Editing Meat alternative (section)

== Impact ==

===Environmental===

Besides ethical and health motivations, developing better meat alternatives has the potential to reduce the environmental impact of meat production, an important concern given that the global demand for meat products is predicted to increase by 15 percent by 2031.  Research on meats and no-meat substitutes suggests that no-meat products can offer substantial benefits over the production of beef, and to a lesser extent pork and chicken, in terms of greenhouse gas production, water and land use.<ref name="Holmes">{{cite journal |last1=Holmes |first1=Bob |title=How sustainable are fake meats? |journal=Knowable Magazine |date=20 July 2022 |doi=10.1146/knowable-071922-1|doi-access=free |url=https://knowablemagazine.org/article/food-environment/2022/how-sustainable-are-fake-meats |access-date=1 August 2022 |language=en}}</ref> 
A 2022 report from the Boston Consulting Group found that investment in improving and scaling up the production of meat and dairy alternatives leads to big greenhouse gas reductions compared with other investments.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Carrington |first=Damian |date=2022-07-07 |title=Plant-based meat by far the best climate investment, report finds |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/07/plant-based-meat-by-far-the-best-climate-investment-report-finds |access-date=2022-07-10 |website=The Guardian |language=en}}</ref>

According to [[The Good Food Institute]], improving efficiency of the [[Western pattern diet|Western diet]] is crucial for achieving sustainability.<ref name="Institute">{{cite web |last1=The Good Food Institute |title=Plant-based meat for a growing world |url=https://gfi.org/resource/environmental-impact-of-meat-vs-plant-based-meat/ |website=gfi.org |access-date=29 November 2022}}</ref> As the global population grows, the way land is used will be reconsidered. 33% of the habitable land on Earth is used to support animals. Of all the land used for agriculture, 77% is used on animal agriculture even though this sector only supplies 17% of the total food supply. Plant-based meat can use a potential 47–99% less land than conventional meat does, freeing up more opportunities for production. Of the total water used in global agriculture, 33% goes to animal agriculture while it could be used for drinking water or other growing purposes under a different strategy. Plant-based meat uses 72–99% less water than conventional meat production.<ref name="Institute"/>

Pollution is the next largest contribution to wasted water. Pesticides used in animal feed production as well as waste runoff into reservoirs can cause ecological damage and even human illness as well as taking water directly out of the usable supply. Animal agriculture is the main contributor to the food sector greenhouse gas emissions. Production of plant-based meat alternatives emits 30–90% less than conventional meat production.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Malila |first1=Yuwares |last2=Owolabi |first2=Iyiola O. |last3=Chotanaphuti |first3=Tanai |last4=Sakdibhornssup |first4=Napat |last5=Elliott |first5=Christopher T. |last6=Visessanguan |first6=Wonnop |last7=Karoonuthaisiri |first7=Nitsara |last8=Petchkongkaew |first8=Awanwee |title=Current challenges of alternative proteins as future foods |journal=[[npj Science of Food]] |date=2024 |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=53 |doi=10.1038/s41538-024-00291-w |doi-access=free|pmid=39147771 |pmc=11327365 }}</ref> While also contributing less to this total pollution, much of the land being used for animal feed could be used to mitigate the negative effects we've already had on the planet through carbon recycling, soil conservation, and renewable energy production.<ref name="Institute"/> In addition to the ecological harm caused by the current industry, excess antibiotics given to animals cause resistant microbes that may render some of the life-saving drugs used in human medicine useless. Plant-based meat requires no antibiotics and would greatly reduce microbe antibiotic resistance.<ref name="Institute"/>

A 2023 study published in ''[[Nature Communications]]'' found that replacing just half of the beef, chicken, dairy and pork products consumed by the global population with plant-based alternatives could reduce the amount of land used by agriculture by almost a third, bring [[deforestation]] for agriculture nearly to a halt, help restore biodiversity through rewilding the land and reduce GHG emissions from agriculture by 31% in 2050, paving a clearer path to achieving both climate and biodiversity goals.<ref>{{cite news |last=Marashli|first=Imran |date=September 16, 2023 |title=Meat, milk alternatives could slash food system emissions a third: study|url=https://phys.org/news/2023-09-meat-alternatives-slash-food-emissions.html|work=[[Phys.org]]|location= |access-date=October 19, 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kozicka|first1=Marta |last2=Havlík|first2=Petr|last3=Valin|first3=Hugo |display-authors=etal.|date=2023 |title=Feeding climate and biodiversity goals with novel plant-based meat and milk alternatives|url= |journal=Nature Communications|volume=14 |issue=5316 |page=5316 |doi=10.1038/s41467-023-40899-2|access-date=|doi-access=free|pmid=37699877 |pmc=10497520|bibcode=2023NatCo..14.5316K }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Graham |first=Max |date=September 14, 2023 |title=New Study Shows Impacts of Cutting Meat and Dairy Consumption in Half|url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2023/09/meat-dairy-consumption-farming-livestock-climate-emissions/|work=[[Mother Jones (magazine)|Mother Jones]] |location= |access-date=October 25, 2023}}</ref> The switch to plant-based protein is reported to deliver the biggest [[greenhouse gas emissions|climate-heating emission]] cuts per investment dollar of all industrial sectors.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/07/plant-based-meat-by-far-the-best-climate-investment-report-finds |title=Plant-based meat by far the best climate investment, report finds |date=7 July 2022 |work=The Guardian}}</ref>

===Health===

Meat alternatives have lower amounts of [[saturated fat]], [[Vitamin B12|vitamin B<sub>12</sub>]] and zinc than meat products but higher amounts of carbohydrates, [[dietary fibre]], sodium, iron and calcium.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Lindberg, Leona |author2=McCann, Rachel Reid |author3=Smyth, Beatrice |author4=Woodside, Jayne V. |author5=Nugent, Anne P.|year=2024|title=The environmental impact, ingredient composition, nutritional and health impact of meat alternatives: a systematic review|journal=Trends in Food Science & Technology|volume=149|issue=|pages=104483|doi=10.1016/j.tifs.2024.104483|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Surya Ulhas |first1=Rutwick |last2=Ravindran |first2=Rajeev |last3=Malaviya |first3=Alok |last4=Priyadarshini |first4=Anushree |last5=Tiwari |first5=Brijesh K. |last6=Rajauria |first6=Gaurav |title=A review of alternative proteins for vegan diets: Sources, physico-chemical properties, nutritional equivalency, and consumer acceptance |journal=[[Food Research International]] |date=2023 |volume=173 |issue=Pt 2 |pages=113479 |doi=10.1016/j.foodres.2023.113479 |doi-access=free|pmid=37803803 }}</ref> Meat alternatives are rated as [[ultra-processed food]]s under the [[Nova classification]], but when the UK nutritional profiling system is used, not all products classified as ultra-processed are rated as unhealthy.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Petersen T, Hirsch S.|year=2023|title=Comparing meat and meat alternatives: an analysis of nutrient quality in five European countries|journal=Public Health Nutrition|volume=26|issue=12|pages=3349–3358|doi=10.1017/S1368980023001945|pmid=37800339|pmc=10755401}}</ref>

In 2021, the [[American Heart Association]] stated that there is "limited evidence on the short- and long-term health effects" of plant-based meat alternatives.<ref name=aha>{{cite journal |vauthors=Lichtenstein AH, Appel LJ, Vadiveloo M, Hu FB, Kris-Etherton PM, Rebholz CM, Sacks FM, Thorndike AN, Van Horn L, Wylie-Rosett J |title=2021 Dietary Guidance to Improve Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association |journal=Circulation | volume=144 |issue=23 |pages=e472–e487 |date=December 2021 |pmid=34724806 |doi=10.1161/CIR.0000000000001031 |s2cid=240422142 |type=Review|display-authors=5|doi-access=free }}</ref> The same year, the [[World Health Organization]] stated that there are "significant knowledge gaps in the nutritional composition" of meat alternatives and more research is needed to investigate their health impacts.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/349086/WHO-EURO-2021-4007-43766-61591-eng.pdf |title="Plant-based diets and their impact on health, sustainability and the environment: A review of the evidence" |work=WHO European Office for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases |via=apps.who.int}}</ref> 

A 2023 review concluded that replacing red and highly-processed meat with a variety of meat alternatives improved [[quality-adjusted life year]]s, led to significant health system savings and reduced [[greenhouse gas]] emissions; replacement of meat with minimally-processed vegetarian alternatives, such as legumes had the greatest effect.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Reynolds |first1=Andrew N. |last2=Mhurchu |first2=Cliona Ni |last3=Kok |first3=Zi-Yi |last4=Cleghorn |first4=Christine |date=2023-02-01 |title=The neglected potential of red and processed meat replacement with alternative protein sources: simulation modelling and systematic review |journal=eClinicalMedicine |volume=56 |pages=101774 |doi=10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101774 |issn=2589-5370|pmid=36567793|doi-access=free |pmc=9772543 }}</ref> Another review found that meat alternatives are likely to be healthier than meat products and more environmentally friendly but are more expensive.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Coffey AA |author2=Lillywhite R. |author3=Oyebode O.|year=2023|title=Meat versus meat alternatives: which is better for the environment and health? A nutritional and environmental analysis of animal-based products compared with their plant-based alternatives|journal=Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics|volume=36|issue=6|pages=2147–2156|doi=10.1111/jhn.13219|pmid=37534713}}</ref>

A 2024 review found that plant-based meat alternatives have the potential to be healthier than [[animal source foods]] and have smaller environmental footprints.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Nájera Espinosa S. |author2=Hadida G. |author3=Jelmar Sietsma A. |author4=Alae-Carew C. |author5=Turner G. |author6=Green R. |author7=Pastorino S. |author8=Picetti R. |author9=Scheelbeek P.|year=2024|title=Mapping the evidence of novel plant-based foods: a systematic review of nutritional, health, and environmental impacts in high-income countries|journal=Nutrition Reviews|url=https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/advance-article/doi/10.1093/nutrit/nuae031/7656938|volume=|issue=|pages=nuae031|doi=10.1093/nutrit/nuae031|pmid=38657969|doi-access=free}}</ref>

A comprehensive study published in the journal [[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]] in 2024 shows that processed plant-based substitutes such as veggie burgers improve nutrition compared to animal products, but less than unprocessed plant-based foods; they offer significant health benefits over meat, but are not as nutritious and balanced as unprocessed alternatives.<ref>M. Springmann, A multicriteria analysis of meat and milk alternatives from nutritional, health, environmental, and cost perspectives, Proc. Natl. Acad. 121 (50) e2319010121, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2319010121 (2024).</ref>