Next Article in Journal
Influence of Altitude and Climatic Factors on the Floristic Composition of the Moorlands of the Guamote Canton, Ecuador: Key Revelations for Conservation
Previous Article in Journal
Do European Social Funds Matter in Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 2
10.3390/su17020382
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Sustainability of Key Proteins in Plant-Based Meat Analogs Production: A Worldwide Perspective

by
Bernardo Romão
1,*,
Maximiliano Sommo
2,
Renata Puppin Zandonadi
1,
Maria Eduarda Machado de Holanda
3,
Vinicius Ruela Pereira Borges
3,
Ariana Saraiva
4 and
António Raposo
5,*
1
Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nutrition, University of Brasília, Brasília 70910-900, Brazil
2
Department of Nutrition, University Center IESB, Brasília 70830-404, Brazil
3
Department of Computer Sciences, University of Brasília, Brasília 70910-900, Brazil
4
Research in Veterinary Medicine (I-MVET), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Lisbon University Centre, Lusófona University, Campo Grande 376, 1749-024 Lisboa, Portugal
5
CBIOS (Research Center for Biosciences and Health Technologies), Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, Campo Grande 376, 1749-024 Lisboa, Portugal
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(2), 382; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020382
Submission received: 6 December 2024 / Revised: 30 December 2024 / Accepted: 6 January 2025 / Published: 7 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Food)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The market for plant-based analogs for meat is growing exponentially. In addition to motivations related to the search for health benefits, the consumption of such products is justified by the sustainability of their production since the use of non-renewable resources and the emission of polluting gases is lower than their animal-origin equivalents. However, little information regarding the global panorama of the sustainability of plant-based meat analogues is available, mainly due to the diffuse distribution of food matrices used across the planet. In this sense, this narrative review aimed to describe the state of the art regarding the use of resources and sustainability of the inputs used as protein sources in the manufacture of plant-based meat analogues. From the review carried out, it was possible to observe that the biggest problem in producing these plant-based alternatives lies in using inputs that are not native to the countries where the products are marketed, especially in the case of South American countries. Ingredients widely used in the production of these analogues find better cultivation conditions in the northern hemisphere, as in the case of lentils, peas and chickpeas; thus, South American markets depend on imports, reducing the sustainability of the products.

1. Introduction

Currently, there is a need to adopt containment measures for the imminent climate crisis, whose global effects are already notable [1,2]. The crisis related to global warming is characterized as the leading public health emergency of the 21st century, as it directly affects the health of populations and their quality of life as a whole [3].
Recent data shows that concentrations of polluting gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane are the highest ever recorded, directly affecting atmospheric warming and subsequent global temperatures [4]. Such warming, in turn, affects not only basal temperatures but also oceans, affecting the global climate and resulting in natural catastrophes such as droughts, floods, and extreme temperature events [5,6,7].
Several human interventions result in the emission of polluting gases, with the use of fossil fuels in transportation and energy generation activities being the leading emitter [8,9]. However, it is worth highlighting that the food industry plays a significant role in contributing to the emission of polluting gases, especially in the context of producing food of animal origin [10].
Global agrifood systems are consolidated as the second largest factor responsible for the emission of polluting gases, responsible for one-third of all anthropogenic greenhouse emissions [10]. According to the latest Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report in 2020, gas emissions from agrifood systems reached the mark of 16 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2eq), showing a significant increase of 9% since the year 2000 [10,11].
Within the context of the agriculture-based food system, there are several activities with consequent emissions of polluting gases, such as farmgate, livestock farming, and deforestation to grow plantations aimed at feeding the animals, in addition to pre- and post-food production processes [12]. Considering all the processes involved, data demonstrate that the production of bovine beef emits between 1 kg and 20 kg of CO2eq/kg, while chicken meat production emits between 1 kg and 12 kg of CO2eq/kg and chicken eggs 1 to 6 kg of CO2eq/kg [10,11].
Another problem is related to the use of water in meat production [13]. Currently, data demonstrate that to produce 1 kg of meat, 15 thousand liters of drinking water are needed, considering all the production stages involved, such as feeding and waste management [13,14]. In this sense, the growth in plant-based analogs stands out, mainly within the context of foods that mimic meat products [15].
The plant-based diet is characterized as a diet where products of animal origin are totally or mostly excluded from the diet of individuals [16]. Although there is no data on the prevalence of adopting this diet globally, this movement is showing substantial growth, driven by the search for health benefits, appreciation of animal welfare and the adoption of more sustainable eating habits [17,18].
The global market for plant-based meat analogs is growing prosperously, with current values of around USD 1.6 billion, with projected growth of up to USD 3.5 billion by 2026 [19]. However, it is also important to verify the issue surrounding the inputs used in the production of these plant-based meat analogs. In a previous study evaluating the ingredients used in plant-based meat analogs worldwide, the most used cultivars in the production of these products were soybeans, wheat, peas, chickpeas, and beans, respectively [20]. In this sense, given the varied availability of resources for the production of these analogs in the world, export stands out as necessary to meet production demands, a process that involves the ostensible use of non-renewable resources and the emission of pollutants [21,22].
Therefore, considering the sustainable development objectives stipulated by the United Nations (UN), although plant-based products are globally more sustainable than animal-products production, there is a gap in knowledge regarding the real sustainability practiced in the plant-based market [23]. In this sense, we aim to describe the state of the art regarding the sustainability of key ingredients utilized in plant-based meat analogs through a narrative review.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was conducted as a narrative literature review which followed three steps: conducting the search, reviewing abstracts and full-texts, and discussing results. For this, the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Science Direct databases were searched to identify the relevant studies, according to the development of the review. The final search was conducted in October 2024. The terms “plant-based”, “meat analogs”, “sustainability”, and “plant-based protein ingredients” were used. After the complete search, the abstracts were read to ensure they addressed the topic of interest. All duplicates were removed, and the abstracts of the remaining articles were reviewed to ensure that they addressed the review inclusion criteria. The eligible criteria were studies that analyzed contained information on the use of resources and ingredients of the primary protein sources of meat analogs. Therefore, the studies of interest focusing on information on the use of resources and ingredients of the primary protein sources of meat analogs commercialized worldwide were summarized and synthesized to integrate the narrative review. Since it is a narrative review, it was unnecessary to document the literature search on specific platforms [24,25].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Main Protein Ingredients Used in the Production of Commercial Plant-Based Meat Analogues

Revenue from the market for plant-based meat-based products is distributed differently across the world. Recent data indicate that 38% of all revenue from plant-based foods originates and circulates in North America, specifically in the United States. Following the same reasoning, the European and Australian markets are in second place, while South American countries do not yet have a significant market share [26].
The production of commercial plant-based meat analogs uses several inputs, and in relation to its processing, the predominant technology is the extrusion of isolated vegetable proteins followed by the addition of fat-based ingredients, flavorings, and colorings [15]. It is known that extrusion technology is considered an alternative for the use of grains after the removal of their oils, thus increasing the life cycle of the product, being a more sustainable practice [27].
Regarding the primary protein sources, in addition to contributing to the nutritional content of the products, they are responsible for physicochemical characteristics, such as texture and sensory acceptance.
Table 1 below details the various commercial analogs produced around the world and the overall protein ingredients used as a base matrix.
Not all studies discriminate the frequency of ingredients used by different commercialized products; therefore, quantitative frequency comparison is not possible. Nevertheless, in general, it is noted that soy and its variations are the most used protein source [28,29,30,31,32,33]. Next, peas in the form of concentrated or isolated protein appear as the second most used matrix. Wheat is the third most used protein ingredient. Various legumes (chickpeas, beans, and lentils) and cereals such as oats and buckwheat are used more sparingly [28,29,30,31,32,33].

3.2. Use of Resources During the Cultivation, Processing, and Transportation Phases of the Primary Protein Sources Used in Plant-Based Meat Analogs

In the context of sustainability, such cultivars have different uses of water and emissions of carbon dioxide equivalents depending on the stages of cultivation, processing, or transport. Figure 1 below estimates the values of (CO2eq/kg−1) and water (m3/kg−2) utilized in these different stages by cultivars based on different studies carried out in multiple countries.
Regarding carbon emissions in the cultivation phase, oat and lentil cultivars have the highest values (around 1.3 CO2eq/kg−1), while in pea, wheat, and bean cultivars, those values decrease, with beans being the cultivar with the lowest amount of carbon emissions in this phase of production (around 0.1 CO2eq/kg−1) [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44].
This difference in the amount of carbon equivalents emitted during this phase is due to each cultivar’s intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics. In the case of beans, it is worth noting that they require fewer agricultural inputs than lentils, wheat, and oats, which reduces the carbon footprint associated with their production [45,46]. These products, in turn, are important emitters of carbon equivalents, such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide [47]. Furthermore, beans, being produced mainly in Brazil, find in this region better climatic conditions for cultivation, which significantly reduces their cultivation time and, consequently, their associated carbon footprint [45,46].
This point is crucial for discussing and comparing these data, since most studies that provided data for Figure 1 were conducted in countries where production is significant and substantially contributes to the global market. In this way, it is important to highlight that the comparison offered by Figure 1 has an intrinsic bias related not only to the cultivation of such foods but also to the methodologies used, which can be based on various methods, either based on direct instrumental measurement or estimates by formulas [48,49].
As for water consumption in the cultivation phase, soybeans, which have one of the lowest carbon emissions, have the highest water consumption (2.4 m3/kg−2) [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. In the opposite trend, oats, which emit relevant carbon equivalents in the cultivation phase, have one of the lowest water consumptions in the cultivation phase (2.0 m3/kg−2) [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44].
The water demand during the cultivation phase depends on the ethnobotanical characteristics of the cultivars. Soybeans use the largest amount of water, and have a long growth cycle (between 3 and 6 months), requiring more water [50]. Furthermore, the flowering and filling phase of the soybean grains, related to the industrial use of the grain, is the phase that requires the most water, noting that insufficient irrigation can compromise productivity [50].
Another point is related to the location where soybeans are grown. In dry climate areas, the use of irrigation is necessary, despite the inefficiency of this method concerning sustainability [34,51].
In the processing phase, chickpeas stand out as one of the most expensive cultivars, in both the contexts of carbon equivalent emissions (5.0 CO2eq/kg−1) and water consumption (11.0 m3/kg−2) [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. It is also noted that in wheat, the processing stage is the stage that demands the most water (10.0 m3/kg−2). Although chickpeas are adapted to semi-arid climates, their processing requires much water due to the threshing phase and their processing for sale, which commonly involves cooking and preserving the grains. However, studies indicate that this cultivar is one of the most sustainable because the low use of resources in other phases compensates for the expense in the processing phase [52].
Also, regarding the use of resources in producing those cultivars, it is important to highlight a methodological concept in assessing the sustainability of the cultivars presented, which is the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) [53,54]. The LCA is useful for determining a framework for the entire life cycle of a product, highlighting control points that may contribute to interventions that improve its sustainability [53,54].
Regarding the LCA of soybeans, a study highlights how soybeans are more viable from a sustainability perspective in producing isolated protein compared to other sources of animal origin, such as beef, chicken, skim milk, and whey protein concentrate (WPC) [55]. This data is essential since soybeans are the most widely used ingredient in the formulation of plant-based meat analogs [28,29,30,31,32,33]; however, this does not exempt this legume from problems related to deforestation and export (See Section 3.3.1).
In the case of wheat, the LCA points out that improvements can be made regarding the cultivation model, with a study indicating that organic and biodynamic models have a lower environmental impact, mainly due to the reduced use or exclusion of pesticides that results in lower carbon emissions and use of water for detoxification [56].
As for the other cultivars analyzed (peas, lentils, chickpeas, oats, beans, and buckwheat), LCA studies indicate that, in general, these cultivars present practices compatible with sustainable food cultivation, especially in comparison to products of animal origin [57,58].

3.3. Production Context of the Main Protein Ingredients Used

3.3.1. Soy

Soy is the most exported commodity in the world. Brazil is the largest soybean producer in the world (156 million metric tons), and this cultivar is the country’ main export product [59]. Data from 2018 showed that the total plantation area had about 34 million hectares, distributed across several Brazilian biomes, such as the Cerrado, Amazon Forest, and Pampas [34]. As one of the country’s main products, the high value related to the cultivation and export of soybeans stands out, with a value of USD 52.2 billion (in 2019) [59].
Other countries also contribute to global soybean production, such as the United States of America, with production of 113.34 million metric tons in 2023, which corresponds to 28% of world production, as well as Argentina, contributing with 13% of the world’s production [60].
One of the main problems surrounding soybeans is the blatant deforestation caused by installing new plantations [61]. In Brazil, at the beginning of its production, in the middle of the 20th century, the Brazilian Amazon region was the most deforested for soy cultivation. However, current data demonstrate that the area with the highest deforestation rates is concentrated in the Cerrado, in the region called MATOPIBA, comprised of the Brazilian states Mato Grosso, Tocantins, Piaui, and Bahia [61].
The conversion of land related to soybean cultivation has multiple objectives, mainly feeding livestock, producing biofuels, and, less significantly, human food [62,63,64]. The data related to the emission of carbon equivalents and their respective carbon footprint from soybean production are alarming, with values of 0.69 tons of CO2eq per ton of soybeans exported, given that 1/3 of these emissions are all concentrated in the conversion of forests into crop centers [65].
Furthermore, given its economic value, it is common for unsustainable practices to be adopted to achieve greater productivity, with consequent soil depletion and water pollution in its processing stage [50]. In Brazil, environmental preservation entities have made efforts to guarantee the sustainable cultivation of soy, which is called the soy moratorium [34,65]. However, a significant portion of soybean plantations worldwide are not suitable according to the parameters established, thus highlighting problems in the use of soy [34].
In plant-based meat analogs, soy is used in its entirety, and the primary forms of presentation are whole grains, textured protein, isolated protein, and oil [64]. In general, the carbon footprint of fresh grains, extracts, and isolated protein is significantly lower than products of animal origin, presenting values up to 30 times lower than beef [66].
In another study that analyzed both water and carbon footprints, soy burgers presented lower values than their counterparts of animal origin. However, soy is the leading contributor to water consumption regarding the production of plant-based meat analogs, highlighting the need to adopt sustainable practices in its cultivation [66].

3.3.2. Wheat

Wheat is widely used in the plant-based analog industry, mainly due to gluten, whose viscoelastic characteristics provide desirable texture to meat analogs, such as elasticity, tenacity, and resistance [67]. However, in some countries in South America and the United States, the wheat produced is of lower quality when compared to European, Australian, and Argentinean wheat, mainly in the context of gluten content, which needs to be between 1 and 10% for better industrial use, resulting in importation from other countries, mainly from Australia and Argentina [68,69].
In Australia, the leading producer of wheat in the south hemisphere, wheat stands out as one of the main cultivars produced, with consequent extensive use of resources, such as water and energy [69,70]. Furthermore, the transport of cultivars stands out as one of the largest emitters of carbon equivalents in the world, since the use of fossil fuels in vehicles is necessary for the wheat the country needs to arrive [22].
Regarding its carbon footprint, wheat has an average footprint of 146.5 tons of CO2eq. However, a study demonstrated that wheat acts as a sequestrant of carbon equivalents, thus reducing its carbon footprint [71]. This happens due to the photosynthesis of wheat grains during their growth period, where carbon equivalents are consumed as an energy substrate [71]. The greatest emission of carbon equivalents occurs when the crop is fallow; however, practices such as soil cover have already been adopted to reduce its environmental impact [72].
Wheat flour, the main product derived from wheat, has a water footprint of approximately 1850 L of water per kg produced. In addition, the gluten isolation process demands even more water, since the starch present in flour must first be extracted via water and then dehydrated and sold in particle sizes like flour [20,73].
In this way, the application of wheat in plant-based meat analogs is easier and more sustainable in products present in the northern hemisphere and Australia, as shown in studies that analyzed these products in Italy, Spain, Latvia, and Austria, but challenging in the case of countries such as Brazil [28,29,31,32,33].

3.3.3. Peas

Peas are protein-rich legumes attractive for sustainable food production due to intrinsic properties such as low water demand and drought tolerance, and their use in crop rotation positively affects soil health and fertility [74]. In this sense, on average, the carbon footprint of peas is 0.49 kg CO2eq/kg, meaning they are considered an efficient source of protein in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per kg [75].
A study on the water footprint and irrigation efficiency of important crops in Northern Cyprus showed that green peas presented the lowest irrigation economic efficiency and water use efficiency and the highest water requirements [35,76]. In contrast, a study on alternative pulse and oilseed crops to the semi-arid Canadian Prairie showed dried peas having low water use and the highest water use efficiency [35,76].
In the case of South America, one of the obstacles regarding the use of peas is their cultivation. This cultivar is adapted to high altitudes, with optimal growth in temperature ranges between 23 and 27 degrees Celsius [77]. In this sense, Brazil’s subtropical climate is inadequate for cultivating this legume in quantities that meet the total domestic demand, estimated at 40 thousand tons per year, while the country only produces around 4 thousand tons/year [77].
Argentina is the leading supplier of peas in South America, and other countries such as Canada, the United States of America, and New Zealand also contribute to meeting the worldwide demand [77,78]. Thus, the problem lies in the need for imports by non-producing countries which develop vegan pea-based meat analogs, mainly Brazil.
In this sense, despite pea production requiring less water and emitting smaller amounts of carbon equivalents, the need for transportation acts as an obstacle for the use of peas to be considered sustainable in South America, highlighting that in the case of imports coming from the northern hemisphere, the need for fossil fuels is even more present, since instead of land transport, air and sea vehicles are used, which require more fuel per kilometer traveled [79,80,81].
Peas stand out as an interesting alternative in the plant-based meat analog market given their technological characteristics, derived from their starch and protein quantity, which provide desirable sensory characteristics [82]. Furthermore, pea-based products are gaining prominence in the international market as local production allows for cultivation without or with a reduced content of genetically modified products (GMO) [83,84]. Furthermore, peas act as a technological substitute equivalent to soy, which faces obstacles in its commercialization due to its high allergenic potential and controversies related to its cultivation, which is linked to deforestation and the use of pesticides [85].
Some studies have already analyzed the development of pea genotypes and irrigation techniques adapted to hotter climates, highlighting the demand from the plant-based market and the profitability of this legume given its reduced demand for energy resources [86,87]. However, wider publicity and government investment are still needed to ensure that specific pea production is substantial enough to meet domestic demand.

3.3.4. Chickpeas

Chickpeas are a cultivar adapted to places with drier summers, mild winters, and moderate rainfall. Therefore, countries such as India, Australia, and Turkey dominate the production of this legume [88]. In general, chickpeas stand out for having a very low carbon footprint (0.39 kg of carbon equivalents per kg of product produced), being resistant to drought, and requiring similar amounts of water to beans and peas [89,90].
However, their use in plant-based meat analogs is still negligible, with reports of products containing chickpeas only occurring in studies carried out in Spain and Brazil, and still in reduced quantities when compared to other cultivars [31,32].
The use of chickpeas is more pronounced in vegan products when they aim to mimic the sensorial and technological characteristics of eggs, as in the case of meringues and mayonnaise [91]. Chickpea cooking water, known as aquafaba, has solubilized albumins in its composition which, when subjected to beating and incorporation of air, result in a product similar to egg white-based foam, with similar technological application in plant-based products [91,92,93,94].
Studies also demonstrate the application of chickpeas in the form of flour, as their starch and protein content can contribute to sensorial and technological aspects of products developed with them. However, this reality is still distant in the context of plant-based meat analogs [95,96].

3.3.5. Beans

Beans are mostly a Brazilian crop, making the country the third-largest producer in the world [97]. In 2022, the country produced approximately 3 million tons of grain, with around 2.6 million hectares dedicated to bean production [97]. Also, beans are part of Brazilian eating habits, and they are included in the primary daily meals, with a consumption of around 85g/day per capita [98].
In terms of their carbon footprint, beans stand out as more sustainable when compared to other legumes, such as chickpeas and soybeans, emitting up to 30% less carbon when adding up the impact of all its production stages [99]. Furthermore, regarding the use of its water resources, dried beans, the most commercialized form of the legume, have a reduced water footprint, especially in comparison with other typical Brazilian cultivars, such as coffee and orange, standing out as one of the pillars of country’s gross domestic product [45,100,101].
However, within the context of plant-based meat analogs sold worldwide, beans are present only in Brazil, yet beans are the least used protein ingredient in available products, present in only 6% of products available in the country [31]. Furthermore, beans are not considered a commodity; in this sense, producers choose to plant other cultivars with greater commercial value, thus reducing their potential for use and production [102]. It is important to highlight that among the legumes used, in the context of Brazil, beans, together with soy, have the greatest potential for sustainable production [102]. As a low-cost, drought-resistant, nitrogen-fixing, and carbon-sequestering product, this grain would significantly reduce the impact of producing plant-based meat analogs [103].
Featuring around 12% protein in their composition (per 100 g) [104], beans have the potential to provide protein concentrates used in plant-based meats, which today are primarily based on peas and soy. In a study carried out in Brazil, bean protein concentrate demonstrated stability, foaming capacity, and tenacity, desirable technological characteristics within plant-based analogs that are commonly provided by peas or chickpeas [105].
Another point to highlight is the use of broken beans, which today, despite having no commercial value, can be used to produce this same protein concentrate, thus saving resources and making the use of beans more economically viable [105,106].
Beans are definitely a protagonist in Brazilian food culture, being used in preparations such as stews, roasts, or farofas; therefore, one hypothesis is that the Brazilian population would easily accept plant-based meat analogs. In the country, there is an effort on the part of non-governmental organizations to finance research into the best use of beans in the plant-based food industry. However, government support through subsidies is necessary for such a measure to be effective and to have environmental results [102].

4. Limitations of the Study and Further Research Suggestions

Firstly, we would like to highlight that the nature of the narrative reviews presents some limitations as the assumptions and the planning are not often known; the scope is limited by the defined query, search terms, selection criteria, and unknown evaluation biases; and narrative reviews are not reproducible [25]. However, narrative reviews have an important role in continuing education because they provide readers with up-to-date knowledge about a specific topic or theme [107,108]
Despite the best effort to critically and contextually understand the use of resources and sustainability of the inputs used in the production of plant-based meat analogs, it is important to emphasize that a limitation of the study is the lack of a systematic literature search, as in the case of a systematic review. Furthermore, it is important to highlight that given the different sources, locations, and methodologies used to evaluate resource expenditure on the evaluated cultivars, it is not possible to make a quantitative comparison of the resources used. Furthermore, the present study does not allow for the comparison of current information with emerging technologies, such as cultured meat, given the scarcity of studies in the area.
As for future studies, we emphasize the need to develop and incorporate new products using inputs native to the regions where the analogs are marketed, as in the case of Brazil. In this way, the use of resources involved in transporting these ingredients will decrease significantly, thus meeting the proposal for greater sustainability of these products.

5. Conclusions

The market for plant-based meat analogs is growing exponentially based on the justification of lower water consumption and lower emissions of carbon dioxide equivalents. However, from this review, it was possible to verify that in emerging markets, mainly in South America, the need to import plant-based protein ingredients constitutes a major obstacle in developing these analogs.
In this sense, there is a need for investment and subsidies that stimulate the cultivation of local cultivars that can serve as a basis for producing plant-based meat analogs, thus improving the sustainability of these products in emerging markets.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.R. and A.R.; methodology, B.R. and R.P.Z.; software, B.R., M.E.M.d.H. and V.R.P.B.; validation, B.R., A.R. and R.P.Z.; formal analysis, B.R., M.E.M.d.H. and V.R.P.B.; investigation, B.R., R.P.Z. and A.S.; resources, M.S. and A.R.; data curation, M.S. and B.R.; writing—original draft preparation, B.R.; writing—review and editing, B.R., M.S., M.E.M.d.H., V.R.P.B., A.S., A.R. and R.P.Z.; visualization, R.P.Z.; supervision, B.R. and A.R.; project administration, B.R. and A.R.; funding acquisition, A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hirabayashi, Y.; Mahendran, R.; Koirala, S.; Konoshima, L.; Yamazaki, D.; Watanabe, S.; Kim, H.; Kanae, S. Global Flood Risk under Climate Change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 816–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhao, Q.; Yu, P.; Mahendran, R.; Huang, W.; Gao, Y.; Yang, Z.; Ye, T.; Wen, B.; Wu, Y.; Li, S.; et al. Global Climate Change and Human Health: Pathways and Possible Solutions. Eco-Environ. Health 2022, 1, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Romanello, M.; McGushin, A.; Di Napoli, C.; Drummond, P.; Hughes, N.; Jamart, L.; Kennard, H.; Lampard, P.; Solano Rodriguez, B.; Arnell, N.; et al. The 2021 Report of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change: Code Red for a Healthy Future. Lancet 2021, 398, 1619–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Perera, A.T.D.; Nik, V.M.; Chen, D.; Scartezzini, J.L.; Hong, T. Quantifying the Impacts of Climate Change and Extreme Climate Events on Energy Systems. Nat. Energy 2020, 5, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Matthews, H.D.; Zickfeld, K. Climate Response to Zeroed Emissions of Greenhouse Gases and Aerosols. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 2, 338–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang, P.; Wiens, K.; Wang, R.; Luong, L.; Ansara, D.; Gower, S.; Bassil, K.; Hwang, S.W. Cold Weather Conditions and Risk of Hypothermia among People Experiencing Homelessness: Implications for Prevention Strategies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Ebi, K.L.; Capon, A.; Berry, P.; Broderick, C.; de Dear, R.; Havenith, G.; Honda, Y.; Kovats, R.S.; Ma, W.; Malik, A.; et al. Hot Weather and Heat Extremes: Health Risks. Lancet 2021, 398, 698–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Chen, Z.; Zhou, T.; Zhang, L.; Chen, X.; Zhang, W.; Jiang, J. Global Land Monsoon Precipitation Changes in CMIP6 Projections. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2020, 47, e2019GL086902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zeng, J.; Bao, R.; McFarland, M. Clean Energy Substitution: The Effect of Transitioning from Coal to Gas on Air Pollution. Energy Econ. 2022, 107, 105816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Food Agriculture Organization (FAO). Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agrifood Systems Global, Regional and Country Trends, 2000–2020; Food Agriculture Organization (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  11. Crippa, M.; Solazzo, E.; Guizzardi, D.; Monforti-Ferrario, F.; Tubiello, F.N.; Leip, A. Food Systems Are Responsible for a Third of Global Anthropogenic GHG Emissions. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 198–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tubiello, F.N.; Karl, K.; Flammini, A.; Gütschow, J.; Obli-Laryea, G.; Conchedda, G.; Pan, X.; Qi, S.Y.; Halldórudóttir Heiðarsdóttir, H.; Wanner, N.; et al. Pre- and Post-Production Processes Increasingly Dominate Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agri-Food Systems. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2022, 14, 1795–1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hoekstra, A.Y. The Hidden Water Resource Use behind Meat and Dairy. Anim. Front. 2012, 2, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tuomisto, H.L.; Teixeira De Mattos, M.J. Environmental Impacts of Cultured Meat Production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 6117–6123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Tziva, M.; Negro, S.O.; Kalfagianni, A.; Hekkert, M.P. Understanding the Protein Transition: The Rise of Plant-Based Meat Substitutes. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2019, 35, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hargreaves, S.M.; Rosenfeld, D.L.; Moreira, A.V.B.; Zandonadi, R.P. Plant-Based and Vegetarian Diets: An Overview and Definition of These Dietary Patterns. Eur. J. Nutr. 2023, 62, 1109–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Najjar, R.S.; Feresin, R.G. Plant-Based Diets in the Reduction of Body Fat: Physiological Effects and Biochemical Insights. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Aydar, E.F.; Tutuncu, S.; Ozcelik, B. Plant-Based Milk Substitutes: Bioactive Compounds, Conventional and Novel Processes, Bioavailability Studies, and Health Effects. J. Funct. Foods 2020, 70, 103975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Veniranda, V.; Surya, R. Consumer Analysis of Commercial Plant-Based Jerky. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 998, 012059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Romão, B.; Botelho, R.B.A.; Torres, M.L.; Maynard, D.d.C.; de Holanda, M.E.M.; Borges, V.R.P.; Raposo, A.; Zandonadi, R.P. Nutritional Profile of Commercialized Plant-Based Meat: An Integrative Review with a Systematic Approach. Foods 2023, 12, 448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Peters, G.P. Carbon Footprints and Embodied Carbon at Multiple Scales. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2010, 2, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wakeland, W.; Cholette, S.; Venkat, K. Food Transportation Issues and Reducing Carbon Footprint. In Green Technologies in Food Production and Processing; Food Engineering Series; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 211–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. United Nations Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável|As Nações Unidas No Brasil. Available online: https://brasil.un.org/pt-br/sdgs (accessed on 19 December 2022).
  24. Demiris, G.; Oliver, D.P.; Washington, K.T. Defining and Analyzing the Problem. In Behavioral Intervention Research in Hospice and Palliative Care: Building an Evidence Base; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ferrari, R. Writing Narrative Style Literature Reviews. Med. Writ. 2015, 24, 230–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Grand View Research. Plant-Based Meat Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report by Source (Soy, Pea, Wheat), by Product, by Type (Chicken, Pork, Beef, Fish, Others), by End-Use, by Storage, by Region, and Segment Forecasts, 2024–2030; Grand View Research: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  27. Araújo, W.M.C.; Montebello, N.d.P.; Botelho, R.B.A.; Borgo, L.A. Alquimia Dos Alimentos, 2nd ed.; Senac: Brasília, Brazil, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mariseva, A.; Beitane, I. Assessment of Ingredients and Nutritional Value of Vegan Products in Latvian Market. Res. Rural. Dev. 2020, 35, 118–124. [Google Scholar]
  29. Curtain, F.; Grafenauer, S. Plant-Based Meat Substitutes in the Flexitarian Age: An Audit of Products on Supermarket Shelves. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. D’Alessandro, C.; Pezzica, J.; Bolli, C.; Di Nicola, A.; Falai, A.; Giannese, D.; Cupisti, A. Processed Plant-Based Foods for CKD Patients: Good Choice, but Be Aware. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Romão, B.; Botelho, R.B.A.; Nakano, E.Y.; Raposo, A.; Han, H.; Vega-Muñoz, A.; Ariza-Montes, A.; Zandonadi, R.P. Are Vegan Alternatives to Meat Products Healthy? A Study on Nutrients and Main Ingredients of Products Commercialized in Brazil. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Costa-Catala, J.; Toro-Funes, N.; Comas-Basté, O.; Hernández-Macias, S.; Sánchez-Pérez, S.; Latorre-Moratalla, M.L.; Veciana-Nogués, M.T.; Castell-Garralda, V.; Vidal-Carou, M.C. Comparative Assessment of the Nutritional Profile of Meat Products and Their Plant-Based Analogues. Nutrients 2023, 15, 2807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Falkenberg, C.; Trexler, A.; Garaus, C.; Pöchtrager, S. Meat Substitute Markets: A Comparative Analysis of Meat Analogs in Austria. Foods 2023, 12, 2211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Escobar, N.; Tizado, E.J.; zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J.; Löfgren, P.; Börner, J.; Godar, J. Spatially-Explicit Footprints of Agricultural Commodities: Mapping Carbon Emissions Embodied in Brazil’s Soy Exports. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2020, 62, 102067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Chaudhary, A.; Marinangeli, C.P.F.; Tremorin, D.; Mathys, A. Nutritional Combined Greenhouse Gas Life Cycle Analysis for Incorporating Canadian Yellow Pea into Cereal-Based Food Products. Nutrients 2018, 10, 490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. de Sousa Carvalho, V.L.; de Sousa, E.V.; de Oliveira, L.L.; Júnior, U.J.R.; Nagata, K.M.R. Virtual Water and Soy Water Footprint: Increasing Exports in Brazilian Amazon Ports versus Environmental and Water Risks. Res. Soc. Dev. 2023, 12, e15312238189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. do Carmo, H.F.; Madari, B.E.; Wander, A.E.; Moreira, F.R.B.; Gonzaga, A.C.d.O.; da Silveira, P.M.; Silva, A.G.; da Silva, J.G.; de Almeida, P.L.O.M. Balanço Energético e Pegada de Carbono Nos Sistemas de Produção Integrada e Convencional de Feijão-Comum Irrigado. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 2016, 51, 1069–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Barbier, C.; Couturier, C.; Pourouchottamin, P.; Cayla, J.-M.; Silvestre, M.; Pharabod, I. Energy and Carbon Footprint of Food in France from Production to Consumption; Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le Développement: Nogent-sur-Marne, France, 2019; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  39. Browne, D.; O’Regan, B.; Moles, R. Use of Carbon Footprinting to Explore Alternative Household Waste Policy Scenarios in an Irish City-Region. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 54, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bleninger, T.; Kotsuka, L.K. Conceitos de Água Virtual e Pegada Hídrica: Estudo de Caso Da Soja e Óleo de Soja No Brasil. Rev. Recur. Hídricos 2015, 36, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bielski, S.; Marks-Bielska, R.; Wiśniewski, P. Investigation of Energy and Economic Balance and GHG Emissions in the Production of Different Cultivars of Buckwheat (Fagopyrum Esculentum Moench): A Case Study in Northeastern Poland. Energies 2022, 16, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Nategh, N.A.; Banaeian, N.; Gholamshahi, A.; Nosrati, M. Sustainability Assessment and Optimization of Legumes Production Systems: Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emission and Ecological Footprint Analysis. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2021, 36, 576–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Crops The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Crops and Derived Crop Products The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Crops. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 2011, 8, 763–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Heusala, H.; Sinkko, T.; Sözer, N.; Hytönen, E.; Mogensen, L.; Knudsen, M.T. Carbon Footprint and Land Use of Oat and Faba Bean Protein Concentrates Using a Life Cycle Assessment Approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 118376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Beebe, S.E.; Rao, I.M.; Blair, M.W.; Acosta-Gallegos, J.A. Phenotyping Common Beans for Adaptation to Drought. Front. Physiol. 2013, 4, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Lopez, L.I.F.; Bautista-Capetillo, C. Green and Blue Water Footprint Accounting for Dry Beans (Phaseolus Vulgaris) in Primary Region of Mexico. Sustainability 2015, 7, 3001–3016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Drury, C.F.; Yang, X.M.; Reynolds, W.D.; McLaughlin, N.B. Nitrous Oxide and Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Monoculture and Rotational Cropping of Corn, Soybean and Winter Wheat. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2011, 88, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lovarelli, D.; Bacenetti, J.; Fiala, M. Water Footprint of Crop Productions: A Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 548–549, 236–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Pandey, D.; Agrawal, M.; Pandey, J.S. Carbon Footprint: Current Methods of Estimation. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010, 178, 135–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Jia, F.; Peng, S.; Green, J.; Koh, L.; Chen, X. Soybean Supply Chain Management and Sustainability: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 255, 120254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Döll, P.; Siebert, S. Global Modeling of Irrigation Water Requirements. Water Resour. Res. 2002, 38, 8-1–8-10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Augustin, M.A.; Chen, J.; Ye, J. Processing to Improve the Sustainability of Chickpea as a Functional Food Ingredient. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2024, 104, 8397–8413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tukker, A. Life Cycle Assessment as a Tool in Environmental Impact Assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2000, 20, 435–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Finnveden, G.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Ekvall, T.; Guinée, J.; Heijungs, R.; Hellweg, S.; Koehler, A.; Pennington, D.; Suh, S. Recent Developments in Life Cycle Assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 91, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Braun, M.; Muñoz, I.; Schmidt, J.H.; Thrane, M. Sustainability of Soy Protein from Life Cycle Assessment. FASEB J. 2016, 30, 894.5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kazlauskas, M.; Bručienė, I.; Savickas, D.; Naujokienė, V.; Buragienė, S.; Steponavičius, D.; Romaneckas, K.; Šarauskis, E. Life Cycle Assessment of Winter Wheat Production Using Precision and Conventional Seeding Technologies. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Roy, P.; Nei, D.; Orikasa, T.; Xu, Q.; Okadome, H.; Nakamura, N.; Shiina, T. A Review of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) on Some Food Products. J. Food Eng. 2009, 90, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Perrin, A.; Basset-Mens, C.; Gabrielle, B. Life Cycle Assessment of Vegetable Products: A Review Focusing on Cropping Systems Diversity and the Estimation of Field Emissions. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014, 19, 1247–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Voora, V.; Larrea, C.; Bermudez, S. Global Market Report: Soybeans; IISD: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  60. USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) Soybeans|USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. Available online: https://fas.usda.gov/data/production/commodity/2222000 (accessed on 17 March 2024).
  61. Cuiabano, S.M. Principais Fatores Responsáveis Pela Expansão Da Soja No Brasil. Braz. J. Int. Relat. 2020, 8, 460–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lima, M.; da Silva Junior, C.A.; Rausch, L.; Gibbs, H.K.; Johann, J.A. Demystifying Sustainable Soy in Brazil. Land Use Policy 2019, 82, 349–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cavalett, O.; Ortega, E. Emergy, Nutrients Balance, and Economic Assessment of Soybean Production and Industrialization in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 762–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Goldsmith, P.D. Soybean Production and Processing in Brazil. In Soybeans: Chemistry, Production, Processing, and Utilization; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 773–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ortega, E.; Cavalett, O.; Bonifácio, R.; Watanabe, M. Brazilian Soybean Production: Emergy Analysis with an Expanded Scope. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2005, 25, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ercin, A.E.; Aldaya, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The Water Footprint of Soy Milk and Soy Burger and Equivalent Animal Products. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 18, 392–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Li, M.; Zhu, K.-X.; Guo, X.-N.; Brijs, K.; Zhou, H.-M. Natural Additives in Wheat-Based Pasta and Noodle Products: Opportunities for Enhanced Nutritional and Functional Properties. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2014, 13, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Ceresini, P.C.; Castroagudín, V.L.; Rodrigues, F.Á.; Rios, J.A.; Eduardo Aucique-Pérez, C.; Moreira, S.I.; Alves, E.; Croll, D.; Maciel, J.L.N. Wheat Blast: Past, Present, and Future. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2018, 56, 427–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Australia Foreign Agricultural Service Global Market Analysis; International Production Assessment Division. Australia Wheat Production Second Highest on Record. Commodity Intelligence Report. 2022. Available online: https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/highlights/2022/10/Australia/index.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2024).
  70. Magrin, G.O.; Travasso, M.I.; Rodriguez, G.R.; Solman, S.; Nuñez, M. Climate Change and Wheat Production in Argentina. Int. J. Glob. Warm. 2009, 1, 214–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Veeck, G.P.; Dalmago, G.A.; Bremm, T.; Buligon, L.; Jacques, R.J.S.; Fernandes, J.M.; Santi, A.; Vargas, P.R.; Roberti, D.R. CO2 Flux in a Wheat-Soybean Succession in Subtropical Brazil: A Carbon Sink. J. Environ. Qual. 2022, 51, 899–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Fioreze, S.L.; Drun, R.P.; Wuaden, A.F.; Mazzuco, V.; de Oliveira, J.C. Source-Sink Relationships of Wheat Plants Obtained by the Application of Systemic Herbicides. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 2021, 56, e01600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ortolan, F.; Steel, C.J. Protein Characteristics That Affect the Quality of Vital Wheat Gluten to Be Used in Baking: A Review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2017, 16, 369–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Siddique, K.H.M.; Johansen, C.; Turner, N.C.; Jeuffroy, M.H.; Hashem, A.; Sakar, D.; Gan, Y.; Alghamdi, S.S. Innovations in Agronomy for Food Legumes. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 32, 45–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nette, A.; Wolf, P.; Schlüter, O.; Meyer-Aurich, A. A Comparison of Carbon Footprint and Production Cost of Different Pasta Products Based on Whole Egg and Pea Flour. Foods 2016, 5, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kahramanoğlu, İ.; Usanmaz, S.; Alas, T. Water Footprint and Irrigation Use Efficiency of Important Crops in Northern Cyprus from an Environmental, Economic and Dietary Perspective. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 27, 134–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. CNA/SENAR Ervilha: Cultivo e Comercialização. Available online: https://cnabrasil.org.br/cna-pulses/page4.html (accessed on 18 January 2024).
  78. de Lima Tartaglia, F.; Lúcio, A.D.C.; Diel, M.I.; Tischler, A.L.; Krysczun, D.K.; Zemolin, J.A.; Marques, L.E. Experimental Plan for Tests with Pea. Agron. J. 2021, 113, 1394–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ariffin, N.I.B.; Hannan, M.A. Wingsail Technology as a Sustainable Alternative to Fossil Fuel. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 788, 012062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Püschl, W. High-Speed Sailing. Eur. J. Phys. 2018, 39, 044002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Abas, N.; Kalair, A.; Khan, N. Review of Fossil Fuels and Future Energy Technologies. Futures 2015, 69, 31–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lam, A.C.Y.; Can Karaca, A.; Tyler, R.T.; Nickerson, M.T. Pea Protein Isolates: Structure, Extraction, and Functionality. Food Rev. Int. 2018, 34, 126–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Maningat, C.C.; Jeradechachai, T.; Buttshaw, M.R. Textured Wheat and Pea Proteins for Meat Alternative Applications. Cereal Chem. 2022, 99, 37–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Saget, S.; Costa, M.; Santos, C.S.; Vasconcelos, M.W.; Gibbons, J.; Styles, D.; Williams, M. Substitution of Beef with Pea Protein Reduces the Environmental Footprint of Meat Balls Whilst Supporting Health and Climate Stabilisation Goals. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Messina, M.; Messina, V.L. Exploring the Soyfood Controversy. Nutr. Today 2013, 48, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ferraz, L.C.C.B.; Araújo, A.C.M.; Rossi, C.E. Preliminary Evaluation of Meloidogyne Incognita Race 3 Reproduction on Garden Pea Cultivars in Brazil. Semin. Cienc. Agrar. 2000, 21, 97. [Google Scholar]
  87. Oliveira, E.C.; Carvalho, J.d.A.; Rezende, F.C.; de Freitas, W.A. Viabilidade Técnica e Econômica Da Produção de Ervilha (Pisum sativum L.) Cultivada Sob Diferentes Lâminas de Irrigação. Eng. Agrícola 2011, 31, 324–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Çelik, Ş. Modelling and Estimation of Chickpea Production in Turkey Using Artificial Neural Networks and Time Series Analysis. J. Eng. Sci. 2020, 10, 2319–6483. [Google Scholar]
  89. Merga, B.; Haji, J. Economic Importance of Chickpea: Production, Value, and World Trade. Cogent Food Agric. 2019, 5, 1615718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Güngörmüşler, M.; Başınhan, İ.; Üçtuğ, F.G. Optimum Formulation Determination and Carbon Footprint Analysis of a Novel Gluten-Free Pasta Recipe Using Buckwheat, Teff, and Chickpea Flours. J. Food Process Preserv. 2020, 44, e14701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Shim, Y.Y.; Mustafa, R.; Shen, J.; Ratanapariyanuch, K.; Reaney, M.J.T. Composition and Properties of Aquafaba: Water Recovered from Commercially Canned Chickpeas. J. Vis. Exp. 2018, 2018, e56305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Aslan, M.; Ertas, N. Possibility of Using “chickpea Aquafaba” as Egg Replacer in Traditional Cake Formulation. Harran Tarım Ve Gıda Bilim. Derg. 2020, 24, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. He, Y.; Shim, Y.Y.; Mustafa, R.; Meda, V.; Reaney, M.J.T. Chickpea Cultivar Selection to Produce Aquafaba with Superior Emulsion Properties. Foods 2019, 8, 685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Buhl, T.F.; Christensen, C.H.; Hammershøj, M. Aquafaba as an Egg White Substitute in Food Foams and Emulsions: Protein Composition and Functional Behavior. Food Hydrocoll. 2019, 96, 354–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Alvarez, M.D.; Herranz, B.; Fuentes, R.; Cuesta, F.J.; Canet, W. Replacement of Wheat Flour by Chickpea Flour in Muffin Batter: Effect on Rheological Properties. J. Food Process Eng. 2017, 40, e12372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Gómez, M.; Oliete, B.; Rosell, C.M.; Pando, V.; Fernández, E. Studies on Cake Quality Made of Wheat-Chickpea Flour Blends. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2008, 41, 1701–1709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística Produção de Feijão No Brasil|IBGE. Available online: https://www.ibge.gov.br/explica/producao-agropecuaria/feijao/br (accessed on 20 January 2024).
  98. Brazil Ministério da Saúde. Vigilância de Fatores de Risco e Proteção Para Doenças Por Inquérito Telefônico—VIGITEL; Centrais de Conteúdo: Brasília, Brazil, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  99. Uebersax, M.A.; Cichy, K.A.; Gomez, F.E.; Porch, T.G.; Heitholt, J.; Osorno, J.M.; Kamfwa, K.; Snapp, S.S.; Bales, S. Dry Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) as a Vital Component of Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security—A Review. Legume Sci. 2023, 5, e155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Arrieta, E.M.; González, A.D. Energy and Carbon Footprints of Food: Investigating the Effect of Cooking. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 19, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Coltro, L.; Mourad, A.L.; Kletecke, R.M.; Mendonça, T.A.; Germer, S.P.M. Assessing the Environmental Profile of Orange Production in Brazil. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2009, 14, 656–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Good Food Institute Muito Além Da Soja e Da Ervilha: O Potencial Do Feijão Para a Indústria de Proteínas Alternativas Vegetais e Para o Brasil—GFI Brasil. Available online: https://gfi.org.br/muito-alem-da-soja-e-da-ervilha-o-potencial-do-feijao-para-a-industria-de-proteinas-alternativas-vegetais-e-para-o-brasil/ (accessed on 20 January 2024).
  103. Ramos-Diaz, J.M.; Kantanen, K.; Edelmann, J.M.; Jouppila, K.; Sontag-Strohm, T.; Piironen, V. Functionality of Oat Fiber Concentrate and Faba Bean Protein Concentrate in Plant-Based Substitutes for Minced Meat. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2022, 5, 858–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Nepa. Tabela Brasileira de Composição de Alimentos: TACO; Núcleo de Estudos e Pesquisas em alimentação, Ed.; Unicamp: Campinas, Brazil, 2011; Volume 4, p. 161. [Google Scholar]
  105. de Paiva Gouvêa, L.; Caldeira, R.; de Lima Azevedo, T.; Galdeano, M.C.; Felberg, I.; Lima, J.R.; Grassi Mellinger, C. Physical and Techno-Functional Properties of a Common Bean Protein Concentrate Compared to Commercial Legume Ingredients for the Plant-Based Market. Food Hydrocoll. 2023, 137, 108351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. De Angelis, D.; Latrofa, V.; Caponio, F.; Pasqualone, A.; Summo, C. Techno-Functional Properties of Dry-Fractionated Plant-Based Proteins and Application in Food Product Development: A Review. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2023, 104, 1884–1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Rother, E.T. Revisão Sistemática X Revisão Narrativa. Acta Paul. Enferm. 2007, 20, v–vi. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Green, B.N.; Johnson, C.D.; Adams, A. Writing Narrative Literature Reviews for Peer-Reviewed Journals: Secrets of the Trade. J. Chiropr. Med. 2006, 5, 101–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 17 00382 g001
Figure 1. Carbon emissions and water usage of different crops utilized as a protein source for plant-based meat analogs at different stages of production [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44].
Figure 1. Carbon emissions and water usage of different crops utilized as a protein source for plant-based meat analogs at different stages of production [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44].
Sustainability 17 00382 g001
Table 1. Commercial plant-based analogs available worldwide and their primary protein sources and forms of presentation.
Table 1. Commercial plant-based analogs available worldwide and their primary protein sources and forms of presentation.
ReferenceCountryProduced Plant-Based AnalogMain Protein SourcesProtein Source Forms of Presentation
Mariseva et al. (2020) [28]LatviaVarious meat analogs without discriminationSoy,Soy protein, isolated soy protein, soy flour
Wheat,Flour, gluten
Non-specified, Pulses,NA *
Oats.Rolled flakes, flour
Curtain et al. (2019) [29]AustraliaBurgers, sausages, minced meat, chicken, cutlets and seafoodSoy,Soy protein, isolated soy protein, soy flour, textured vegetable protein (TVP)
Pea,Pea protein, pea isolated protein
Mycoprotein.Isolated mycoprotein
D’Alessandro et al. (2022) [30]ItalyBurgers, cold cuts, cutlets and meatballsSoy,Soy protein, isolated soy protein, soy flour
Oats,Whole flakes
Buckwheat.Flour
Romão et al. (2022) [31]BrazilBurgers, minced meat, chicken nuggets, chicken cutlets, seafood, sausages and cold cutsSoy,Soy protein, isolated soy protein, soy flour, textured vegetable protein (TVP)
Wheat,Flour, gluten
Pea,Pea protein, pea isolated protein
Beans,Whole grains, flour
Chickpeas.Whole grains, flour
Costa-Catala et al. (2023) [32]SpainBurgers, sausages, meatballs and chicken nuggetsSoy,Soy protein, isolated soy protein, soy flour, textured vegetable protein (TVP)
Peas,Pea protein, pea isolated protein
Chickpeas,Whole grains, flour
Lentils.Whole grains
Falkenberg et al. (2023) [33]Austria and AustraliaMinced meat and sausagesPeas,Pea protein, pea isolated protein
Soy,Soy protein, isolated soy protein, soy flour, textured vegetable protein (TVP)
Wheat,Gluten
Lentils,Whole grains
Sunflower Protein.Isolated sunflower protein
* Information not available.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Romão, B.; Sommo, M.; Zandonadi, R.P.; de Holanda, M.E.M.; Borges, V.R.P.; Saraiva, A.; Raposo, A. Sustainability of Key Proteins in Plant-Based Meat Analogs Production: A Worldwide Perspective. Sustainability 2025, 17, 382. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020382

AMA Style

Romão B, Sommo M, Zandonadi RP, de Holanda MEM, Borges VRP, Saraiva A, Raposo A. Sustainability of Key Proteins in Plant-Based Meat Analogs Production: A Worldwide Perspective. Sustainability. 2025; 17(2):382. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020382

Chicago/Turabian Style

Romão, Bernardo, Maximiliano Sommo, Renata Puppin Zandonadi, Maria Eduarda Machado de Holanda, Vinicius Ruela Pereira Borges, Ariana Saraiva, and António Raposo. 2025. "Sustainability of Key Proteins in Plant-Based Meat Analogs Production: A Worldwide Perspective" Sustainability 17, no. 2: 382. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020382

APA Style

Romão, B., Sommo, M., Zandonadi, R. P., de Holanda, M. E. M., Borges, V. R. P., Saraiva, A., & Raposo, A. (2025). Sustainability of Key Proteins in Plant-Based Meat Analogs Production: A Worldwide Perspective. Sustainability, 17(2), 382. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020382

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop