinational company (Tesco)40.
Following the development of relevant regulatory frameworks and legislations covering edible insects, the companies (examples are given in Table1) were able to place their product in the market, making them available to consumers. For example, in the United States, edible insects and insect-based food products must comply with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)41, in the European Union all insect-based products (whole insects, their parts or extracts) meant for human consumption have fallen under the novel food regulation EU 2015/228341 and in the United Kingdom the Food Standards Agency (FSA) is now requiring insect companies to submit dossiers of evidence of safety42.
Insect-based food startups’ activities range from harvesting the insects to producing food products (examples are given in Table1). These companies’ development is a result of a multi-disciplinary effort encompassing entomology (various rearing techniques), together with food and nutritional science (product formulation and processing methods). For example, Ÿnsect43, a French startup, has the largest vertical farm in the world and its recent innovation is a genotyping chip Axiom® YNS_Mol1 for insect breeding aid selection of larvae lines to produce insect-based proteins. This chip has been made available for companies and the scientific community. Big data genome analytics, RNAi and CRISPR are used by Beta44to customise their insects44. Other startups are working to integrate insect powders into the Western world diet by developing products palatable to the Western taste preferences, e.g., protein bars, chocolates, and beetle-based meats by Hey Planet45 and/or YumBug46 opening an insect food-based restaurant.
The farming of insects for feed and the production of insect-based foods are relatively recent and bring both benefits and challenges. As with other foods, potential food hazards41,42of insects-based food could include biological agents (bacterial, viral, fungal, parasitic), chemical contaminants (pesticides, toxic metals, flame retardants), potential allergic reaction, in particular in individuals with crustaceans’ allergies to allergen cross-reactivity.
The high nutritional content and the low carbon, water and ecological footprints associated with insect production, as compared to those of other livestock species, make them an attractive protein replacement option for a healthy diet both for animals and humans. However, further studies and monitoring will be required to determine their quality and safety41. From the companies’ perspectives more efforts will be required to increase broader consumers’ acceptability of insect-based food and address the current key barriers dealing with neophobia and repulsion (the yuck factor) with insect food47. The main focus areas to address these barriers include information dissemination about benefits and how to incorporate the insect-based food and improving sensorial experience by developing appealing products.
Plant based
Humans have consumed plant-based protein food since ancient times. Records of using soybean in ancient kitchens to produce soybean milk as well as preparing tofu from coagulated soybean milk go back to the Han Dynasty in China48. Advancements in processing technology19, in particular, sheer cell, extrusion, structuring processes aiming to develop a fibrous structure, the development textured vegetable proteins, as well as ability to address environmental and food security challenges, have resulted in a significant increase in the consumption of plant-based foods. These methods also enable better mimicking of animal source foods by plant-based meat analogues/alternatives (PBMA) and plant-based dairy analogues/alternatives (PBDA). Currently, there are more than one thousand companies operating in this space with 40% of them focussing on PBMAs and PBDAs food production49. Over the last decade there has been a rapid rise in the number of PBMA and PBDA startups with 80% of the current companies in this sector being established during this period49. The same trend is also observed across different players ranging from academia research to large food companies. It is becoming a subject of numerous articles and review papers19 that look at different aspects of producing PBMA and PBDA food including technological developments, life cycle impact assessments to evaluate the sustainability of plant-based meat products, the health benefits, consumers’ perceptions etc. Large food companies recognise the importance of alternative proteins and are increasing their investment as well launching plant-based version of their popular products including dairy-free Philadelphia cream cheese by Kraft Heinz and Mondelez International, Kellogg’s plant-based chicken waffle Eggo sandwich and Burger King’s Impossible burgers50. The presence of large food companies has a profound effect on the plant-based alternative market and is driving its consolidation, e.g. The Kellogg Company, Maple Leaf Foods and Conagra Brands taking nearly 70% of the plant-based meat sales in the US with the Kellogg Company accounting for almost 50% of the total sales51. Plant-based meat, seafood, eggs, and dairy companies attracted USD 1.2 billion investment in 2022 and the number of unique investors in plant-based companies grew by 17 percent and reached more than 1500 investors50. Similarly, to the edible insect category, the plant-based meat alternatives receive significant support from the public sector, e.g. the German government’s promise to invest USD 41 million in plant-based foods and alternative proteins52. Denmark, Sweden, and Switzerland committed to invest more than USD 150 million into plant-based protein R&D50.
The newest versions of PBMA have similar textures, comparable smells, and appearance to help mimic animal meat. The Spanish startup, Novameat53 uses 3D bioprinting to create fibres and microfibres that unlock the texture of meat and provide versatility to develop a range of PBMA products. To solve the texture challenge, the Israeli startup MeatTheEnd54 has developed a proprietary technique to incorporate a unique pre-treatment step prior to extrusion to produce texturized protein ingredients. In combination with extrusion technology that is used in mass-scale production, this method results in a cost-effective solution for PBMA companies that seeks to improve the texture of their products. Lypid (US) is looking to address the sensorial and nutritional challenges of PBMA by providing plant-based fats. It uses encapsulation technique to produce emulsion of plant oils (‘alternative fat’) that behaves like animal fat55.
Another source of alternative proteins are fungi that includes microorganisms such as yeasts and moulds with mushrooms being the most familiar form. A number of startup companies use filamentous fungi as a source of microproteins. For example, Revo Foods (Austria) has developed a proprietary extrusion process and fibrous protein matrix from filamentous fungi to produce 3D-printed salmon-like fillet on a commercial scale56 while Mycorena (Sweden) is using a liquid fermentation process to produce fungi-based protein food ingredient and also fungi-stabilised fat that can be used to improve the sensorial performance of PBMA products57.
A cross-sectional analysis58 of more than 200 products in each product category, PBM and meat, demonstrated that PBM products had significantly lower protein content than meat products, for example, mean protein content per 100 g in meat sausages was 15 g and 12.1 g in PBM sausages; in meat burgers 19.9 g in PBM burgers and 23.3 g in plain chicken and 18.7 g in plant-based chicken. However, according to the UK’s Nutritional Profiling Model, more PBM products were classified as healthier than meat products, i.e. 14% of PBM and 40% of meat products were classified as ‘less healthy’ (p < 0.001)58. Future studies are needed to better understand how the presence and absence of metabolites and nutrients in plant-based meat alternatives and meat impacts short- and long-term consumer health.
Technological advances have enabled the field to address a range of critical issues; however, there are still a number of challenges including scalability and cost that remain. The main challenges around PBMAs include allergy concerns associated with soy and wheat; requiring additional flavouring ingredients to achieve the meaty flavour; ability to incorporate fat into the product and potentially a higher risk than meat products of microbial growth due to high-moisture environments with a neutral pH59. In terms of PBDAs, they have some performance issues dealing with stability and removal of off flavours, e.g. a beany flavour, bitter taste, and astringency. In addition to the above, there is limited scientific data related to the safety of PBMAs and PBDAs.
Make (made/produced protein sources: lab grown meat)
Creating a meat substitute is perhaps the most challenging option as it involves the production of meat in vitro. The foresight of growing meat outside an animal environment in 1931 when in his speech ‘Fifty Years Hence’, Winston Churchill said ‘We shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium.’60 The latest progress in cross disciplinary efforts including tissue engineering, stem cell biology, bioprocess engineering has made this feat possible. There are currently more than 150 companies20 working to produce lab grown meat, which typically follow one of the following technologies routes: (1) processing cell cultures grown in bioreactors; (2) 3D-bioprinting or (3) precision fermentation (Fig.4).
Processed cell cultures
Harrison’s pioneering work20 in 1907 led to the development of the cell culture techniques. The progress made in more than 100 years of research in this field resulted into it becoming a widely used research tool21 as well as a wide range of biotechnology applications including the tissue engineering, regeneration medicine, cells for vaccine and cell therapy. ‘Cultured meat’ presents one of the latest developments in the field of cell culture. The approach relies on growing and expanding animal stem cells inside a bioreactor and then using them to produce cultivated meat. In the early 2000s the first world’s research institute dedicated to cultured animal products was formed and it took just over 20 years from a cultured meat concept to a cultured meat product on the market.
In recent years there has been a considerable rise of cultured meat startups with 156 companies operating in this space by in2022 and USD 2.8 billion all-time investment in cultivated meat and seafood companies12. Their products range from common meat such as chicken (Upside Food61 (US), GoodMeat/Eat Just62 (US)), beef (Aleph Farms63 (Israel)), pork (Meatable64 (Netherlands)) to seafood (Wildtype65 (US), Avant Meat66 (China) and high-end food including foie gras (Gourmey67(France)).
In the 2016-2022 period, the cultivated meat and seafood companies attracted USD 2.78 billion12. The funding streams include unique investors reaching 679 investors12, strategic partnerships between cultivated meat companies and major food companies with at least 35 major partnerships12 including established companies like Nestlé, Merck KGaA, Mitsubishi, JBS, Kerry, and CP Kelco12 and public funding. For example, Singapore’s government launched a number of programmes to support alternative protein startups and accelerate innovation including building the world’s first hybrid innovation centre dedicated to cultivated and plant-based meat products68. The development and manufacturing of alternative proteins, including cultivated meat, is a part of the UK Government £2 billion National Vision for Engineering Biology plan69.
Cultured meat is still not widely available, and a number of hurdles22 need to be overcome before it will become a product that is readily available to the masses. These challenges include the lack of regulatory guidelines: regulatory approvals are required to sell a product and many countries do not have established protocols for certifying cultured meat. The startups are navigating the current regulatory landscape, e.g., Singapore was the first country that approved cultivated chicken for public sale in 202070, since then two startups, Upside Foods and Eat Just, received FDA’s approval61,62for their lab-grown chicken. Aleph Farms is seeking regulatory approval to sell its beefsteak in the UK and Switzerland63. To help facilitate the development of regulatory protocols, more understanding would be required to assess potential risks of microbial contamination, genetically engineered starting materials etc to address any food safety concerns. The other challenges include sensorial and visual acceptance and cost. For example, to develop a satisfying prototype version that could match the delicate flavour and creamy texture of foie gras, Gourmey tested 600 to 650 different compound interactions. Its product will be marketed as a “poultry delicacy as it cannot be called foie gras” in France. Wildtype is another startup that successfully managed the sensorial challenge and created sushi-grade salmon by cultivating cells extracted from salmon eggs and it has been reported that the resulting tastes like conventional sushi-grade salmon65. However, it comes at a cost - the 127 g (4.5 ounce) portion cost about USD 150 in food costs alone (USD 533 per 450 g (1pound)).
Limited information is available about the protein content in cultured meat22 and according to morphological observations, there are indications that the current cultured meat with most of the cytoskeletal proteins is in the same range as traditional meat71.
The cost represents another challenge of cultivated meat, which will decrease as technology improves to enable scale up. There is already evidence on making scalable beef cell lines using CRISPR by SciFi Foods72, a US based cultivated meat startup, which aims to eventually reach USD$1 per burger at a commercial scale. SCiFi noted that their technology allowed the cost reduction of cultivated meat by more than 1000 times compared to current production costs and less than USD 10 cost for its blended burger, part plant-based and part cultivated meat, that is 33,000 times less than the first cultivated burger developed by Mark Post and Peter Verstrate less than a decade ago that had a production cost of USD 330,00073.
3D bioprinting
Additive manufacturing, the process of joining materials to make objects from computer-aided design model data, such as 3D printing, have opened tremendous opportunities in a broad spectrum of applications in several industry sectors. The integration of 3D printing into tissue engineering provides opportunities for many innovation solutions including regeneration medicine, in-vitro models, pharmaceutical and food industries and healthcare challenges and heralds’ new frontiers in medicine, pharmaceutical, and food industries74.
Scientists from Osaka University used this method to print Wagyu beef75 that resembles the real pieces of meat and reproduces its complex structure formed by muscle fibres, fat, and blood vessels. The fibres fabricated from stem cells using bioprinting were then arranged in 3D to reproduce the structure of the real Wagyu meat and sliced perpendicularly, like the traditional Japanese candy Kintaro-ame. Tendon-gel-integrated bioprinting used for the fibre cells’ fabrication could expand a culture meat toolbox and provide a valuable approach for constructing engineered steak-like meat.
Precision fermentation
The advancements in genome-based technologies enabled a transformation of the traditional fermentation process and development of precision fermentation that uses microbial hosts as ‘cell factories’ for producing specific functional ingredients18. This process has been used to produce animal-based proteins and can save water and land compared to traditional livestock farming with the added benefit of zero methane gas emission. For example, startups Perfect Day (US)76 and Eden Brew (Australia)77 use this approach to produce the same proteins found in cow milk and create synthetic milk that have similar taste, look, and feel to dairy milk. While the technology has significant potential to address environmental challenges, there is an on-going discussion of its downsides, for example, in the case of synthetic milk, its potential impact on to the dairy industry and conventional agriculture and the prospect of pushing out low-tech or small-scale dairy farms. However, to do so, the industry must grow exponentially and build new manufacturing infrastructure (e.g., fermentation tanks, bioreactors) that would require a considerable amount of investment.
Another startup that uses precision fermentation is Air Protein (US)78. It uses microbes to transform carbon dioxide from air into meat that originates from the 1970s space programme where NASA scientists explored a way to feed astronauts on long space journeys by transforming elements in the air that the astronauts breathed into proteins79. The end fermentation product is a versatile protein-rich flour, which has a similar amino acid profile as meat protein and can be turned into any food using a combination of pressure, temperature, and other technologies. The manufacturing process has climate-saving potential: it is carbon-negative and compared to beef, uses 1.5 million times less land and reduces water usage 15,000 times. Like with other cultured meat challenges, the most crucial aspect is making the process cost competitive. Published techno-economic analysis indicated a production range in a hypothetical commercial-scale facility ranging from USD 17 to USD 65 per kilogram where the largest cost drivers include culture media, bioreactors, and labour12.
