Animal Protein Sources in Europe: Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives—A Review

Featured Application

This review provides guidance for policymakers, researchers, and the food industry on integrating conventional meat, organic production, insects-based protein, and cultured meat as complementary approaches to building a sustainable and resilient protein system in Europe.

Abstract

The pursuit of sustainable animal protein sources is critical in light of the environmental, social, and economic challenges associated with conventional livestock production. Although meat, including organic production, remains a valuable source of high-quality protein, diversification is essential to sustainably meet future demand. This review summarizes current knowledge on alternative animal protein sources, with a particular focus on insects and cultured meat in Europe. Insects demonstrate high feed conversion efficiency, require minimal land and water resources, and provide essential amino acids, lipids, and micronutrients, while contributing to circular economy models. Cultured meat presents potential advantages for environmental sustainability and animal welfare; however, its large-scale application depends on technological advances, cost reduction, and supportive regulation. Consumer acceptance remains a challenge influenced by cultural heritage, food neophobia, and product presentation. Policy frameworks, including the European Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy, seek to foster innovation and sustainable food systems. Future perspectives emphasize that conventional and organic meat, insect-based protein, and cultured meat should be regarded as complementary solutions for a balanced and resilient protein supply in Europe.

1. Introduction

Proteins are fundamental biomolecules essential to all forms of life. In animals, including humans, they perform a wide range of critical functions. Proteins constitute the structural components of cells, tissues, and organs, and they regulate numerous physiological processes, functioning as enzymes and hormones. Proteins also facilitate the transport of substances, such as oxygen, carried by hemoglobin, and contribute to the repair of damaged tissues. Furthermore, proteins are also part of the immune system as antibodies and are involved in maintaining acid–base and water–electrolyte balance within the body [1].

From a nutritional perspective, proteins are categorized as either animal or plant proteins. Animal proteins are derived from meat, fish, eggs, and dairy products, while plant proteins are found in legumes, cereals, noncereal plants, nuts, and seeds. They are also present in emerging sources such as macroalgae and microalgae, which are gaining increasing significance, mainly in certain parts of the world, particularly in regions rich in marine resources and with well-developed algal biotechnology [2]. In the European diet, animal proteins are the main source of protein [3]. They provide all essential amino acids and are highly digestible, often exceeding 90%. They are important to evaluate in terms of sustainability and nutrition [4,5].

Traditionally, livestock has served as the primary source of animal protein. However, certain invertebrates, such as insect larvae, are now gaining increasing attention as alternative protein sources. Advances in biotechnology have also enabled the production of proteins in controlled bioreactor environments, where animal cells are cultivated under sterile and regulated conditions. These products, known as cultured or cell-based meat, eliminate the need for conventional livestock farming and animal husbandry practices. Although plant-based proteins are important, but they differ from meat in terms of digestibility and amino acid composition. This review focuses on animal and alternative animal-derived proteins, particularly insect-based and cultured meat. Both sources provide protein of comparable quality to conventional meat and are less established in European diets. Game meat, dairy products, eggs, and fish are excluded from this discussion, as they are already well integrated into European diets and are not the primary source of protein or heme iron. Livestock meat continues to represent the dominant contributor in this regard. The classification of animal protein sources proposed by the authors is presented in Figure 1.

This review aims to describe, compare, and evaluate conventional, organic, and alternative animal protein sources in Europe, with particular emphasis on their nutritional, environmental, ethical, and economic advantages and disadvantages. The literature reviewed was identified through structured searches in Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar, covering the publications up to 2025. Keywords included, among others, conventional meat, organic meat, insect protein, cultured meat, alternative proteins, sustainability, consumer acceptance and nutrition as examples of the main search terms used in the review. We considered peer-reviewed articles, review papers, and reports from international organizations (FAO, EFSA, European Commission). Only English-language publications relevant to nutritional, environmental, and socio-economic aspects were included.

2. Global Meat Production and Consumption

Recent projections from the European Union (EU) Agricultural Outlook 2023–2035 indicate a gradual decline in per capita meat consumption across the EU. The strongest reductions are expected for pork and beef, while poultry is expected to continue increasing due to its affordability and broad consumer acceptance. These trends are consistent with the OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2024–2033 and Eurostat statistics, both of which confirm a steady decrease in meat consumption in Europe over the past decade [6,7,8].

These projections are consistent with consumer-level survey data. Results of the EU-funded Smart Protein Project (2023) reveal that more than half of European meat consumers (51%) report actively reducing their meat intake, compared to 46% in 2021. Health concerns are the leading driver of this trend (47% of respondents), followed by environmental motivations and animal welfare considerations. Furthermore, 28% of Europeans now consume at least one plant-based alternative to meat weekly, up from 21% in 2021, and nearly half of respondents (46%) state that their trust in plant-based alternatives has increased in the last two years. These findings highlight the growing influence of flexitarian dietary patterns, whereby consumers consciously reduce (but do not completely eliminate) animal protein consumption in favor of plant-based foods [9].

Taken together, these sources indicate a structural shift toward reduced reliance on red and processed meat, accompanied by increasing diversification into alternative proteins. Although per capita meat consumption is projected to decline, the European meat sector will remain economically important, supported by exports, population dynamics, and product diversification [10]. This transition has significant implications for sustainability strategies and the resilience of future food systems within the EU.

3. Conventional Meat

In recent decades, meat production has undergone significant intensification, transforming into a highly industrialized and efficient sector. This transformation has been shaped by diverse regional dynamics. In Europe, forecasts indicate a structural decline in overall meat consumption, with beef and pork gradually decreasing, while poultry remains the only category expected to expand [6]. In contrast, China has recorded a rapid rise in demand: per capita meat consumption increased from 24.8 kg in 1990 to more than 61 kg in 2020, reflecting both economic growth and dietary change [11]. Brazil, on the other hand, has become one of the world’s leading exporters, with industrial-scale beef production and reproduction technologies strongly influencing global markets [12]. These examples illustrate a dual global dynamic, with falling or stabilizing consumption in developed regions contrasted with expansion in emerging economies and export-oriented producers. Consequently, traditional grazing systems have been progressively replaced by industrial facilities housing thousands of animals under controlled conditions. Simultaneously, globalization has reinforced the role of meat as a mass commodity, produced in specialized low-cost regions and exported worldwide.

The rapid expansion of the industry has been facilitated by advances in biotechnology. The application of antibiotics, growth hormones, and selective breeding programs has reduced fattening periods and increased production efficiency. However, regulatory frameworks differ considerably between regions. In the European Union [13], the use of growth hormones is strictly prohibited due to consumer health concerns. In contrast, legislation in the United States, Canada, and Brazil [14] permits their use in cattle production to improve feed efficiency and carcass yield. In poultry production, hormones are seldom employed, since modern broilers already achieve slaughter weight within 5–6 weeks, compared to 12 weeks in the 1950s [15].

Breeding programs in pigs and poultry rely extensively on DNA-based selection for traits such as rapid muscle growth, disease resistance, and high feed efficiency. In cattle, artificial insemination enables the distribution of elite genetic material on a global scale. These practices have significantly increased productivity, but they also raise ethical and welfare concerns [16,17].

In conventional production systems, intensive breeding and feeding strategies not only increase efficiency but also influence meat quality traits. Tenderness, juiciness, and flavor are affected by factors such as muscle fiber structure, intramuscular fat, and ultimate pH, which are strongly shaped by genetics and diet [18,19,20]. Rapid growth and selective breeding can therefore improve yields but may compromise some sensory attributes, which remain highly valued by consumers [18].

The environmental burden of conventional meat production is substantial. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [21], livestock farming accounts for approximately 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, a figure that exceeds the contribution of the transport sector. Skidmore et al. [22] showed that deforestation, particularly in the Amazon Basin, is strongly linked to the expansion of pastures and feed crop cultivation, leading to biodiversity loss and soil degradation.

Water use represents another critical environmental challenge. The production of 1 kg of beef requires approximately 15,000 L of water when the full water footprint is considered. This includes green water (rainfall stored in soil), blue water (surface and groundwater used for irrigation), and gray water (the volume required to dilute pollutants) [21,23]. Nearly 30% of global agricultural land is dedicated to animal husbandry, often at the expense of forests and natural habitats. Despite these challenges, conventional meat remains an essential part of human diet. It provides high-value protein with excellent digestibility, a complete spectrum of essential amino acids, and micronutrients such as vitamin B₁₂, iron, and zinc, which are less available in plant-based foods [24].

However, the intensification of meat production has created significant challenges. Selective breeding for rapid growth often results in health problems, such as metabolic disorders in pigs and skeletal abnormalities in broilers [25,26]. Moreover, intensive confinement raises animal welfare concerns, as billions of animals live under conditions that restrict natural behaviors.

From a public health perspective, the extensive use of antibiotics in livestock contributes to the emergence of antimicrobial resistance, which is recognized as one of the greatest global health threats [23]. Furthermore, dense farming systems increase the risk of zoonotic disease outbreaks [27,28].

At the socio-economic level, the concentration of production within large multinational corporations undermines the position of small-scale farmers and increases economic inequalities. The dominance of industrial-scale systems also fuels ethical debates about the legitimacy of raising animals under highly controlled and stressful conditions [29,30].

In response to these criticisms, the meat industry has increasingly invested in innovations to reduce its environmental footprint. Feed additives such as 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP) can reduce enteric methane emissions by up to 30% [30]. Improved manure management strategies, including anaerobic digestion and nutrient recovery, contribute to both emission reduction and circular economy models. Silvopastoral systems, which integrate cattle grazing with tree cultivation, improve biodiversity and carbon sequestration while maintaining production [31].

In poultry production, animal welfare can be enhanced through free-range systems and environmental enrichment [26]. The use of slower-growing broiler strains increases production costs but is consistently associated with improved muscle development, better carcass characteristics, and superior meat quality traits [19,20]. Advances in genetics are also being directed toward disease resistance, potentially lowering the reliance on antibiotics [32]. These efforts demonstrate that conventional production systems can evolve toward greater sustainability; however, trade-offs among efficiency, environmental protection, and animal welfare remain unresolved.

Figure 2 provides an integrated overview of the advantages, disadvantages, and neutral aspects of conventional meat production, visually summarizing the main points discussed in this section.

4. Organic Meat

Organic meat, also referred to as ecological or BIO meat, represents an alternative to conventional animal products. According to the principles outlined by IFOAM Organics Europe [38], organic livestock production is based on ecological, health, fairness, and care principles, integrating traditional farming practices with ethical and environmental responsibility. The European market for organic food continues to expand, although the rate of growth varies considerably among countries, reflecting national differences in consumer preferences, and market dynamics [39]. Despite its advantages, organic livestock farming faces several structural challenges. Studies have shown that average yields in organic agriculture are about 20–25% lower than in conventional systems [40], increasing land requirements and may constrain the availability of agricultural land, especially under changing climatic conditions [41].

The philosophy of organic farming is based on coexistence with nature. Animals are raised in systems free of genetically modified organisms (GMO), and all feed components must come from certified organic crops. Antibiotics are permitted only in cases of serious illness, after other treatment methods have failed, and their use requires extended withdrawal periods before slaughter [42,43].

Animal welfare standards are central to organic production. Beef cattle must spend at least 60% of their lives on open pastures, with access to natural feed and the ability to maintain herd behavior. Pigs are provided with straw bedding for nesting and rooting, while poultry have access to outdoor runs and natural light [44,45]. Growth in organic systems is slower due to the ban on growth hormones and the use of less intensive feeding. Broiler chickens reach slaughter weight in about 81 days, compared to 35–40 days in industrial systems. Similar delays occur in pigs and cattle. Ribas-Agustí et al. [46] found that organic (pasture-raised) beef had higher concentrations of bioactive compounds, including coenzyme Q₁₀, β-carotene, and α-tocopherol, indicating improved meat quality. However, slower growth still raises production costs.

Organic production standards in the European Union prescribe higher animal welfare conditions; however, actual outcomes are highly dependent on management practices, breed, and environmental factors. Studies indicate that outdoor access, although beneficial for natural behavior, can also increase the risk of parasitic infections and climatic stress, implying that high welfare is not automatically guaranteed in organic systems [43,47].

Feed supply represents another major limitation. Organic feed must be both GMO-free and organically certified, making it more resource- and water-intensive. Feed already accounts for most of livestock’s environmental footprint, and organic feed further increases costs and land pressure [39,48,49]. This challenge particularly affects smallholders, limiting their competitiveness.

From an environmental perspective, organic farming is generally associated with improved biodiversity and reduced nutrient losses; however, its overall impact remains context-dependent. Organic farms typically function within closed nutrient cycles, in which manure and slurry are composted and reused as fertilizers for feed crops, thus minimizing nutrient losses and reducing water pollution [42]. Nevertheless, lower productivity and slower growth rates can offset some of these environmental advantages. Comparative studies have shown that grass-fed or organic beef systems may emit 10–25% more greenhouse gases per kilogram of meat than conventional intensive systems [50,51]. These trade-offs emphasize the need to assess welfare, environmental, and productivity outcomes in an integrated rather than isolated manner.

The control and certification system forms the foundation of trust in organic products. Each farm undergoes regular inspections conducted by accredited certification bodies, including at least some unannounced visits. Auditors verify not only the documentation but also the living conditions of animals, the sources of feed, and the use of veterinary treatments. Products that meet all requirements receive the distinctive Euro-leaf logo—a green leaf with stars, recognized throughout the European Union. Importantly, certification covers the entire production chain, from the farm to the point of sale, ensuring full transparency [43,44]. Organic farms are typically inspected two to three times per year, and products meeting the standards are granted the mandatory EU organic logo [44].

The health-promoting potential of organic meat is supported by scientific evidence. Średnicka-Tober et al. [44], in a systematic review and meta-analysis, showed that organic meat contains more favorable concentrations of nutrients than conventionally produced meat. The main differences concern the fatty acid profile, which is more beneficial in organic meat. Daley et al. [52] confirmed these findings, reporting that beef from grass-fed cattle has a more favorable omega-6 to omega-3 ratio (1.53:1 vs. 7.65:1 in grain-fed beef). This reflects a higher content of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids. Pasture-raised beef also contained 3.1 times more vitamin E (α-tocopherol) and showed higher glutathione redox potential and antioxidant enzyme activity compared to grain-fed meat. In addition, organs such as beef heart from pasture-fed cattle were rich in coenzyme Q₁₀. More recent research by Evans et al. [53] confirmed that pasture-finishing improves markers of metabolic health in cattle and enhances the nutritional profile of beef, including higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids and antioxidant compounds. These nutritional benefits highlight the added value of organic and pasture-raised meat.

It is important to distinguish among ecologically reared (organic), grass-fed, and grain-fed systems. Ecologically reared (organic) meat comes from animals raised in compliance with organic certification standards. These rules require the use of certified organic feed. They also restrict antibiotics and ensure access to pasture and high welfare conditions [54]. Grass-fed beef refers to animals primarily fed on pasture or forage. This feeding strategy is associated with a more favorable fatty acid profile and higher antioxidant content [52,53]. In contrast, grain-fed beef is produced mainly in feedlot systems. Cattle in such systems are finished on high-energy grain-based diets. These diets accelerate growth but lead to a higher omega-6 to omega-3 ratio and lower antioxidant levels [52]. While organic production often overlaps with grass-feeding practices, organic rearing represents a legally regulated production system. Grass-fed and grain-fed designations refer primarily to feeding strategies.

These nutritional advantages form the basis for growing consumer interest in organic and pasture-raised meat. Consumer-oriented studies confirm that organically produced meat is often rated more positively than its conventional counterpart. Revilla et al. [55] reported that organic lamb received higher overall appreciation and better sensory evaluations compared to conventional meat, while Abdullah and Hulánková [56] found that organic chicken was more favorably assessed in terms of color, odor, and overall attractiveness. In addition, organic farming supports biodiversity, with meta-analyses showing an average of 30% more species on organic farms than on conventional ones [57].

Nonetheless, high production costs, limited market access, and institutional or policy frameworks that favor conventional systems remain major barriers to the wider adoption of organic agriculture [58,59]. Strengthening organic support schemes, considering carbon pricing, and incorporating environmental externalities into market and policy mechanisms could enhance the competitiveness and long-term sustainability of organic production systems [39,60].

Consumer acceptance can also be influenced by communication strategies. Najdek et al. [61] observed that the beef samples in their study were identical, variations in storytelling context significantly affected consumer responses. Nevertheless, acceptance, preference, and satisfaction increased when the product was presented through a positive and sustainable narrative. These findings confirm that consumer attitudes may depend not only on intrinsic product qualities but also by how information about it is communicated.

Despite these benefits, challenges remain. Organic production is often associated with lower yields and higher production costs. Higher expenses result from the use of organic feed, stricter animal welfare requirements, slower growth rates, and greater labor intensity. Certification and control also generate additional costs for farmers, which are proportionally more burdensome for smaller holdings [39]. Furthermore, processors and distributors highlight barriers such as underdeveloped distribution channels and limited consumer access, which restrict the growth potential of the organic food sector [62]. Altogether, these economic and logistical constraints may slow the wider development of the organic meat sector.

Ethical values remain a strong motivation for many consumers. Research shows that willingness to pay for animal welfare-friendly products can, in some cases, outweigh purely economic considerations. Some buyers are willing to accept higher prices because organic production ensures that animals are raised under natural conditions and can express species-specific behaviors. This ethical dimension helps stabilize consumer demand in the long term [63,64].

The future of the organic meat sector remains uncertain. Although rising consumer awareness may support further growth, high prices and limited market access could constrain expansion. Intermediate quality assurance schemes positioned between conventional and organic systems may offer a compromise [65]. While organic meat production entails potential health and ethical advantages, its economic feasibility and environmental efficiency require further assessment in the context of increasing global protein demand [39,66]. Figure 3 provides a graphical summary of the key environmental, ethical, and economic aspects discussed in this section. Balancing these factors will be crucial to determining the role of organic meat in future food systems. However, both conventional and organic livestock production face inherent environmental and ethical constraints, which has stimulated research into alternative protein sources such as insects and cultured meat.

5. Insect Proteins

Conventional and organic meat are often criticized as forms of animal exploitation. Rumpold and Schlüter [67] noted that invertebrates may provide a more ethical protein source. However, seafood invertebrates can accumulate toxic substances, including heavy metals, dioxins, PCBs, and microplastics, which may lead to food poisoning, allergies, or long-term damage to the nervous and internal organ systems. Their supply is also steadily decreasing. For these reasons, insect larvae are increasingly studied as an alternative protein source [37,67]. Oonincx and Finke [68] showed that insects provide high-quality protein and that their composition can be manipulated to improve nutritional value. However, their broader incorporation into global food systems necessitates further research concerning microbiological safety, technological standardization, and consumer acceptance.

Insect biomass generally contains between 35% and 75% protein on a dry matter basis, comparable to conventional animal-derived protein sources [36,68]. The amino acid composition of insects is generally well-balanced and includes high concentrations of essential amino acids such as lysine, leucine, and threonine [69]. However, certain insect proteins, notably tropomyosin, are also recognized as potential allergens, highlighting the importance of safety evaluation [70]. For example, protein digestibility in Tenebrio molitor has been reported to vary between 76% and 98%, contingent upon the specific processing technique employed [67]. However, conventional protein quantification methods may overestimate actual protein content due to the presence of non-protein nitrogenous compounds, particularly those associated with chitin. To address this, Gravel and Doyen [71] propose using a nitrogen-to-protein conversion factor of 4.76 instead of the traditional 6.25, to improve accuracy. Insects are also rich in micronutrients, including iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamin B₁₂, which are often deficient in plant-based diets [72,73,74].

In addition to nutritional value, insect proteins have functional properties relevant to food processing. They demonstrate foaming, emulsifying, gelling, and water-holding capacities that enable application in bakery products, meat analogs, and beverages. Species such as Tenebrio molitor, Gryllodes sigillatus, and Schistocerca gregaria provide protein preparations with high water and oil retention. G. sigillatus showed foaming capacity of 99% and stability of 92%, exceeding many plant proteins [75,76,77]. Processing methods strongly influence functionality. Thermal treatment, pH-shift solubilization, enzymatic hydrolysis, and mechanical disruption can modify protein structure [78]. Mild hydrolysis improves solubility and emulsification, while excessive denaturation reduces gelation and foaming. Optimization of processing is therefore essential [71,78].

Enzymatically hydrolyzed insect proteins demonstrate bioactivity, including antioxidant and antihypertensive properties [70]. For example, Garrido-Ortiz and Morales-Camacho [79] obtained hydrolysates from larvae of Aegiale hesperiaris and Comadia redtenbacheri, which showed strong antioxidant activity and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition. Protein recovery and quality depend on rearing conditions, feed composition, and processing methods such as defatting and hydrolysis [71,80,81]. However, the lack of standardized protocols continues to limit comparability across studies and hinders industrial scale-up [82]. Overall, insect proteins are nutritionally complete, rich in essential amino acids, and exhibit versatile techno-functional properties [80,82,83,84]. Their lipid fraction, being a valuable source of polyunsaturated fatty acids, further enhances both their nutritional and technological potential [80].

Life cycle assessment (LCA) studies confirm the environmental benefits of insect farming. Production generates fewer greenhouse gas emissions, requires less land, and consumes less water than livestock [37,85]. For example, producing 1 kg of mealworms (Tenebrio molitor) requires about 4000–4500 L of water, approximately 18 m²·year⁻¹ of land, and results in around 2–3 kg CO₂-eq emissions, compared to more than 15,000 L of water, ~200 m²·year⁻¹ of land, and up to 30 kg CO₂-eq for 1 kg of beef [37,86]. Hermetia illucens (black soldier fly) is especially important for the circular bioeconomy. It converts agro-industrial by-products into proteins, lipids, and frass, supporting zero-waste strategies [87]. These advantages may be offset by energy-intensive processing. Climate control in large-scale production (ventilation, heating, lighting) increases energy demand and reduces net sustainability [88]. Economic barriers also persist. High labor, infrastructure, and energy costs limit scalability. Unlike livestock, insect farms rarely receive subsidies, which reduces competitiveness [33]. Policy support and technological improvements are needed to strengthen viability.

Food safety and regulation are critical challenges. Allergenicity is a key concern, especially due to tropomyosin, which is structurally similar to crustacean allergens [70]. Insects can also accumulate heavy metals, pesticide residues, or pathogens if produced under poor conditions [33,34,89]. In the European Union, edible insects are classified as novel foods under Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 [79]. As of 2024, only Tenebrio molitor and Acheta domesticus have received authorization following safety evaluations by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) [34]. However, the absence of harmonized international regulations limits global trade and innovation. Standardization of safety rules is necessary to protect consumers and support expansion.

Cultural acceptance remains a barrier. In many Asian, African, and Latin American societies, entomophagy is traditional, while in Western societies it is rare [73,89,90]. Acceptance is shaped by cultural heritage, seasonal availability, and perceived safety [91]. Insects are often chosen for taste, ease of collection, or symbolic value. Globalization and urbanization weaken these traditions, especially among younger generations. In Western markets, food neophobia reduces willingness to consume insects, especially in visible form [76]. Acceptance increases when insect proteins are incorporated into familiar foods such as bread, pasta, or energy bars [92]. Educational campaigns and reformulated products that mask insect appearance can further improve consumer perception [75]. Widespread adoption will require product innovation, cultural adaptation, regulatory support, and consumer engagement, as illustrated in Figure 4.

6. Cultured Meat

Traditional animal agriculture creates environmental, health, and ethical challenges. Cultured meat, also called in vitro or cell-based meat, is presented as an alternative with potential benefits for both the environment and human health. The technology applies tissue engineering to cultivate meat from animal cells in laboratory bioreactors. Growth media replace the need for live animal rearing and slaughter. Advantages include improved control over quality and nutritional composition, reduced pathogen risks, and a lower environmental footprint compared to conventional or organic meat. The technology, however, remains in an early stage and requires further optimization before large-scale commercialization [93].

In contrast to conventional, organic, or insect proteins with a long and well-documented history, cultured meat represents a novel field. A brief historical overview is therefore included to emphasize its recent origins and development. The first experiment in muscle cell culture dates back to 1912, when Alexis Carrel maintained chicken heart tissue in vitro [94]. Although not intended for food, this study proved long-term cultivation was possible. In 1953, Willem van Eelen proposed using tissue engineering for meat, but patents did not appear until the 1990s [95]. Research accelerated in the late 1990s. In 1997, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) cultured zebrafish muscle tissue as a food source for space missions [96]. Two years later, the SymbioticA team cultivated frog muscle tissue, marking one of the earliest art-science collaborations [97]. In 2013, Mark Post presented the first cultured hamburger, composed of more than 20,000 bovine muscle fibers, produced from satellite cells at a cost of about €250,000 [98]. Since then, startups such as Mosa Meat, GOOD Meat, and Upside Foods have expanded the field. Organizations like New Harvest advocate for cellular agriculture [99]. In 2020, Singapore approved the commercial sale of cultured chicken by Eat Just [89]. On 21 June 2023, the USDA authorized cultured chicken from Upside Foods and GOOD Meat. Approval involved FDA consultation and USDA inspection with FSIS labeling [100,101]. In 2024, some countries and U.S. states banned cultured meat, citing food safety and cultural concerns [102]. Meanwhile, Israel’s Ministry of Health approved the first cultured beef steak, Aleph Cuts, produced by Aleph Farms, after a rabbinical declaration deemed it kosher-neutral [103,104]. On 7 April 2025, FSANZ authorized the sale of quail pâté and foie gras produced by Vow Foods, marking a significant milestone for cultured meat commercialization in Australia [105]. In Poland, the first public demonstrations of cultured meat took place in 2019. LabFarm, established in 2022, focuses primarily on poultry research and has recently presented prototype products supported by national funding [106].

Public acceptance is crucial for market development. Bryant and Barnett [107] reported that attitudes toward cultured meat are mixed and shaped by environmental awareness, food safety concerns, and ethical views. Pakseresht et al. [108] and Rosenfeld and Tomiyama [109] showed that acceptance increases when consumers learn about environmental and welfare benefits, but skepticism about taste, safety, and naturalness remains. Wilks and Phillips [110] indicated that empathy toward animals, ecological concern, and openness to innovation are positive predictors, while attachment to tradition and conservative values often reduce acceptance. Verbeke et al. [111] found that consumers in Belgium, Portugal, and the UK frequently react with initial disgust and distrust, perceiving cultured meat as unnatural. They acknowledge potential benefits but struggle to connect them with personal diets. Transparency, clear labeling, and regulatory oversight are essential to build trust [111,112]. Demographic and cultural factors further shape consumer acceptance.

Limited knowledge about nutrition and production methods also fuels perceptions of artificiality. Higher acceptance correlates with younger age, higher education, and openness to innovation [113]. Cross-country comparisons show cultural differences: German consumers are more open and environmentally aware than French consumers [114]. Trust in institutions and producers influences acceptance. Younger and environmentally engaged groups are more receptive, while older demographics remain skeptical [109,112,115]. Surveys in Poland confirm these trends. In 2022, Popek et al. [116] studied 424 people aged 12–60+. Younger adults (18–30) were more open, but concerns about naturalness and knowledge gaps persisted. In 2023, a survey of 1,553 respondents found that 63% had heard of cultured meat and 54% were willing to buy it. Main motivations included reducing animal suffering (76%), environmental benefits (67%), and curiosity (58%). Safety concerns were cited by 39% of potential buyers and 49% of opponents [117].

Religious and cultural factors also influence consumer acceptance. In Muslim and Jewish communities, approval often depends on whether the product can be classified as halal or kosher, which in turn depends on cell source and culture medium composition [118]. Global awareness of climate challenges and the need for livestock system transformation is growing. Alternative food production models, including cultured meat, are gaining traction. However, successful implementation requires the alignment of legal, financial, and infrastructural systems with sustainability goals [119,120].

Beyond technological and regulatory hurdles, policy must also address social and ethical considerations such as the protection of agricultural jobs, public education, and consumer transparency. International cooperation on production standards, food safety, and trade will be vital for harmonizing the cultured meat market and removing trade barriers. At present, only a few countries permit commercial cultured meat production: Singapore (since 2020), select U.S. states, and Australia (since 2025) [99,100,105]. In the EU, cultured meat is regulated under the Novel Food framework. Each product must be approved by the EFSA prior to market entry. As of now, no cultured meat product has received such approval [121,122].

Nevertheless, European countries are actively investing in cultured meat research through grants, public–private partnerships, and national innovation programs. The Netherlands, considered a pioneer, introduced the first prototype cultured burger in 2013. In 2022, it allocated €60 million from the National Growth Fund to develop the cellular agriculture ecosystem, representing the largest European investment to date [98,123].

Cultured meat is aligned with climate policies such as the European Green Deal, the EU’s overarching roadmap to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 through sustainable economic transformation, and the Farm to Fork Strategy, which sets out actions to make food systems fair, healthy, and environmentally friendly by promoting sustainable production, reducing food waste, and improving consumer health [121,124]. It offers potential reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and land demand [125]. Realizing this potential requires integration with broader food system strategies, including organic farming, agroecology, and circular economy models. Progress will depend on supportive regulation, financial investment, biotechnology infrastructure, and consumer education. International collaboration will also be crucial for standardization, food safety, and trade. Such measures are necessary to overcome market barriers and accelerate global adoption [121,124,126]. These interrelated technological, regulatory, economic, and social aspects are synthesized and summarized in Figure 5, which presents the main challenges and opportunities for the development of cultured meat.

7. Future Perspectives, Challenges, and Limitations

Conventional meat will remain an important source of nutrition; however, its production systems must change to reduce environmental and ethical impacts. Alternative proteins, including insects and cultured meat, provide additional options that can improve sustainability. However, they face challenges linked to production scale, regulation, and consumer acceptance. Cultured meat remains technologically complex and costly of produce, while insect protein presents concerns regarding allergenicity and cultural acceptance. Further research is required to standardize processing methods, ensure food safety, and reduce production costs. International cooperation and supportive policy will be essential to establish fair market conditions. Moreover, education and transparent communication are also important for building consumer trust. Figure 6 illustrates how conventional, organic, insect-based, and cultured protein sources can be integrated within a sustainable and diversified food system.

8. Conclusions

The future of protein supply will depend on combining different sources rather than relying on a single solution. Insects and cultured meat represent promising innovations that can reduce the environmental and ethical impact of production, while conventional and organic meat continue to provide essential nutrients and cultural significance. A diversified protein system that combines these sources can increase resilience and sustainability. Progress in this direction will require scientific research, regulatory clarity, supportive policy, and active consumer engagement. At the same time, improvements in conventional production remain essential to reduce its ecological impact and meet global expectations for responsible food systems.