Plant Taxa as Raw Material in Plant-Based Meat Analogues (PBMAs)—A Patent Survey

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The environmental problems associated with meat production, the pain and distress of animals, and health problems have contributed to the increased appreciation of meat alternatives. Methods: The review of patented inventions presenting plant-based meat analogues (PBMAs) issued in the years 2014–2023 was conducted according to PRISMA statements across the ISI Web of Science, as well as Google Patents and Espacenet Patent Search engines. Results: The analysis of 183 patents showed an increase in patent numbers in the years 2020–2022, with the greatest number of patents developed by teams consisting of two authors. The authors and patent applicants were mainly affiliated with the United States, while Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. emerged as the leader among applicant institutions. The International Patent Classification (IPC) codes were given to 177 patents, which were mainly classified as Human Necessities (Section A). In total, inventors mentioned 184 taxa, including 28 genera, 1 section, 144 species, 5 subspecies and 6 varieties of vascular plants. The majority of taxa showed a high edibility rating and belonged to perennials, mainly herbaceous plants representing the families Fabaceae, Poaceae and Brassicaceae. The analysis of patents showed that plants are a promising source of protein, lipids, fibre, polyphenols, starch and gum in meat analogues. At the same time, the noticed slight use of numerous taxa, despite the substantial content of valuable constituents as well as high edibility rates, presumably might be caused by their underutilization in numerous regions of the world. Conclusions: The direction of future studies should focus on searching for novel plant-based meat analogues based on underutilized, promising plant sources and investigations of their usefulness.

1. Introduction

Meat consumption is rising annually as human populations grow and affluence increases [1]. However, the environmental problems associated with meat production, such as the greenhouse effect, overuse of land resources, the pain and distress of animals, as well as health problems, e.g., cardiovascular and intestinal diseases, have contributed to the increased appreciation of meat alternatives. These encompass four primary categories based on their origin: plant-based, microorganism-based, insect-based, and lab-grown animal cell-based meat analogues [2,3,4,5], attracting the attention of consumers to varying extent, often depending on the country of origin and residence [6]. The voluminous literature [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18] evidences that plant-based meat alternatives (PBMA’s), i.e., products made from plant-derived materials that mimic the appearance, flavour, mouth feel, fibrous texture, and chemical characteristics of meat, have for a long time attracted the attention of numerous scientists and are rising stars of the food industry. The consumption of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) containing highly beneficial essential amino acids, low saturated fat, and being cholesterol-free is associated with numerous health benefits. Several researchers reported that plant-based meat has various health advantages, such as reducing obesity-induced metabolic dysfunction, cardiovascular disease, strokes, and cancer [7,8,16]. Also, the consumption of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMA’s) contributes to anti-inflammation and immune activity [7,8]. Moreover, the improvement of clinical indices in type 2 diabetes contributes to weight loss and weight maintenance, while the consumption of meat analogues that are supplemented with dietary fibre helps in the improvement of gut health [7,8]. On the other hand, Ishaq et al. [12] argued that the proper understanding of the mechanism of the gastrointestinal fate of plant-based meat analogues is very important, and it might allow researchers to obtain better knowledge about the digestibility and bioavailability of meat analogues. Simultaneously, He et al. [7] reported that the transition from heavy meat to plant-based diets might contribute to an estimated 6% to 10% reduction inthe global mortality rate.

The production of plant-based meat alternatives (PBMA’s) is not a new food category (e.g., [7,8,12,16]). The aforementioned authors claim that the perception of plant-based meat alternatives as a source of protein has occurred since ancient times, comprising traditional plant-based meat analogues like tempeh, seitan and tofu. In the early 20th century, cereal-based and nut products (e.g., Nuttose and Protose) appeared. After the Second World War, extruded wheat gluten, soy protein concentrates, and defatted soy meal helped to expand the concept of texturized vegetable proteins. In 1980, Tofurky and other similar products were developed to target the vegetarian demographic niche. During the early 21st century, with the help of modern technologies and developments in food engineering, plant-based meat has mimicked the appearance, taste, texture, and functional properties of sausages, fillets and burgers. Currently (2015–2023), the worldwide development of the plant-based meat alternative marketplace is growing with rapid progress in availability and product offering. As stated by Boukid [9], the prevailing health consciousness, as well as concern for animal welfare and the future environment, has lifted the concept of plant meat alternatives from niche to the mainstream, and the market for plant-based meat analogues in North America and Europe has extended beyond just vegan, vegetarian or flexitarian customers to meat-eating and meat-loving customers. The promising results of survey questionnaires [19,20,21,22,23,24], as well as sensory evaluations [25,26] conducted in numerous European, American and Asian countries, allow one to expect that plant-based meat alternatives have the best chance of successfully replacing meat when they closely resemble highly processed meat products in taste and texture and are offered at competitive prices.

To date, numerous original papers (e.g., [27,28,29]) and academic reviews (e.g., [5,8,10,12,30,31,32,33,34]) have appeared, focusing on the use, physical-chemical properties and functionality of plant species as ingredients in plant-based meat analogues. The aforementioned authors focused on investigations of proteins, fats, stabilizing agents, colourants and flavourings deriving from the most common plant sources, such as legumes (soy, pea, chickpea, lentils, beans, peanuts), cereals and pseudocereals (wheat, corn, oats, quinoa, amaranth, buckwheat), as well as oil seeds (hemp, sunflower, rapeseed, sesame). Nevertheless, taking into account the number of edible plants, it might be stated that despite growing interest in the role of plants as raw material in meat substitutes, the current state of knowledge is still insufficient. The deficiency of publications considering the use of plant taxa in patented meat substitutes seems to be particularly noticeable. Considering this, the present investigation concentrated on the analysis of patents presenting plant-based meat analogues (PBMAs). The specific aims of the performed investigation focused on the characteristics of (i) patented inventions regarding the number and country affiliation of authors and applicants, International Patent Classification (ICP) codes, as well as the number of forward citations; (ii) plant taxa used in patented plant-based meat analogues (PBMAs) regarding their taxonomic affiliation, life form, lifespan, edibility rate, as well as use as a raw material.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patent Search

Patents were searched by browsing the ISI Web of Science (all Databases), the most widely used for bibliometric analyses, as well as Google Patents and Espacenet Patent Search engines, gathering the largest number of open access patents [35,36]. The survey of literature records published from 1 January 2014 up to 31 December 2023 was carried out according to PRISMA statements [37] with factorial combinations of the following keywords in the searches: (‘plant’) and (’meat analogue’ or ‘meat alternative’ or ‘meat substitute’).

The selection terms were observed in the title and Abstract. The patent search was conducted from 1 June to 30 July 2024. Due to the number of records, ranging from a dozen to tens of thousands after texting particular combinations of keywords, the analysis was limited to the first 300 records. Such a number was estimated as appropriate after a pilot study showing that with an increasing record number of over 300, the number of duplicates has augmented substantially. Therefore, the patent search included 900 hits from the ISI Web of Science, 900 from Google Patents, and 900 from Espacenet. Following the removal of duplicates (publications indexed in more than one database), the Abstracts and Descriptions of patents were screened for relevance and eligibility.

2.2. Study Eligibility and Selection

During the screening of the Abstract and Description of patents, the inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) the invention presents a plant-based meat analogue, (ii) the description of the invention contains a specification of plant taxa used as a source of particular constituents in meat substitutes, (iii) the plant-based meat analogue is suitable for humans and (iv) the Abstract and Description of the patent were written in English. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (i) the invention is not relevant to the main topic of review (e.g., refers to methods of modification of meat analogue flavour and taste, presents methods and apparatus useful in meat substitute freshness or water content detection, describes devices useful in the production of meat substitutes), (ii) the basis of meat analogue are taxa not belonging to the plant kingdom (e.g., fungi), (iii) the invention is dedicated to animals, (iv) the Abstract and patent Description are not written in English. A chart detailing the patent search procedure is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The procedure for the patent search.

To assess the quality of the included studies and reduce the potential for misclassification, the Abstracts and then Description of patents were subjected to a critical double screening. From eligible patents, the following data were extracted: author names, author number, affiliation of first author, year of publication, title of patent, patent applicant (institution or individual person filing the patent application) name and affiliation, International Patent Classification (IPC) code according to Anonymous [38] listed as first (in the case of more than one code), number of forward citations (citations by authors of later patents), plant taxa as sources of particular constituents. The aforementioned data were extracted using a form created in Microsoft Excel 2007.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The statistical significance of differences in the number of inventions (i) developed by different numbers of authors, (ii) with a different country affiliation of the first author, and (iii) with a different country affiliation of applicants was checked using the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis H test. The statistical significance of the correlation between the year of patent publication and the number of citations was tested by applying the Pearson coefficient (at the level < 0.05).

3. Results

3.1. Patent Analysis

During the study period, altogether 183 patents [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221] referring to plant-based meat analogues (PBMA) were recorded (Table A1). The number of patents per year ranged from 2 in the year 2016 to 45 in 2022 (Figure 2a). The number of authors amounted from 1 to 12 (Figure 2b). The greatest number of inventions was developed by a research team consisting of 2 authors, whereas the lowest number of patents was developed by research teams consisting of 10 to 12 people. The Kruskal–Wallis H test (H = 48.76; p < 0.001) confirmed that the number of patents invented by teams of two scientists in particular years was significantly greater than by teams consisting of more than eight authors (Table A2). The number of forward patent citations ranged from 0 to 100 (Table 1). The majority of patents were not cited. Among cited patents, the majority were cited once. The Pearson coefficient (r = −0.50) showed the occurrence of a statistically significant negative correlation between the year of patent publication and the number of its citations.

Figure 2. The number of patents referring to plant-based meat analogues (PBMA) published in particular years of the period 2014–2023 (a) and developed by different numbers of authors (b).

Table 1. Number of forward citations of patents referring to plant-based meat analogues (PBMA) developed in the period 2014–2023.

Number of Forward Patent Citations	Number of Patents with Particular Number of Forward Citations
0	73
1	30
2	19
3	7
4	6
5	2
6	10
7	5
8	4
9	1
10	2
11	5
12	2
13	3
15	1
16	1
17	1
19	1
23	3
30	1
46	1
49	1
57	1
100	1

Altogether, the authors and applicants of patents were affiliated with 27 countries. Among them, the greatest number were affiliated with the United States, the Republic of Korea and Japan. The lowest number of both authors and applicants was in Austria, Colombia, Greece, Poland, Singapore and Slovenia (Figure 3). The H Kruskal–Wallis test confirmed the statistical significance of differences in the spatial distribution of authors (H = 66.92, p < 0.001) and applicants for patents (H = 71.59, p < 0.001); however, the differences among particular affiliation countries were not significant (Table A2). Considering the applicants, it should be pointed out that solely in the case of four patents were the applications filed by the invention’s authors; in the case of the remaining patents, varied institutions acted as patent applicants. Moreover, regarding 11 patents, the number of applicant institutions exceeded one. In general, among the applicants, 138 institutions were noted (Table 2), and Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. emerged as the leader, followed by Cargill Incorporated; Dsm Ip Assets B.V, and Unilever Ip Holdings B.V.

Figure 3. The total number of patents referring to plant-based meat analogues (PBMA) developed in the period 2014–2023 according to first author affiliation (a) and affiliation of applicants (b). Country name code abbreviations: Argentina (AR), Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Canada (CA), China (CN), Colombia (CO), Denmark (DK), Finland (FI), France (FR), Germany (DE), Greece (GR), India (IN), Ireland (IR), Israel (IL), Japan (JP), The Netherlands (NL), New Zealand (NZ), Poland (PL), The Republic of Korea (KR), Singapore (SG), Slovenia (SI), Spain (ES), Sweden (SE), Switzerland (CH), Thailand (TH), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (GB) and the United States (US).

Table 2. The ranking of leading patent applicants with the number of patent applications.

Applicant Institution	Number of Patent Applications
Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.	17
Cargill, Incorporated	7
Dsm Ip Assets B.V.	6
Unilever Ip Holdings B.V.	6
Fujifilm Corp	5
Redefine Meat Ltd.	5
AAK AB	4
Fuji Oil Co., Ltd.	4
Northeast Agricultural University	4
Conopco, Inc.	3
Gold&Green Foods Oy	3
Kongju University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation	3
Konkuk University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation	3
Motif Foodworks, Inc.	3

The International Patent Classification (IPC) codes were given to 177 patents (Table 3). According to Anonymous [38], most IPC codes were classified in Section A (Human Necessities). The most numerous subgroup was A23J (Protein compositions for foodstuffs; working-up proteins for foodstuffs; phosphatide compositions for foodstuffs). Among the most frequent were meat-like textured foods (A23J3/227), followed by vegetable proteins (A23J3/14) and vegetable proteins from soybean (A23J3/16). Another subgroup was A23L (Foods, foodstuffs, or non-alcoholic beverages; their preparation or treatment; modification of nutritive qualities, physical treatment; preservation of foods or foodstuffs, in general). Sporadically mentioned in patent documents were A23D (Edible oils or fats), A23P (Shaping or working of foodstuffs) and A23C (Dairy products), as well as A21D (Treatment, e.g., preservation of flour or dough for baking). Only one IPC code was classified in section B (Performing Operations; Transporting).

Table 3. The International Patent Classification (IPC) codes mentioned in patent applications refer to plant-based meat analogues (PBMA) developed in the period 2014–2023.

Classification Code	Description	Number of Patents
A21D2/36	Vegetable material	2
A23C20/025	Cheese substitutes containing neither milk components nor caseinate nor lactose, as sources of fats, proteins or carbohydrates mainly containing proteins from pulses or seeds	1
A23D7/0053	Compositions other than spreads	6
A23D9/04	Working-up	1
A23J1/006	Obtaining protein compositions for foodstuffs; Bulk opening of eggs and separation of yolks from whites from vegetable materials	2
A23J1/14	Obtaining protein compositions for foodstuffs; Bulk opening of eggs and separation of yolks from whites from leguminous or other vegetable seeds; from press-cake or oil-bearing seeds	1
A23J3/00	Working-up of proteins for foodstuffs	3
A23J3/14	Vegetable proteins	23
A23J3/16	Vegetable proteins from soybean	12
A23J3/18	Vegetable proteins from wheat	3
A23J3/20	Proteins from microorganisms or unicellular alga	1
A23J3/22	Working-up of proteins for foodstuffs by texturising	2
A23J3/225	Texturised simulated foods with high protein content	5
A23J3/227	Meat-like textured foods	3
A23J3/26	Working-up of proteins for foodstuffs by texturising using extrusion or expansion	10
A23J3/346	Working-up of proteins for foodstuffs by hydrolysis using chemical agents using enzymes of vegetable protein	1
A23L11/00	Pulses, i.e., fruits of leguminous plants, for the production of food; Products from legumes; Preparation or treatment thereof	1
A23L11/05	Mashed or comminuted pulses or legumes; Products made therefrom	1
A23L11/07	Soya beans, e.g., oil-extracted soya bean flak es	1
A23L11/34	Removing undesirable substances, e.g., bitter substances, using chemical treatment, adsorption or absorption	1
A23L13/10	Meat meal or powder; granules, agglomerates or flakes	1
A23L13/40	Meat products; Meat meal; Preparation or treatment thereof containing additives	1
A23L13/426	Addition of proteins, carbohydrates or fibrous material from vegetable origin other than sugars or sugar alcohols	2
A23L13/60	Comminuted or emulsified meat products, e.g., sausages; Reformed meat from comminuted meat product	1
A23L13/67	Reformed meat products other than sausages	1
A23L13/72	Tenderised or flavoured meat pieces; Macerating or marinating solutions specially adapted, therefore using additives, e.g., by injection of solutions	1
A23L19/00	Products from fruits or vegetables; preparation or treatment thereof	1
A23L19/01	Instant products; powders; flakes; granules	1
A23L19/12	Products from fruits or vegetables; preparation or treatment thereof of tuberous or like starch-containing root crops of potatoes	1
A23L27/215	Synthetic spices, flavouring agents or condiments containing amino acids heated in the presence of reducing sugars, e.g., Maillard’s non-enzymatic	1
A23L27/26	Meat flavours	1
A23L29/015	Inorganic compounds	1
A23L29/04	Fatty acids or derivatives	1
A23L29/10	Foods or foodstuffs containing additives; preparation or treatment thereof containing emulsifiers	1
A23L29/20	Foods or foodstuffs containing additives; preparation or treatment thereof containing gelling or thickening agents	1
A23L29/212	Starch; modified starch; starch derivatives, e.g., esters or ethers	1
A23L29/244	Foods or foodstuffs containing additives; preparation or treatment thereof containing gelling or thickening agents of vegetable origin from corms, tubers or roots, e.g., glucomannan	1
A23L29/256	Foods or foodstuffs containing additives; preparation or treatment thereof containing gelling or thickening agents of vegetable origin from seaweeds, e.g., alginates, agar or carrageenan	2
A23L29/262	Cellulose; derivatives thereof, e.g., ethers	3
A23L29/269	Foods or foodstuffs containing additives; Preparation or treatment thereof containing gelling or thickening agents of microbial origin, e.g., xanthan or dextran	1
A23L33/10	Modifying nutritive qualities of foods; dietetic products; preparation or treatment thereof using additives	1
A23L33/105	Plant extracts, their artificial duplicates or their derivatives	1
A23L33/115	Fatty acids or derivatives thereof; fats or oils	1
A23L33/16	Inorganic salts, minerals or trace elements	2
A23L33/18	Peptides; protein hydrolysates	1
A23L33/185	Vegetable proteins	15
A23L35/10	Emulsified foodstuffs	1
A23L5/43	Addition of dyes or pigments, e.g., in combination with optical brighteners using naturally occurring organic dyes or pigments, their artificial duplicates or their derivatives	3
A23L5/44	Addition of dyes or pigments, e.g., in combination with optical brighteners using naturally occurring organic dyes or pigments, their artificial duplicates or xanthophylls	1
A23L7/198	Dry unshaped, finely divided cereal products, not provided for in groups A23L7/117–A23L7/196 and A23L29/00, e.g., meal, flour, powder, dried cereal	1
A23P10/25	Agglomeration or granulation by extrusion or by pressing, e.g., through small holes, through sieves or between surfaces	1
A23P20/10	Coating with edible coatings, e.g., with oils or fats	1
A23P20/20	Making of laminated, multi-layered, stuffed or hollow foodstuffs, e.g., by wrapping in preformed edible dough sheets or in edible food containers	1
A23P30/20	Extruding	2
B29C48/022	Extrusion moulding, i.e., expressing the moulding material through a die or nozzle which imparts the desired form; apparatus characterised by the choice of material	1

3.2. Plant Taxa Analysis

Altogether, taxa from 64 families were recorded in the reviewed patents (Table A3). The greatest number of taxa represented the families Fabaceae (29), Poaceae (16) and Brassicaceae (13). In total, inventors mentioned 184 taxa, including 28 genera, 1 section, 144 species, 5 subspecies and 6 varieties of vascular plants. According to The Useful Plants Database [222], the lifespan, life form, and edibility ratings were assigned to 150 taxa, including species, subspecies, and varieties. Additionally, it should be mentioned that some taxa might be classified into more than one category of lifespan or/and life form. The most abundantly represented were perennials, followed by annuals and biennials. Considering life forms, the majority of taxa mentioned in patents belong to herbaceous plants, while trees and shrubs are less represented. Regarding the edibility rating, it should be pointed out that the most abundant were taxa achieving rate 4, followed by taxa reaching rates 5 and 3. Taxa achieving rates 2 and 1 were rather sporadically mentioned, similar to taxa with inconsiderable or no known edibility value (Figure 4).

Figure 4. The total number of patents referring to plant-based meat analogues (PBMA) developed in the period 2014–2023 according to the lifespan of taxa (a), life form of taxa (b) and edibility rating of taxa (c) on the basis of The Useful Plants Database [222].

The analysis of patents showed that plant taxa are promising sources of proteins, lipids, fibre, polyphenols, starch and gum in meat analogues (Table A4). Altogether, 95 taxa were mentioned as suitable sources of protein (Table 4). Among them, soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.), pea (Lathyrus oleraceus Lam.), and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) were recorded most frequently. Moreover, numerous inventors indicated that chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), lentil (Vicia lens (L.) Coss. & Germ.), rice (Oryza sativa L.), potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), lupine (Lupinus sp. L.), rapeseed (Brassica napus L.), oats (Avena sativa L.), fava bean (Vicia faba L.) and corn (Zea mays L.) are also suitable sources of protein. At the same time, 30 taxa such as cherimoya (Annona cherimola Mill.), black-eyed bean (Vigna unguiculata subsp. unguiculata (L.) Walp.) and others were recorded only once. Among the reviewed patents, 82 taxa were listed as sources of lipids, with rapeseed (Brassica napus L.), sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.), and soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) belonging to the most frequently mentioned. Also, coconut (Cocos nucifera L.), corn (Zea mays L.), olive (Olea europaea L.), peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.), cotton (Gossypium sp. L.) and safflower (Carthamus tinctorium L.) were recorded by numerous inventors. At the same time, 40 taxa such as fonio (Digitaria exilis (Kippist) Stapf), horseradish tree (Moringa oleifera Lam.), Ethiopian rapeseed (Brassica carinata A.Braun) and others were noted only once (Table 5). In total, 58 taxa acted as a source of fibre in surveyed inventions, with pea (Lathyrus oleraceus Lam.), potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), as well as psyllium (Plantago ovata Forsk) being mentioned most frequently. At the same time, 33 taxa, such as fenugreek (Trigonellafoenum-graecum L.) and others, were recorded only once (Table 6). Furthermore, 32 taxa were listed by inventors as a source of polyphenols (Table 7). Among them, beet (Beta vulgaris L.) and carrot (Daucus carota subsp. sativus (Hoffm.) Schübl. & G. Martens) were recorded in the greatest number of patents. Simultaneously, 14 taxa, such as amaranth Amaranthus sp. L. and gooseberry Ribes uva-crispa L. were noticed only once. Altogether, 32 taxa were recorded as a source of starch in meat substitutes, with corn (Zea mays L.), potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), and tapioca (Manihot esculenta Crantz.) most frequently noted (Table 8). Also, rice (Oryza sativa L.), pea (Lathyrus oleraceus Lam.), and sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.) were mentioned in several inventions. At the same time, 11 taxa, such as pigeon pea Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp and quinoa Chenopodium quinoa Willd. were recorded only one time. In total, 10 taxa were specified as gum sources (Table 9). Among them, locust bean (Ceratonia siliqua L.), guar (Cyamopsistetragonoloba (L.) Taub), konjac (Amorphophallus konjac K. Koch) and tragacanth (Astragalus gummifer Labill.) were the most frequently recorded, while cassia (Cassia sp. L.) and axlewood (Terminalia anogeissiana Gere & Boatwr.) were noted only once.

Table 4. Plant taxa are mentioned as a source of protein in patent documents referring to plant-based meat analogues (PBMA) developed in the period 2014–2023. Common names of plant taxa are presented in Table A3.

Plant Taxa	Number of Patents
Glycine max L. Merr.	139
Lathyrus oleraceus Lam.	118
Triticum aestivum L.	89
Cicer arietinum L.	60
Vicia lens (L.) Coss. & Germ.	55
Oryza sativa L.	46
Solanum tuberosum L.	44
Lupinus sp. L.	43
Brassica napus L.	42
Avena sativa L.	40
Vicia faba L., Zea mays L.	38
Helianthus annuus L.	34
Phaseolus vulgaris L	34
Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek	31
Arachis hypogaea L.	29
Hordeum vulgare L.	25
Cannabis sativa L., Chenopodium quinoa Willd.	20
Sesamum indicum L.	18
Gossypium sp. L.	14
Medicago sativa L.	13
Salvia hispanica L.	12
Prunus amygdalus Batsch, Secale cereale L.	11
Fagopyrum esculentum Moench.	10
Cucurbita pepo L., Vigna unguiculata subsp. stenophylla (Harv.) Maréchal, Mascherpa and Stainier	9
Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz	8
Cenchrus americanus (L.) Morrone	7
Amaranthus sp. L., Brassica oleracea var. italica Plenck, Cocos nucifera L., Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam., Manihot esculenta Crantz., Sorghum bicolor L. Moench, Triticum spelta L.	6
Anacardium occidentale L., Corylus avellana L., Trifolium sp. L.	5
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis L., Cynaracardunculus var. scolymus L., Musa sp., Vignaangularis (Willd.) Ohwi and H. Ohashi.	4
Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam., Asparagus officinalis L., Brassica oleracea L., Ceratonia siliqua L., Juglans regia L., Macadamia sp. F. Muell., Oleaeuropaea L., Perseaamericana Mill., Phaseoluslunatus L., Pistacia vera L., Prosopis sp. L.	3
Bertholletia excelsa Humb. & Bonpl., Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp, Digitaria exilis (Kippist) Stapf, Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter, Oxalis tuberosa Molina, Oxycoccus sp. Hill., Spinacia oleracea L., Theobroma cacao L., Zizania sp. L.	2
Actinidia sp. Lindl., Annona cherimola Mill., Apium graveolens L., Artocarpus camansi Blanco, Attalea speciosa Mart., Beta vulgaris L. subsp. vulgaris, Brassica juncea (L.) Czern., Brassica oleracea var. gongylodes L., Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) K. Koch, Celosia sp. L., Chenopodium pallidicaule Aellen, Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott, Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub, Daucus carota subsp. sativus (Hoffm.) Schübl. & G. Martens, Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet, Linum usitatissimum L., Maranta arundinacea L., Morus sp. L., Nicotiana sp. L., Pinus sp. L., Plukenetiavolubilis L., Psidium guajava L., Rhamphospermum nigrum L. Al-Shehbaz, Ribes uva-crispa L., Sinapis alba L., Triticum dicoccon (Schrank) Schübl., Triticum turgidum subsp. turanicum (Jakubz.) Á.Löve, Vicia sp., Vignasubterranea (L.) Verdc., Vigna unguiculata subsp. unguiculata (L.) Walp., Tamarindus indica L.	1

Table 5. Plant taxa are mentioned as a source of lipids in patent documents referring to plant-based meat analogues (PBMA) developed in the period 2014–2023. Common names of plant taxa are presented in Table A3.

Plant Taxa	Number of Patents
Brassica napus L.	76
Helianthus annuus L.	72
Glycine max L. Merr.	70
Cocos nucifera L.	60
Olea europaea L., Zea mays L.	59
Arachis hypogaea L.	43
Gossypium sp. L.	41
Carthamus tinctorium L.	39
Sesamum indicum L.	28
Oryza sativa L.	27
Vitellaria paradoxa C.F.Gaertn.	22
Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz	20
Prunus amygdalus Batsch, Theobroma cacao L.	19
Juglans regia L.	17
Persea americana Mill., Vitis vinifera L.	14
Triticum aestivum L.	10
Attalea speciosa Mart., Corylus avellana L., Macadamia sp. F.Muell.	9
Mangifera indica L.	9
Linum usitatissimum L., Ribes nigrum L.	8
Borago officinalis L.	6
Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) K.Koch, Cucurbita pepo L., Hippophae rhamnoides L., Perilla frutescens (L.) Britton, Anacardium occidentale L., Cannabis sativa L., Oenothera biennis L., Shorea stenoptera Burck.	5
Avena sativa L., Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze, Ceiba pentandra (L.) Gaertn., Coriandrum sativum L., Euterpe oleracea Mart., Papaver sp. L., Pistacia vera L., Ricinus communis L.	3
Allanblackia floribunda Oliv., Amaranthus sp. L., Caryocar brasiliense Cambess., Ceratonia siliqua L., Chenopodium quinoa Willd., Cucurbita foetidissima Kunth, Garcinia indica Choisy, Guizotia abyssinica (L. f.) Cass, Lallemantiaroyleana Benth. in Wall., Limnanthes sp. R.Br., Pinus sp. L., Prunus armeniaca L., Sideroxylon spinosum L., Simmondsia chinensis (Link) C.K. Schneid.	2
Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench, Actinidia sp. Lindl., Allium cepa L., Bertholletia excelsa Humb. & Bonpl., Brassica carinata A. Braun, Brassica rapa (L.) Koch., Calendula officinalis L., Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai, Citrus × tangerina Tanaka, Coffea canephora Pierre ex A. Froehner, Cynara cardunculus var. scolymus L., Daucus carota subsp. sativus (Hoffm.) Schübl. & G. Martens, Digitaria exilis (Kippist) Stapf, Fagus sp. L., Hibiscus cannabinus L., Hordeum vulgare L., Hydnophytum papuanum Becc., Jatropha sp. L., Lupinus sp. L., Medicago sativa L., Moringa oleifera Lam., Prunus domestica L., Santalum yasi Bertero, Shorea robusta Roth, Sorghum bicolor L. Moench, Vernicia fordii (Hemsl.) Airy Shaw.	1

Table 6. Plant taxa mentioned as a source of fibre in patent documents referring to plant-based meat analogues (PBMA) developed in the period 2014–2023. Common names of plant taxa are presented in Table A3.

Plant Taxa	Number of Patents
Lathyrus oleraceus Lam.	12
Solanum tuberosum L.	10
Plantago ovata Forsk	9
Malus domestica Borkh.	8
Avena sativa L.	7
Daucus carota subsp. sativus (Hoffm.) Schübl. & G. Martens, Triticum aestivum L.	6
Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam., Zea mays L.	5
Lupinus sp. L.	4
Manihot esculenta Crantz., Musa sp., Oryza sativa L., Vicia faba L.	3
Beta vulgaris L., Beta vulgaris L. subsp. vulgaris, Cicer arietinum L., Citrus sp. L., Cucurbita pepo L., Hordeum vulgare L., Saccharum sp. L., Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek	2
Acer sp. L., Agave sisalana Perrine, Amorphophallus konjac K. Koch, Ananas comosus (L.) Merr., Apium graveolens L., Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam., Brassica oleracea L., Brassica oleracea var. italica Plenck, Cucurbita pepo var. cylindrica L., Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp, Cannabis sativa L., Cocos nucifera L., Codonopsis lanceolata (Siebold & Zucc.) Trautv., Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott, Fagopyrum esculentum Moench, Glycine max L. Merr., Gossypium sp. L., Helianthus annuus L., Linum usitatissimum L., Malva sp. L., Medicago sativa L., Musatextilis Née, Oxalis tuberosa Molina, Petroselinum crispim (Mill.) Fuss, Phaseolus vulgaris L., Raphanus sativus L., Secalecereale L., Solanumlycopersicum L., Sorghumbicolor L. Moench, Spinaciaoleracea L., Trigonellafoenum-graecum L., Tussilago farfara L., Vicia lens (L.) Coss. & Germ.	1

Table 7. Plant taxa mentioned as a source of polyphenols in patent documents referring to plant-based meat analogues (PBMA) developed in the period 2014–2023. Common names of plant taxa are presented in Table A3.

Plant Taxa	Number of Patents
Beta vulgaris L.	11
Daucus carota subsp. sativus (Hoffm.) Schübl. & G. Martens	7
Raphanus sativus L.	5
Solanum lycopersicum L.	4
Brassica oleracea L., Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze, Carthamus tinctorium L., Fragaria × ananasa Duchesne, Punica granatum L., Ribes nigrum L., Rubus idaeus L.	3
Bixa orellana L., Capsicum annuum L., Gardenia sp. J.Ellis, Hibiscus sp. L., Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam., Solanum tuberosum L., Vaccinium sect. cyanococcus Rydb.	2
Amaranthus sp. L., Artemisia vulgaris L., Coffea canephora Pierre ex A. Froehner, Cucurbita pepo L., Curcuma longa L., Malus domestica Borkh., Oxycoccus sp. Hill., Ribes rubrum L., Ribes uva-crispa L., Rubus × loganobaccus L.H. Bailey, Sambucus sp. L., Spinacia oleracea L., Theobroma cacao L., Vitis vinifera L.	1

Table 8. Plant taxa mentioned as a source of starch in patent documents referring to plant-based meat analogues (PBMA) developed in the period 2014–2023. Common names of plant taxa are presented in Table A3.

Plant Taxa	Number of Patents
Zea mays L.	34
Solanum tuberosum L.	31
Triticum aestivum L.	23
Manihot esculenta Crantz.	20
Oryza sativa L.	17
Lathyrus oleraceus Lam.	14
Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.	12
Maranta arundinacea L.	9
Hordeum vulgare L., Sorghum bicolor L. Moench	8
Avena sativa L.	6
Oxalis tuberosa Molina, Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek	5
Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott, Musa textilis Née	4
Amorphophallus konjac K. Koch, Artocarpus altilis (Parkinson) Fosberg, Cicer arietinum L., Plantago major L., Vicia lens (L.) Coss. & Germ.	3
Fagopyrum esculentum Moench, Vicia faba L.	2
Arracacia xanthorrhiza Bancr., Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp, Ceratonia siliqua L., Chenopodium quinoa Willd., Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub, Erythronium japonicum Decne., Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn., Phaseolus vulgaris L., Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr., Secale cereale L.	1

Table 9. Plant taxa mentioned as a source of gum in patent documents referring to plant-based meat analogues (PBMA) developed in the period 2014–2023. Common names of plant taxa are presented in Table A3.

Plant Taxa	Number of Patents
Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub	24
Ceratonia siliqua L.	23
Amorphophallus konjac K. Koch	14
Astragalus gummifer Labill.	10
Tara sp. Molina	5
Sterculia urens Roxb.	4
Acacia sp. Mill., Trigonella foenum-graecum L.	3
Cassia sp. L., Terminalia anogeissiana Gere & Boatwr.	1

4. Discussion

The increasing number of patents in the years 2020–2022 might respond to the globally observed tendency of growing consumer demand for plant-based meat analogues. Numerous authors have argued that in recent decades, the European [223], American [224], African [225] and Australian [226] markets for plant-based meat substitutes have been experiencing unprecedented growth. The lower number of patents recorded in the year 2023, noticed in the present study, corresponds with other surveys of patents showing the diminishing number of published inventions in the last years of investigation periods [227,228,229]. Such a phenomenon might be related to the time involved in waiting for indexation in the databases, reaching 18 months in the case of the Espacenet [230] database and The United States Patent and Trademark Office [231].

The performed study’s evidence that the greatest number of inventions was developed by research teams consisting of two authors corresponds with the worldwide tendency of a transition of scientific research patterns in the natural sciences from individual research to teamwork [232]. On the other hand, the observed gradual decline in patent numbers with a growing number of authors above three is intriguing, similar to the statistically confirmed remarkably lower number of patents invented by research teams consisting of 8 or more authors. Such a phenomenon might be explained by the findings of Azoulay [233] and Osório and Bornmann [234], who argued that research conducted by small teams is more likely to lead to significant results than research by large teams. According to the aforementioned authors, researchers in possession of potentially breakthrough research ideas prefer to keep teams as small as possible.

The lack of forward citations of the majority of surveyed patents might be worrying, especially considering the findings of Svensson [235], who argued that forward citations used as a measure of patent value indicate the existence of downstream research efforts, a potential market for a patent and commercialization of an invention. Additionally, Fischer and Leidinger [236] show that forward citations are positively related to patent value (measured as patent auction prices). The lack of citations observed in the investigation might be explained by the time needed to receive them, which seems to be insufficient in the case of recently issued patents. This thesis is consistent with the statistically evidenced significant negative correlation between the year of patent publication and the number of forward citations.

The investigation showed that the majority of authors and applicants are affiliated with the United States, which corresponds to the fact that this country is the leader in the production of plant-based meat analogues [237]. At the same time, it is worth mentioning that authors affiliated with the United States developed the greatest number of patented food products making use of kidney bean [228], maize [238] and soybean [239] and developed the majority of all patents filed for alternative proteins [240]. Considering this, it seems surprising that among the applicants for the patented plant-based meat analogues surveyed, one of the most important companies in the US food industry, Beyond Meat [12], was not noted, while the company Impossible Foods [241] acted as a patent applicant only twice. On the other hand, other US companies common in the market of plant-based meat analogues, such as Cargill Inc. and Unilever Ip Holdings B.V., acted as applicants in several patent documents. Simultaneously, it is worth mentioning that the observed leading position among patent applicants of the Swiss company Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. confirms other market studies reviewed by Boukid [9].

The most frequently noticed International Classification codes, Meat-like textured foods (A23J3/227), followed by Vegetable proteins (A23J3/14) and Vegetable proteins from soybean (A23J3/16), seem to reflect the use of vegetable proteins from soybean, often mentioned in surveyed patent descriptions. Considering the results of other patent reviews referring to the application of plant proteins in various food products (e.g., [227,229,240,242] and literature cited there), the use of soybean and the other herbaceous plants, mainly annual taxa from Fabaceae (such as pea, chickpea, lentil, lupine, fava bean) and Poaceae (e.g., wheat, rice, oats, corn) families as a source of protein in plant-based meat analogues is not surprising. However, although most plant protein sources provide the required amounts of essential amino acids for human needs, plant proteins are often recognized as incomplete or nutritionally inferior to animal proteins [243]. As stated by the aforementioned authors, depending on the source, plant proteins may be deficient in some essential amino acids, e.g., cereals usually contain low levels of lysine, while legumes have a deficiency in sulfur amino acids. Moreover, there are many other reasons why plant proteins are still insufficiently applied as human food, such as difficulties in maximising their physical functionality due to their large molecular weight and size and poor solubility in water, as well as the economic cost associated with isolation and recovery of protein fractions [244]. Furthermore, the performed review of patents shows that apart from proteins, numerous annuals and some perennials are mentioned as a main source of lipids (rapeseed, sunflower, soybean), fibre (pea, potato, psyllium), polyphenols (beet, carrot), starch (corn, potato, wheat, Manihot, rice, pea, sweet potato), as well as gum (locust bean, guar, konjac, tragacanth) is consistent with findings reporting the considerable value of the aforementioned species as sources of necessary constituents in the human diet [31,245,246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259]. At the same time, it is worth mentioning that the use of some plant ingredients, such as coconut oil, might be controversial [11]. Apart from nutritive value, the aforementioned constituents play other important roles in meat analogues. Egbert and Borders [260] pointed out that vegetable lipids act as binding agents and provide lubrication to the modern meat analogue. The addition of oil or fat gives juiciness, tenderness, and particular flavour in a meat analogue, which is a unique attribute of a food recipe. In addition, starches are commonly used as fillers to improve the texture and consistency of PBMAs, while fibres and gums can act as binding agents to enhance product stability, thickness, and consistency and reduce cooking loss [9,261,262].

On the other hand, the slight use of many annual and perennial species (herbaceous plants, shrubs and trees) in plant-based meat analogues, despite their substantial content of valuable constituents [263], as well as a high edibility rating, might be linked to their underutilization in many regions of the world. Such a phenomenon has already been confirmed in the case of amaranth, bambara nut, black-eyed bean, cherimoya, Ethiopian rapeseed, fonio, gooseberry, horseradish tree, kenaf, pigeon pea and taro, among others [264,265,266,267,268,269], the wide variety of nutrient-rich plant species (including the aforementioned taxa) used in earlier times is nowadays neglected for reasons including problems with production and harvesting, biotic factors (e.g., insects, diseases), abiotic issues (e.g., temperature, soil fertility, waterlogging, drought), poor economic attractiveness, the lack of policy recommendations and many others.

5. Conclusions

The observed increasing number of patents in the years 2020–2022 might respond to the worldwide observed tendency of growing consumer demand for plant-based meat analogues. The greatest number of inventions developed by research teams consisting of two authors correspond with the worldwide tendency of the transition of scientific research patterns in the natural sciences from individual research to teamwork. However, the gradual decline of patent numbers with the number of inventors growing above three might be linked to the fact evidenced in the literature that scientists in possession of potentially breakthrough research ideas prefer to work in small teams. The lack of forward citations of the majority of patents might be a cause for worry; however, the evidenced negative correlation between the patent publication year and the number of citations gives hope of receiving citations, particularly for recently issued patents. The majority of authors and applicants affiliated with the United States agree that this country is the chief producer of plant-based meat analogues. Despite the fact that important US food industry companies acted as patent applicants, The Société des Produits Nestlé S.A., affiliated with Switzerland, emerged as the leader. The majority of taxa mentioned in plant-based meat analogues presented a high edibility rating and belonged to perennials, mainly herbaceous plants. However, the most frequently mentioned source of protein was annual soybean, as well as other short-lived taxa from the Fabaceae (pea, chickpea, lentil, lupine, fava bean) and Poaceae (e.g., wheat, rice, oats, corn) families, whilst numerous annual and perennial species (herbaceous plants, shrubs and trees) were frequently noticed as sources of lipids, polyphenols, starch, fibre and gum. At the same time, the slight use of numerous taxa, despite their substantial content of valuable constituents, as well as considerable edibility rating, presumably might be linked with their underutilization. Considering the great potential of useful plant species shown in the presented review, it might be stated that further investigations seem to be strongly desirable. Their main direction should be focused on searching for novel plant-based meat analogues based on underutilized, promising plant sources and investigating their effects on people’s performance, especially with increased physical activity.