Meat Substitutes, or Plant-Based Meat Alternatives (PBMAs), as an Opportunity for Sustainable Food Production

Abstract

While many consumers regard meat as an important part of the diet, thanks to its complete protein and nutrient content and its sensory qualities, others choose to forego it for various reasons and replace it with plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs). The aim of this review is to synthesise the current state of knowledge on PBMAs, particularly with regard to their impact on health and the environment and their ability to meet consumer nutritional and sensory expectations. This holistic overview also aims to identify critical interdisciplinary research gaps often overlooked in segmented reviews. The literature used in the study was identified by a search of PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Scopus databases using defined keywords. Given the growth in population and demand for meat, PBMAs can make a significant contribution to sustainable food production, provided that they can meet three key criteria: appearance, nutritional value and consumer safety. However, while PBMAs can represent a valuable source of essential amino acids, their overall nutritional value varies with regard to product type and protein source; furthermore, relatively little is known of the effect of the additives and production methods on consumer health. Plant-based meat alternatives can effectively support human health and environmental sustainability, but further research is needed on their safety and quality.

1. Introduction

Meat is regarded as one of the most important components of the human diet. While it is a valuable source of complete protein and nutrients, it is also valued for its taste, smell and texture. Nevertheless, many choose to eliminate meat from their diet and replace it with alternative sources of protein. One of the most popular reasons for favouring plant-based protein is to address concerns related to lifestyle diseases [1,2]. Indeed, consuming fatty meat has been associated with overweight and obesity and thus a greater risk of diabetes (type 2) and cancer. Beef, pork, poultry (particularly duck and goose), horse meat and mutton also contain saturated fatty acids (SFAs), which have been implicated in various conditions, such as cardiovascular disease and colon cancer; the sale of such meat has also been associated with zoonotic infections [2,3,4]. Furthermore, the environmental effects of livestock farming may also dissuade consumers from meat consumption. Large-scale animal production entails considerable greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and water consumption; in addition, the conversion of land to animal feed production also results in considerable loss of biodiversity. Others may choose a plant-based diet due to ethical considerations and concern regarding animal welfare and livestock treatment [2,5,6,7].

Consumers who decide to eliminate meat can benefit from a more balanced diet, with meat protein being replaced with alternative sources of protein such as beans or seaweed, or by insects, or by including plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) in the diet [8]. A more comprehensive list of commercially available meat alternatives is given in a report for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) [9]. The report divides the products into four categories: PBMAs, insects, cultured meat and microorganisms. Plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) include processed and unprocessed products. The processed PBMAs include traditional types, such as tofu and tempeh, and newer-generation ones such as nuggets and plant-based sausages, while the unprocessed products include nuts and vegetables. The insects can be used as both edible insects or as insect powder or flour. Cultured, or in vitro, meat is produced in laboratory conditions from animal cells; however, due to its novelty, cultured meat still lacks clearly defined production methods, is less readily available to consumers, and has few producers [2,10,11,12]. Finally, protein derived from microorganisms includes fungi, algae and seaweed, which can also be used as meat alternatives (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Alternatives to meat and protein sources, based on Frezal et al. [9].

In the face of growing consumer concerns regarding the effects of meat and its production on human health and the environment, the food market includes increasing numbers of more sustainable plant-based meat substitutes [13,14]. Among these, the most widespread and easily accessible meat substitutes available to consumers are PBMAs [15], which will serve as the focus of the present article.

Meat substitutes can be defined as products that resemble meat in appearance or structure but will differ in their nutrient content [16,17]. Plant-based meat alternatives, also known as meat analogues, are plant products that can imitate the taste, smell, texture and appearance of meat thanks to advances in food technology. However, it should be noted that their nutritional value does not always fully correspond to that of animal meat; some products are enriched to partially reproduce the content of protein, essential amino acids and micronutrients such as iron and vitamin B12. Such products are referred to as inter alia plant-based meat, vegetarian meat, meat substitute, imitation meat, and synthetic meat [16,17,18,19].

Plant-based meat substitutes have long been available on the food market, with these being known as “first-generation” PBMAs or PBMA 1.0 products [19,20,21]. Initially, their role was to replace traditional meat by replicating its appearance, texture, taste and nutritional value, rather than serving as a protein alternative [2,20]. The first-generation PBMAs include soya protein-based products such as tofu, tempeh and edamame beans. While they represent common alternatives to animal protein, these products cannot replace the structure, taste or smell of meat [17,20,22].

In turn, “second-generation” PBMAs or PBMA 2.0 products are based on textured vegetable protein (TVP). These typically undergo various forms of processing to better resemble meat [19,20,21,22] (Figure 1). Indeed, PBMAs that are designed to imitate the appearance and taste of meat are often highly processed; they can also be based on a range of plant proteins, with the most common being legume proteins such as soybeans or cereals [19,23,24,25].

It should be noted that, in addition to PBMAs, which undergo various degrees of processing to resemble meat [26], a considerable range of unprocessed or minimally processed plant-based products are also available to the consumer. Cereals, legumes, vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds also constitute good sources of protein and can be used to supplement the diet [27] (Figure 1).

Recent years have seen a growth in the demand for PBMAs [5], which has been accompanied by a proportional increase in the range of meat-like products on the market [28]. Ideally, these products should be sustainable and inexpensive and contain all the necessary minerals and proteins present in meat [29]. Despite this, the adoption of a plant-based diet remains not universally popular, which may be due to a reluctance to give up meat or a lack of knowledge about plant-based substitutes. Consumers may also be distrustful of new solutions, approach them with caution, or have concerns about their impact on health. Nevertheless, to address widespread concerns regarding the effect of meat consumption on consumer health and the state of the environment, there is a clear need for meat alternatives, such as plant-based protein substitutes, that can be used to reduce the share of animal products in the diet [30,31].

The aim of the work is to present the current state of knowledge regarding the topic of PBMAs and its influence on consumer health and the environment. The study also evaluates the extent to which PBMA consumption may satisfy the need for nutritional elements, including protein, in the consumer and fulfil their expectations regarding meat alternatives.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

The study was carried out as a systematic literature review in accordance with PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines [32]. The review process itself was based on a structured methodological framework for systematic reviews according to Grant and Booth [33] and Torraco [34]. It comprises (1) identification of the literature, (2) screening, (3) eligibility assessment, (4) quality evaluation and (5) synthesis of results. This framework ensures the transparent and repeatable selection, evaluation and analysis of relevant publications (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The process by which publications were identified and selected for the literature review.

2.2. Search Strategy

Systematic searches were performed of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar databases based on the following combinations of keywords: plant-based meat alternatives, PBMAs, plant proteins, meat substitutes, sustainability, greenhouse gas emissions, environmental impact, food technology, plant-based diet, climate change, cultivated meat, protein sources, nutritional value, and consumer acceptance. The final corpus for review included scientific articles, experimental studies, reviews, reports from international organisations (FAO, OECD, WHO, IPCC) and book publications.

2.3. Inclusion Criteria

The following inclusion criteria were adopted:

–

Publications concerning plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) or other substitutes for animal products;

–

Work containing data on nutritional value, production technology, chemical composition or the impact of PBMAs on health;

–

Including research findings on the environmental impact of PBMA production (greenhouse gas emissions, water, energy and land use);

–

Work including comparative studies between plant-based and animal-based products.

–

Reputable scientific journals and reports from international institutions were preferred.

2.4. Exclusion Criteria

The following publications were excluded:

–

Those with an inappropriate topic or scope, e.g., articles partially related to plant proteins but not concerning PBMAs or meat alternatives;

–

Those lacking original data—e.g., reviews without new results or meta-analyses;

–

Those without full access to abstracts—some articles were either unavailable or required a subscription, and therefore could not be evaluated;

–

Those with low methodological quality or which were irrelevant to the purpose of the review, e.g., articles with poor methodology or very limited substantive value regarding the topic.

2.5. Study Selection

The initial search across all databases returned 1820 results. A multi-stage selection process was then carried out to identify the most relevant publications. In the first stage, duplicates were removed, resulting in the exclusion of 273 publications. The remaining 1547 publications were then evaluated to confirm their agreement with the topic of the study, viz. PBMAs and their related technological, health, environmental and socio-economic aspects. Following an evaluation of the titles and abstracts, 928 articles that did not fit the topic were rejected. Despite the broad set of search terms, many identified publications were only marginally related to PBMAs or plant proteins in general and did not make any reference to production technology, nutritional value, health impact, or environmental impact. As such, a relatively high number of articles were excluded at this stage, which is typical for systematic reviews covering broad keyword combinations. The review was thus narrowed down to 619 publications; these were further verified for full-text availability and quality assessment, resulting in the exclusion of 62 articles. The remaining 557 publications were subjected to a substantive and qualitative assessment based on the content of quantitative data, scientific value and relevance to the research topic, based on which 428 publications were excluded. Thus, 129 publications were left for detailed analysis, which formed the basis of this study (Table 1).

Table 1. The selection process for the publications included in this review of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs).

Selection Stage	Excluded/Reason	Number of Publications	Detailed Commentary
Initial search	All identified articles included	1820	In this stage, all potentially relevant publications from selected databases were identified using a broad set of keywords covering plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) and related technological, health, environmental, and socioeconomic aspects. No selection or quality assessment was performed at this stage.
Duplicate removal	273 duplicates excluded	1547	Any duplicate records arising from the search were eliminated to avoid repetition in the later analysis.
Title and abstract selection	928 irrelevant publications excluded	619	The publications were verified for relevance to the review topic, i.e., plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) and related technological, health, environmental and socio-economic aspects. Despite the broad set of keywords, many results were only marginally related to PBMAs or plant proteins in general and included no references to production technology, nutritional value, health or environmental impact. A relatively large number of publications were excluded due to the broad range of keywords used.
Full-text verification	62 articles lacking full text excluded	557	The availability of the full text of each publication was confirmed to allow reliable substantive, qualitative and methodological assessment. Articles that were not available in full text were excluded.
Merit-based and qualitative assessment	313 publications excluded due to a lack of quantitative data, limited scientific value, or low relevance to the topic	244	The scientific and substantive quality of the publications was assessed. Articles lacking quantitative data (e.g., commentaries, opinions, low-quality review publications) with limited scientific value or which were marginally relevant to the main objective of the review were excluded.
For analysis in the article	115 publications excluded in the final selection	129	In this stage, the final selection of publications was made. Any previously qualified works that proved to be insufficiently relevant in terms of scope, data or quality were excluded from the final analysis.

2.6. Data Analysis

The included publications cover the years 2000–2024. Of these, nearly 58% were published in 2020–2024, 35% in 2010–2019 and 7% in 2000–2009.

The selected publications were subjected to detailed content analysis and grouped into five main thematic areas: characteristics of PBMAs (definition, product types, raw material composition, protein sources); health impact (nutritional value, allergens, safety of consumption); environmental impact of PBMA production compared to conventional meat (greenhouse gas emissions, water and energy consumption, crop area); production technologies (extrusion, electrospinning, protein structuring); and economic and social aspects (production costs, consumer acceptance, market trends, barriers to implementation). This fivefold grouping not only enables a clear synthetic presentation of the current state of knowledge but, critically, facilitates the effective identification of novel research gaps by providing a complex, integrated assessment of the technological, health, environmental, and socio-economic aspects of PBMAs.

3. The Effect of Animal Husbandry on the Environment

Current livestock farming approaches are less environmentally sustainable than crop production and place a greater burden on the natural environment, particularly with regard to water consumption and greenhouse gas production [2,22,35,36]. In addition, the deforestation associated with the expansion of agriculture is a significant driver of climate change and forest loss [36].

A considerable proportion of the earth’s land mass (30%) is currently used for livestock production, comprising approximately 70% of all agricultural land [37]. Within this, 33% is for feed and 26% for grazing. However, other estimates suggest that only 50% of agricultural land, or 20% of total land area, is used for animal production [38]. These discrepancies likely stem from variations in data updates and research methodologies, warranting careful interpretation.

Population growth and the increasing production of animal-based foods are also increasing the demand for water and putting pressure on freshwater resources: agriculture, the largest anthropogenic consumer of water, is highly dependent on water for crop irrigation, livestock farming and aquaculture [39]. According to an FAO report [40], agricultural activities account for 69% of global freshwater demand, with as much as 41% of this value being used for the production of livestock feed, corresponding to 4 387 km³ of water each year [41].

Alongside fossil fuel production and industry, agriculture is a major contributor to climate change through its emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs). According to the FAO [40], the most commonly cited greenhouse gases associated with human activity are carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O). Methane emissions are particularly driven by fossil fuel use, intestinal fermentation and ruminant digestion, and nitrous oxide by the storage and management of livestock manure. The high global GHG emissions associated with animal husbandry are attributed to feed production and the associated change in land use; GHG production is further exacerbated by fossil fuel use during the transport and processing of animal products [40] (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Contribution of individual GHG emissions in animal husbandry, based on FAO [40].

Animal husbandry accounts for 14.5% of global emissions, with two-thirds of this comprising methane emissions generated by cattle during rumen fermentation [40,42]; however, Twine [43] proposes adjusting this share to 16.5%. Food production accounts for 26% of global GHG emissions, of which animal-based foods represent 57% and plant-based foods represent 29%; more specifically, the highest GHG emissions are associated with beef production, followed by rice cultivation, and then pork, poultry, mutton and dairy products [44,45].

The emission of different types of greenhouse gas, with different warming potentials, can be quantified in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂eq), and it has been proposed that more accurate GHG data can be obtained when calculated per kilogram of product produced [44]. The most intensive source of GHG is beef production, where the production of 1 kg of beef entails the emission of 99.48 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂eq). In turn, lamb and mutton production results in the emission of 39.72 kg CO₂eq, pork (12.31 kg) and poultry (9.87 kg). By comparison, the production of 1 kg of rice, corn or wheat and rye results in the respective emission of 4.45 kg CO₂eq, 1.7 kg CO₂eq and 1.57 kg CO₂eq.

These findings correspond with those of Smetana et al. [46], who report that the production of beef cutlets contributes to higher GHG emissions and acidification of the aquatic environment compared to soya or pea protein-based cutlets. Similar results were obtained by Saerens et al. [47], who found that meat burger patties have a greater impact on the environment than plant-based patties.

Hence, given the considerable environmental impact of meat and animal-based food production, particularly with regard to GHG emissions, water demand and agricultural land use, there is considerable interest in reducing animal production and meat consumption.

4. Meat Consumption and PBMAs

Recent years have seen a steady increase in the global consumption of meat products [6,48,49,50], with a smaller market share taken by alternative proteins [51]. In 2020, global meat consumption amounted to 325 million tonnes, an average of 33.7 kg per person; by 2030, due to continued population growth, urbanisation and economic development, as well as increased prosperity and improved living standards, this value is expected to increase by 14% [49]. In response to this growing demand for meat and meat products, farming practices are becoming less sustainable, with greater productivity coming at the expense of increased environmental impact and worse animal and consumer welfare. Furthermore, global consumption of poultry, pork, beef and mutton is predicted to increase by 15%, 11%, 10% and 15%, respectively, with poultry meat accounting for 41% of the protein consumed from meat products [52], and global consumption of ruminant meat is expected to increase by 88% and dairy products by 67% between 2010 and 2050 [53].

In contrast, meat consumption in EU countries is predicted to slightly decrease from 68.7 kg per person in 2019 to 67.6 kg in 2030, primarily driven by reductions in beef and pork. As illustrated in Figure 4, poultry consumption, however, is expected to continue rising, maintaining levels similar to other regions [54].

Figure 4. Meat consumption trends in EU countries, based on EC 2020 [54].

United Nations estimates predict the global population will reach 8.5 billion by 2030, 9.7 billion by 2050 and 10.4 billion by 2080, remaining at this level until 2100 [55]. This rapid population growth, together with greater prosperity, is also increasing demand for meat [56]; this in turn places increasing pressure on animal production and forces the development of alternative technologies, such as meat analogues and in vitro meat.

While remaining at a modest level compared to meat, the market for PBMAs has been growing rapidly in recent years. In 2018, its value ranged from USD 4.6 to 10 billion globally [6,57], and in 2021, it was estimated at USD 5–16 billion depending on the source [9,58,59,60]. During the same period, the European PBMA market was estimated at EUR 1.5 billion [61], with estimates of USD 2.6 billion in Western Europe and USD 192 million in Eastern Europe [9,62]. Forecasts indicate continued rapid growth: the global market could reach USD 85 billion by 2030, representing an almost 20-fold increase compared to 2018 [6].

However, the replacement of animal production by plant cultivation may be hampered by the growing demand for meat and animal products, fuelled by population growth. For the sake of comparison, the meat products market in 2023 was valued at nearly USD 1.7 trillion, and it is expected to reach USD 2.6 trillion by 2033 [9]. Currently, the meat for analogues accounts for only 1–2% of the red meat market [63].

5. The Effect of Quality and Mode of Nutrition on Health

In addition to environmental concerns and ethical issues regarding the mistreatment of livestock [2,17,64], meat consumption is also associated with health concerns regarding lifestyle disease. Plant-based alternatives are regarded as more beneficial for health as they are generally low in saturated fatty acids, rich in essential amino acids and free of cholesterol [65].

Many consumers enjoy the taste of meat and would like to remain on a meat-based diet for its nutritional value [66,67]. However, consumer interest in plant-based alternatives caution is growing; this can be attributed in part to concerns regarding high levels of meat consumption and the expanding range of available meat substitutes. There is a growing belief that plant-based sausages, meatballs, burgers and dairy products made from legumes, vegetables and cereals offer greater health benefits, have less impact on the environment, and are more in line with animal welfare [68].

Therefore, a wide selection of plant-based diets has become available for consumers who would like to eliminate meat from their diet or reduce its consumption. Those who choose to follow a plant-based diet can be classified as vegans, i.e., those who do not consume any animal products at all; lacto-vegetarians, who allow milk and dairy products in their diet; and pesco-vegetarians, who allow fish. Flexitarians, on the other hand, occasionally consume meat and animal products [17,27,66].

While a diet based on PBMAs has been associated with a lower risk of chronic disease [69], there are concerns that a diet based exclusively on plant protein may lack essential nutrients, primarily calcium, iron and vitamin B12 [70]. Indeed, despite being a source of cholesterol and saturated fatty acids, frying, grilling and smoking meat produce harmful substances, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or heterocyclic aromatic amines [71]. Meat is also an important source of nutritional elements. Meat is a source of complete protein, minerals and essential vitamins, mainly B vitamins, but also vitamins A, D and K2 [72,73,74]. Meat is also a valuable source of calcium, magnesium, zinc and iron, whose deficiencies can result in anaemia, in the case of Fe, or impaired protein synthesis, in the case of Zn [75,76]. In addition, meat contains a number of bioactive ingredients, including taurine, creatine and carnosine, together with conjugated linoleic acid, carnitine, choline, ubiquinone and glutathione [73]. Hence, there are concerns that while PBMAs resemble animal products, they may lack the nutritional value of meat; in addition, they can have lower protein content and are often highly processed [77,78].

5.1. Protein and Amino Acids in Diets Based on Meat and PBMAs

Protein is a key nutrient in food. It is essential for the proper functioning of the body, where it serves as the building block of tissues, enzymes, hormones and antibodies. Proteins themselves consist of various endogenous amino acids, i.e., those synthesised in the body in sufficient quantities, and exogenous acids, which must be taken in with food.

Animal products typically contain “complete proteins”, i.e., ones that include all essential amino acids. These constitute the primary source of protein in a meat-based diet. Plant-based diets, however, run the risk of deficiency for certain essential amino acids, particularly lysine, methionine and tryptophan, which may reduce the nutritional value of the entire menu. In addition, the protein in PBMAs is often less digestible and its amino acid components less bioavailable. However, both issues have been addressed to varying extents by new processing technologies [17,79,80,81]. Although a plant-based diet can provide most of the nutrients needed for a healthy balanced diet, it is crucial that various protein sources are combined appropriately to supplement missing amino acids and maintain a complete protein profile [69,70,82].

Comparative studies have found plant-based burgers to have similar or slightly lower protein content than meat-based burgers, albeit with some variation depending on the type of product and protein source [83,84,85,86] (Table 2).

Table 2. Comparison of protein, fat, cholesterol and carbohydrate content in meat products and plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs).

Type of PBMA Product		Protein Source	Protein Content (g/100 g)	Total Fats (g/100 g)	Saturated Fats (g/100 g)	Cholesterol (mg/100 g)	Carbohydrate Content (g/100 g)	Source
Burgers	Plant-based Animal	legumes/vegetables/cereals meats	12.0 p < 0.05 17.0	10.6 - 11.0	1.3 p < 0.05 4.5	- - -	14.0 p < 0.05 1.4	[83]
Meatballs	Plant-based Animal	legumes/vegetables/cereals meats	12.6 p < 0.05 16.4	10.8 - 9.2	1.5 p < 0.05 3.5	- - -	13.8 p < 0.05 4.0	[83]
Steaks	Plant-based Animal Animal	legumes/vegetables/cereals red meat white meat	17.6 - 21.1 23.3	6.5 - 5.7 1.9	1.0 p < 0.05 1.9 0.6	- - - -	3.4 p < 0.05 0 0	[83]
Cutlets	Plant-based Animal	legumes/vegetables/cereals -	12.8 - 13.5	10.3 p < 0.05 11.0	1.3 p < 0.05 1.7	- - -	20.4 p < 0.05 17.0	[83]
Cold cuts	Plant-based Animal	legumes/ cereals meats	26.1 - 23.1	8.3 p < 0.05 26	1.2 - 8.3	- - -	5.9 p < 0.050	[83]
Burgers	Plant-based Animal	legumes/vegetables/cereals meats	lower p < 0.05 higher	lower p < 0.05 higher	lower p < 0.05 higher	- - -	higher p < 0.05 lower	[84]
Sausages	Plant-based Animal	legumes/cereals meats	higher p < 0.05 lower	lower - higher	lower p < 0.05 higher	- - -	lower p < 0.05 higher	[84]
Meatballs	Plant-based Animal	legumes/vegetables/cereals meats	higher - lower	lower - higher	lower p < 0.05 higher	- - -	higher p < 0.05 lower	[84]
Burgers	Plant-based Animal	unspecified beef	25.0 28.0	34.0 40.0	11.0 12.0	10.0 90.0	58.0 49.0	[85]
Meatballs	Plant-based	soya	14.8	8.4	0.51	-	0.3	[87]
Sausages	Plant-based	pea/soya	12–16 *	10–13	0.61–6.0	-	7.2–8.4
Cold cuts	Plant-based	wheat	31.1	4.6	0.52	-	17.5
	Plant-based	pea/soya	7.5	11	0.63	-	7.1
	Animal	egg white	8	14.2	0.8	-	4.6

Note: * The ranges are based on various studies for products in the same category, reflecting the variability of PBMAs with regard to manufacturer and protein source; Significance levels (p < 0.05) indicate statistical difference compared to meat counterparts; “-“ indicates data not available.

Cutroneo et al. [83] compared the nutritional values of PBMAs (steaks, burgers, meatballs and cutlets) given on the packaging with those of their meat counterparts. The highest protein content was noted in plant-based cold cuts. Among the plant-based products, only the burgers and meatballs demonstrated significantly lower (p < 0.05) protein content than their meat counterparts. Similarly, a Spanish study by Costa-Catala et al. [84] found plant-based burgers to have significantly lower protein content than meat burgers (p < 0.05), while the plant-based sausages had higher (p < 0.05) or comparable protein content, depending on the source; no differences in protein content were found between plant-based and meat-based meatballs (Table 2).

Ložnjak Švarc et al. [87] identified varying protein contents between individual meat analogues depending on the product type and protein source, which ranged from chicken egg protein to plant protein: pea, soy, wheat and a combination of soya and pea protein. The lowest protein content was found in chicken egg-based cold cuts (Table 2).

Interestingly, while some essential amino acids, such as lysine, methionine, threonine and valine, may be present in lower amounts in plant products, some others, such as leucine, are actually more plentiful than in animal products [86,87]. Studies by Ložnjak Švarc et al. [87] and De Marchi et al. [86] found the lysine content in burgers and cold cuts made from plant protein to be lower than in the same products of animal origin; however, they also report higher levels of methionine, threonine and valine in cold cuts made from chicken protein compared to those based on legume protein. In addition, cold cuts made from wheat protein were found to contain higher levels of all essential amino acids, except lysine, compared to those made from chicken egg protein or other PBMAs made from legume protein (Table 3).

Table 3. A comparison of the essential amino acid (EAA) content (mg/100 g of raw product) and selected minerals (mg/kg of raw product) in meat products and plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs).

		Meatballs	Sausages	Cold Cuts	Cold Cuts	Cold Cuts	Burgers		Products
		Plant-based				Animal	Plant-based	meat	Plant-based	meat
		soya	pea/soya	wheat	pea/soya	egg white
Source		[87]					[86]		[5]
Isoleucine	Ile	649	549–660	964	331	377	507.7	554.97	-	-
Leucine	Leu	1130	949–1175	1900	572	648	1214.58	1164.39	-	-
Lysine	Lys	947	787–994	510	467	551	927.82	1391.19	-	-
Methionine	Met	122	95–114	337	61	256	13.76	300.11	-	-
Phenylalanine	Phe	758	635–790	1360	373	455	899.28	661.94	-	-
Threonine	Thr	581	495–546	739	277	354	572.28	686.22	-	-
Tryptophan	Trp	213	147–193	306	99	123	108.28	102.51	-	-
Valine	Val	716	591–735	1100	348	540	559.02	612.10	-	-
Histidine	His	391	320–364	551	184	198	591.48	582	-	-
Iron	Fe	22	32–160	20	46	2.2	26.51	13.05	33.32	19.29
Zinc	Zn	6.3	6.1–17	19	2.7	1.2	21.38	30.69	20.42	16.16
Calcium	Ca	930	610–192	470	150	390	715.39	85.62	854.10	273.71

Note: “-“ indicates data not available.

While PBMAs can be a valuable source of essential amino acids, their nutritional value depends on the type of product and protein source (Table 2 and Table 3). As such, to maintain a complete amino acid profile in a plant-based diet, it is important for the consumer to diversify the composition of PBMAs or supplement them with other plant products that are rich in the appropriate amino acids.

5.2. Macroelements and Microelements in Diets Based on Meat and PBMAs

The macro- and micronutrient content in PBMAs varies according to the type of product and protein source. Yeo et al. [5] report that most PBMAs contained higher amounts of certain minerals (Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, Mn, K, Na, Zn) than their meat counterparts, i.e., fish, beef, pork and chicken. They attribute this to the enrichment of PBMAs and the type of plant protein used in their production; even so, they note that some minerals, especially iron and zinc, may demonstrate lower bioavailability in a plant-based diet [5,88].

Micro- and macronutrient content can also vary significantly within the same group of PBMAs depending on the protein source. Products based on pea, soybean, and wheat protein have been found to be richer in inter alia Ca, Fe, Mg, Mn, P, K and Na than their chicken egg protein counterparts [87]. Some PBMAs also appear to be better sources of Fe than meat, especially in meat-like products derived from peas and soybeans, and to have a higher Fe content than products based on chicken egg protein. Plant-based burgers have been found to have twice the Fe content of meat burgers but lower Zn content (Table 2) [86]. It has, however, been noted that studies of iron content should also include its bioavailability and not just its content [86]. Therefore, given the considerable variability in PBMA mineral content, conscious product selection and dietary diversification are needed for the consumer to achieve a complete mineral profile [83,84].

5.3. Fatty Acids in Diets Based on Meat and PBMAs

Another key component of a healthy diet is its fatty acid content: animal products are sources of saturated fatty acids (SFAs), while plants and fish are sources of unsaturated fatty acids (UFAs) such as monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). Certain essential UFAs, viz. omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids, are synthesised exclusively by plants, and these play a particularly important role in nutrition [89].

De Marchi et al. [86] found plant-based and meat burgers to have similar levels of SFAs, with higher levels of PUFAs in the plant-based burgers. Plant-based burgers also had four times the omega-6 content of meat burgers and lower cholesterol content (3.98 mg/100 g vs. 50.60 mg/100 g).

Similarly, an analysis of plant-based and chicken nuggets by Kumar et al. [35] found plant-based minced meat to have lower cholesterol and higher PUFA content than beef; the authors note that consumers expect plant-based substitutes to help reduce their intake of SFAs and cholesterol compared to meat. Cutroneo et al. [83] identified significantly lower levels of total fat, saturated acids, total carbohydrates, sugars, fibre and salt in plant-based steaks than various other analysed PBMA products (burgers, meatballs and cutlets). Interestingly, no differences in total fat, saturated acid, sugar, fibre or protein content were observed between the other PBMAs (p > 0.05), and all studied meat products apart from white meat had a higher saturated fatty acid content than their plant-based analogues.

Costa-Catala et al. [84] also report higher mean total fat and saturated fat levels in meat-based burgers (12.6 g total fat and 5.1 g saturated fat/100 g) than in plant-based burgers (8.4 g total fat and 1.9 g saturated fat/100 g). They also note significantly lower saturated fat content in plant-based meatballs compared to their meat analogues (p < 0.05), but no significant differences in total fat content (Table 2).

In conclusion, while PBMAs generally offer a healthier fatty acid profile with lower saturated fats and cholesterol, their overall nutritional value, like other plant-based products, still necessitates technological improvements for nutrient bioavailability and conscious dietary planning by consumers, reinforcing that PBMAs are not always direct nutritional equivalents to meat [90,91,92]. However, as noted previously, PBMAs cannot be treated as adequate substitutes for meat [83,84]. Plant-based alternatives exhibit different protein and nutrient contents according to the type of product and protein source, as well as their ingredients. Furthermore, meat analogues often demonstrated considerable variation in their nutrient content, even similar products, further complicating any comparison with conventional products.

6. PBMAs—Ingredients and Their Technological Function

Meat substitutes consist primarily of water (50–80%), textured vegetable protein (10–25%) and non-textured protein (4–20%), fats (0–15%), various flavour enhancers (3–10%), colourings (0–5%) and binding agents (1–15%) [16]. These ingredients and the technological production techniques are needed to confer the taste and texture of meat on the PBMA and to reproduce the nutritional profile (Table 4).

Table 4. Ingredients and technological additives in the production of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs).

Ingredient	Technological Function	Example	Source
Plant proteins (soy, peas, wheat, lentils, chickpeas, beans, broad beans)	Texture, fibrous structure, gelling properties, fat emulsification	Soya isolates and concentrates, seitan (wheat gluten)	[21,35]
Cereal proteins (gluten, rice, oats, barley)	Adding elasticity and viscoelasticity, meat structure	Seitan (wheat gluten)	[93,94]
Lipids (vegetable oils)	Juiciness, consistency, flavour carrier	Rapeseed oil, soybean oil, palm oil, coconut oil, sunflower oil	[16,71]
Natural colourants	Imitation of red meat or poultry colour	Leghaemoglobin, beet extract	[21,95]
Artificial colourants and stabilising additives	Colour stability, preservation	Titanium dioxide, polyphenols, ascorbic acid	[96]
Fermentation	Flavour and texture modification	Tempeh, fermented tofu	[97]
Coagulation	Creating product structure	Tofu (soya protein coagulation)	[63,98]
Flavours and spices	Adding meat flavour	Spices, herbs, smoke flavours	[21]

One important source of plant protein for meat analogues is legumes, with the most commonly used species being soybeans, lentils, chickpeas, peas, beans and broad beans. However, cereal protein from wheat, corn and rice is also often used [5,6,35,99,100]. Currently, the global food market comprises a wide range of PBMAs, including plant-based burgers, meatballs, sausages, cold cuts, nuggets, chicken pieces and minced meat [15,21,83,84,101,102].

Legumes are an important part of the diet, partly due to their high protein and fibre content, but also because they represent a plentiful source of essential amino acids, including arginine, lysine, glutamic acid, leucine and aspartic acid [103]. Among these, chickpeas are particularly useful in PBMA production as they are a rich source of protein and have hypoallergenic properties and high solubility [104]; similarly, lentils also have high levels of protein, together with carbohydrates and lipids [105]. Pea protein, on the other hand, is characterised by reduced digestibility and an incomplete amino acid profile [21].

However, the most commonly used raw material for the production of PBMAs is soybean. Soya protein contains a complete set of essential amino acids and, thanks to its inherent gelling properties, can be engineered to form fibrous structures that mimic meat’s texture and mouthfeel. It has the ability to retain water, absorb and emulsify fat, and form gels [21,106,107]. As a result, soya protein can be found in the production of popular meat substitutes such as tofu, tempeh and edamame, as well as plant-based sausages, nuggets and chicken breasts [63,97] (Table 4).

Soya-based products have high nutritional value: they are rich in protein, essential amino acids, fibre and omega-3 fatty acids, as well as various minerals such as potassium, magnesium, zinc, manganese, selenium, copper, calcium, phosphorus and iron. In addition, soya concentrate contains 70% pure protein [35,63,98,108,109,110], and tofu is free of cholesterol [111]. It is also possible to adjust both the nutritional value and technological properties of soya products by varying the form of soya protein in production, viz. isolate, concentrate and texturate [35,112] (Table 4).

Nevertheless, soybeans can evoke negative emotions and controversy among consumers regarding their allergenic potential and the fact that some are genetically modified. In addition, large-scale soybean cultivation requires an optimal climate and affects the local biodiversity [17,113,114].

In the case of cereals, protein is most commonly obtained from wheat, rice, oats and barley; however, these species are characterised by an inferior protein content compared to legume seeds [93,102]. Among the cereal proteins used in PBMA production, gluten is a popular choice due to its properties, including its viscosity and elasticity, i.e., viscoelasticity. Otherwise, the taste and fibrous texture of meat can be achieved by combining gluten with textured vegetable protein (TVP) and other ingredients [21,71]. A popular grain-based meat substitute made from wheat gluten is seitan, which is used to produce vegan sausages, burgers and minced meat substitutes [94] and is regarded as a good substitute for meat burgers, sausages and nuggets. While it offers easy processing, versatility in preparing various dishes and a relatively low price compared to other analogues [63], gluten is a common allergen and is not suitable for people suffering from gluten intolerance (Table 4).

Another common group of ingredients in PBMAs is the lipids [6], which are used together with protein as binding agents. Oil or fat is added to achieve the desired meat-like consistency and texture and to improve the taste. The most common ingredients are vegetable oils such as rapeseed, soybean, palm, coconut or sunflower oil [16,71] (Table 4).

Finally, spices, herbs and flavourings are added to confer a meat flavour and improve the overall taste, and artificial and natural colourings to improve the appearance [21,95]: lecithin or beetroot extract are often added to give the colour of red meat, while titanium dioxide is used to imitate chicken meat. Polyphenols and ascorbic acid are also added as preservatives and to ensure the stability of the colourings [96] (Table 4).

7. The Safety of PBMAs

Traditional soy products such as tofu and tempeh have long been consumed as meat alternatives in Asian countries and are considered safe and nutritious; however, their taste, aroma and appearance do not meet Western consumer expectations [20,115], which has led to the development of modern PBMAs. PBMAs are believed to offer certain environmental and health benefits over meat consumption. Indeed, PBMAs are a source of plant protein, fibre, vitamins and minerals and typically contain no cholesterol and less saturated fat than meat. Despite this, many contain anti-nutrients which reduce the bioavailability of iron and zinc, as well as certain technological additives. Their nutritional value is also strongly influenced by the degree of processing during production: PBMAs are created through a multi-stage process and are thus regarded as ultra-processed foods. Such multi-stage processing may further affect nutrient stability and mineral bioavailability and raise consumer concerns about potential negative health consequences; furthermore, PBMAs may contain allergens, microorganisms or chemical contaminants and various compounds resulting from the production process, and the long-term health effects of regular consumption remain unclear (Table 5).

Table 5. The advantages and limitations of PBMAs in terms of nutritional value, sensory properties, safety, and sustainability.

Category	Advantage of PBMAs	Limitation/Risk
Nutritional value	Source of plant protein; contains fibre, vitamins, and minerals; no cholesterol; lower saturated fat content compared to meat	The bioavailability of Fe and Zn may be reduced by antinutrients such as phytates and polyphenols; nutritional value depends on the degree of processing; multi-stage processing may further affect nutrient stability and mineral bioavailability.
Sensory value	Modern technologies enable imitation of meat and its fibrous texture; flavourings and colourants improve consumer acceptance	Traditional products (tofu, tempeh) do not meet the expectations of Western consumers; excessive additives may raise doubts about their natural status and safety; some processing steps may alter the stability of the texture or flavour.
Safety to health	No cholesterol; lower saturated fat than meat; quality control in industrial production	Presence of allergens, processing agents, microorganisms, or chemical contaminants; long-term health effects have not been fully studied; ultra-processed and multi-stage production processes may introduce additional safety risks.
Sustainable development	Potential reduction in demand for meat and animal husbandry; lower greenhouse gas emissions; reduced environmental pressure	Large-scale cultivation (soybeans) can have a negative impact on biodiversity; environmental effects depend on the source of raw materials and production methods.
Consumer acceptance	Opens up the market for people wanting to limit their meat consumption	Consumers may be sceptical about ultra-processed products; controversy surrounding GMOs and additives.

Also, the high use of flavourings and colourings during production, aimed at improving consumer acceptance, can raise doubts about the “naturalness” and safety of the product. Indeed, ultra-processed products and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are often met with scepticism by consumers (Table 5). Furthermore, while modern production techniques can also effectively bestow the texture and fibrous structure of meat on PBMAs, some processing steps may also impair the stability of the texture or flavour (Table 5).

PBMAs give consumers the opportunity to reduce their meat consumption, and their production can lower demand for meat and animal husbandry, leading to lower greenhouse gas emissions and reduced environmental pressure. However, the large-scale soybean cultivation needed for PBMAs can reduce biodiversity, and the environmental effects depend on the source of the raw material and the choice of production method (Table 5).

7.1. Safety Aspects of PBMAs Regarding Health

PBMA production is a complex process requiring the use of inter alia polysaccharides, oils, spices, emulsifiers, gelling agents and colourants, which are added to improve taste, texture and overall appearance [71]. However, this high degree of processing raises questions about food safety, as PBMAs may contain various allergens, antinutrients, chemical contaminants or even pathogenic microorganisms [116].

When present in small amounts, the antinutrients (phytates, oxalates, tannins, lectins, trypsin inhibitors) and phytochemicals (polyphenols, flavonoids, carotenoids) present in grains, legumes, nuts, and some fruits and vegetables can have beneficial health effects. Phytochemicals are, for example, an important component of PBMAs thanks to their antioxidant properties and have been found to reduce the risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease [117]. However, when present in excess in raw products, these substances reduce nutrient absorption and can cause inter alia nausea, bloating, and headaches [118]. The presence of phytates and polyphenols has been found to reduce the bioavailability of iron and zinc in a PBMA-based diet [119]. However, such substances can be neutralised or removed by various methods during processing, such as heat treatment, enzymatic treatment, autoclaving or extrusion [120,121].

Although PBMAs are free of cholesterol and typically contain less saturated fat than meat, and there is no evidence that PBMAs pose a direct health risk, they cannot automatically be credited with all the health benefits associated with plant-based diets [122] (Table 5). Little is known about their potential effects on health following consumption [116], and few long-term studies have assessed the impact of additives and processing on consumer health. As such, there is a need for further research and monitoring in this area [15,123].

7.2. Technological Aspects of PBMA Safety

The development of attractive plant-based meat substitutes requires technologies that are able to create products that replicate the taste and texture of meat [22]. Indeed, this may be why traditional products such as tofu and tempeh have not been widely accepted in Western countries [20,115] (Table 5). Therefore, there has been considerable interest in developing new technologies that can replicate meat. The most commonly used methods include high-moisture extrusion cooking, electrospinning, shear cell technology and freeze structuring, which enable the creation of a fibrous structure resembling meat and improve the organoleptic properties of the product [124,125,126]. However, such multi-stage processing can affect the stability of nutrients and the bioavailability of minerals, raising questions about food safety (Table 5).

Numerous technological additives such as polysaccharides, vegetable oils, spices, emulsifiers, gelling agents and colourants are used to impart the flavour and texture of meat [71]. Leghaemoglobin, or beetroot extract, is used to impart a red colour, while polyphenols and ascorbic acid act as colour stabilisers and preservatives [95,96]. Although these additives play an important role in creating meat-like characteristics, their long-term impact on consumer health remains unclear [116,122] (Table 5).

Due to the numerous steps involved in their production and the use of high numbers of additives, PBMAs are classified as ultra-processed foods in the NOVA system [127,128]. High levels of processing can reduce the nutritional value of a product, even though the result may be sensory appealing and more environmentally sustainable than meat [15,116,122,129] (Table 5). For this reason, the challenge for the food industry is to develop new technological solutions that preserve the sensory characteristics of meat while reducing the use of additives and processing steps to ensure food safety [21,107].

8. Conclusions

In the face of a growing population and continuing high demand for meat, PBMAs can provide significant support by enabling sustainable food production.

The effectiveness of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) depends on their nutritional composition, degree of processing, choice of production technology and consumer awareness. Producers should strive to select appropriate raw materials, limit the number of technological additives, and improve protein quality and mineral bioavailability; also, by encouraging proper diet composition, it is possible to both ensure the safety of PBMAs and include them in a diet that fulfils protein and micronutrient requirements. Replacing animal-based products with plant-based alternatives can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption and easing pressure on agricultural land. Potential nutritional limitations and safety concerns resulting from high processing levels can be mitigated through further technological optimisation and long-term research. By developing PBMAs that combine acceptable taste and appearance with high nutritional value and environmental benefits, producers can not only support the development of sustainable food systems but also contribute to ensuring consumer health and environmental protection (Table 6).

Table 6. Main advantages and limitations of plant-based meat substitutes (PBMAs).

Area	Conclusions	Remarks/Restrictions
Consumer health	— PBMAs have lower cholesterol and SFA content and higher PUFA levels (omega-3 and omega-6) — PBMAs are sources of protein and essential amino acids, but not necessarily complete protein — They can be sources of minerals (Ca, Fe, Zn), fibre and vitamins	— The bioactivity of the ingredients may be limited by anti-nutritional compounds (phytates, polyphenols) — Bioavailability and long-term safety may be further limited by high levels of processing and additives
Environment	— PBMA production generates significantly less GHG than animal husbandry (especially cattle) — Lower consumption of water and arable land — Reduced anthropopressure, i.e., deforestation and biodiversity loss	— The environmental benefits of PBMAs depend on reducing animal meat consumption — The source of the raw materials may affect local biodiversity; for example, high levels of soy production may require soy monoculture
Techniques and ingredients	— Advanced modern production methods (extrusion, shear-cell, electrospinning) replicate the taste and texture of meat — Ingredients: soybeans, peas, gluten, vegetable oils, colourants, emulsifiers, spices	— Multi-stage processing may reduce nutrient bioavailability — Some ingredients may be allergenic (gluten, soy) or controversial (GMOs)
Consumer and market	— PBMAs appeal to vegans, vegetarians, and flexitarians — Growing acceptance in Europe and worldwide, but the market is still small compared to meat — PBMAs can support sustainable dietary choices and reduce demand for meat	— Consumer education is needed on combining protein sources and making informed product choices — Some consumers are sceptical of ultra-processed products

PBMAs can contribute to a healthy and more sustainable diet, provided that they are of adequate nutritional quality and are minimally processed. However, they can exert a positive impact on the environment only when they actually replace animal products, rather than merely acting as diet supplements. Hence, to fully realise the real health and environmental benefits of using plant-based meat substitutes, there remains a need for the continued development of production technology and informed consumer decisions.

A key advantage of this paper is that it employs a systematic approach to the analysis. However, it has some limitations. Firstly, the corpus only included selected databases and publications that were available in full text form. In addition, the included studies demonstrated considerable heterogeneity with regard to their methodology, nutritional assessment, and environmental impact metrics; as such, it was not possible to make direct comparisons or draw clear conclusions. Furthermore, the literature still lacks long-term clinical trials evaluating the effects of regular consumption of highly processed PBMAs.

A holistic approach based on nutritional quality, environmental impact, production technologies, and consumer behaviour should be taken when evaluating alternative protein sources. Such analyses should also distinguish between minimally and highly processed products, as they differ in both nutritional value and ecological impact. It is also recommended that producers should aim to improve protein quality, increase the bioavailability of micronutrients and limit excessive product processing, while legislators should introduce transparent labelling standards. The consumer should also incorporate PBMAs as part of a planned, balanced diet, rather than treating them simply as “healthy options”.

There remains a need for further research, including long-term clinical trials, aimed at assessing the health impact of regular PBMA consumption; furthermore, to ensure comparable results between studies and greater reliability, they should be based on standardised environmental impact assessments. Future refinements in production technology methods should focus on improving nutritional value while reducing the degree of processing. Finally, consumer behaviour analyses should be performed to determine whether PBMAs actually contribute to reduced meat consumption and support more sustainable dietary patterns.