Replacing Meat with Plant-Based Proteins: An Analysis of Nutritional, Sustainability and Acceptability Aspects

Abstract

As the world progresses towards more sustainable food systems, an increasing number of individuals are inclined to reduce meat consumption and transition to plant-based protein sources. Given the implications of climate change and escalating public health issues, plant-based protein sources appear to be a viable alternative; yet, this transition will be challenging to implement. Legumes, cereals, oilseeds, microalgae, and mycoprotein constitute the primary sources of plant-derived protein. Each possesses distinct functional attributes; yet, they also exhibit certain nutritional constraints. The restrictions mostly pertain to the composition of essential amino acids and the body’s efficacy in utilizing micronutrients such as iron, zinc, and vitamin B₁₂. From an ecological perspective, plant-based proteins often exert a significantly lesser impact on the environment compared to conventional meat. This reduces greenhouse gas emissions and optimizes resource utilization. Recent technological advancements, including fermentation methods, shear cell structuring, and high-moisture extrusion, have significantly improved the texture and flavor of plant-based products. However, consumer perceptions of the sensory attributes of these products significantly influence their acceptance. Current research priorities include improving protein digestibility, mitigating antinutritional factors, reducing salt content, and generating robust long-term data on health effects/health benefits. Ultimately, replacing meat with plant-based proteins involves not only scientific and nutritional considerations but also requires significant cultural and societal transformations to establish a more balanced and sustainable food system.

1. Introduction

Global food systems are under more stress than ever because of population increase, climate change, and damage to the environment. Roughly 14.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions generated by people come from meat production, especially ruminant meat. It also uses roughly 77% of all agricultural land in the globe. It only gives individuals throughout the world 18% of their calories and 37% of their protein [1,2]. In this context, transitioning to plant-based protein sources is viewed as a key approach to meet sustainability goals and help ensure food security [3].

Plant-based proteins originate from a wide range of sources, such as legumes (like soybeans, peas, lentils, and beans), cereals (like wheat, rice, and oats), pseudocereals (like quinoa and amaranth), oilseeds (like sunflower, pumpkin, and hemp), and novel sources like microalgae and mycoprotein [4,5]. Each of these sources presents specific advantages and limitations when it comes to amino acid content, micronutrient bioavailability, and technological features [6]. Figure 1 illustrates the main categories of plant-derived protein sources considered in this review, highlighting their diversity and the wide range of raw materials currently used in the development of plant-based food products.

Plant-based proteins are good for the environment, but there are a few things that keep them from becoming popular. Many consumers perceive plant-based foods as having inferior sensory properties compared with meat [7,8]. Taste, texture, and aroma remain major challenges. Additionally, psychological, cultural, and economic factors significantly influence consumers’ decisions to adopt these products [9,10].

Recent advances in technology have greatly improved the quality of plant-based protein products. High-moisture extrusion, precision fermentation, shear cell structuring, and 3D printing are some of the methods that make it possible to make products that feel and taste more like meat [11,12,13]. These technological advances have the potential to significantly influence the development of alternative protein products and future food systems [14].

Recent global estimates suggest that livestock production provides approximately 37% of the global protein supply, while plant-derived foods contribute an important share of dietary protein in many regions of the world. Average daily protein intake recommendations for adults are approximately 0.8 g/kg body weight, although requirements may vary depending on age, physiological status, and physical activity levels. As a result, the identification of sustainable and nutritionally adequate protein sources has become an important topic in food system research [1,2].

Previous studies have emphasized the need to evaluate alternative protein sources from multiple perspectives, including nutritional quality, environmental sustainability, and consumer acceptance, as technological feasibility alone is not sufficient to ensure consumer adoption of new food products [2,14].

In this complex context, the replacement of meat with plant-based proteins requires an integrated analysis that simultaneously considers nutritional quality, environmental sustainability, and consumer acceptability. Therefore, the aim of this review is to synthesize current scientific knowledge on meat replacement with plant-based protein sources by integrating evidence from nutritional studies, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) research, and consumer behavior analyses. To achieve this aim, the review examines three complementary dimensions: the nutritional comparison between meat and plant-based analogues, the environmental impact of plant-based protein sources and derived products, and the determinants of consumer acceptability together with possible strategies to support the adoption of plant-based products. By integrating these perspectives, the review provides a conceptual and practical framework that may support researchers, industry stakeholders, and policymakers in the development of food solutions aligned with both public health and sustainability objectives.

2. Methodology

2.1. Study Design

This study was conducted as an integrative literature review, aiming to synthesize existing research on plant-based protein substitution from three complementary perspectives: nutritional quality, environmental sustainability, and consumer acceptability.

The integrative review approach allows the combination of evidence from different types of studies, including experimental research, observational studies, and review papers. This approach was selected in order to provide a comprehensive overview of the current scientific literature while identifying key trends, research gaps, and emerging challenges in the field of alternative proteins. The review process was structured into five main steps. The review process was structured into five main steps to ensure a meticulous evaluation of the literature about the substitution of meat with plant-based proteins, including the perspectives of nutrition, sustainability, and consumer acceptance.

Figure 2 presents a comprehensive diagram of the methodology flow employed in this investigation. It delineates the sequential procedure from source identification to result dissemination.

Figure 2 describes the methodological flow of the research, namely, a systematic approach in five phases: Phase 1 (blue)—identification and initial search in databases; Phase 2 (green)—screening and filtering using eligibility criteria; Phase 3 (orange)—thematic analysis on three main dimensions; Phase 4 (purple)—synthesis and interpretation using multiple analytical methods; Phase 5 (red)—generation of results and dissemination. The side boxes show the quality assurance mechanisms and tools used. The arrows indicate the direction of the workflow, and the dotted boxes represent the points of exclusion of ineligible studies.

Although this study does not represent a fully systematic review, the literature search and screening process followed structured principles inspired by PRISMA reporting guidelines in order to ensure transparency in the selection and evaluation of the included studies.

2.2. Strategy for Searching and Identifying Sources

A structured literature search was conducted between November 2025 and February 2026 across several widely recognized scientific databases and academic platforms, including:

• Google Scholar—academic search engine providing broad coverage of scientific publications.
• Science Direct—publisher platform used to access peer-reviewed journals in food science and related disciplines.
• PubMed/MEDLINE—biomedical database maintained by the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
• Web of Science—multidisciplinary database of peer-reviewed scientific literature.

The final literature search was completed in February 2026, ensuring that the most recent studies available at the time of manuscript preparation were included. Search terms were adapted for each database in order to account for differences in indexing and search functionalities.

The literature selection process followed structured principles inspired by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines in order to ensure transparency in the identification, screening, and selection of relevant studies. A PRISMA-style flow diagram illustrating the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion stages of the literature selection process is provided in the Supplementary Materials.

Specific search strategies were developed for each research dimension, using Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) and wildcards to maximize sensitivity:

Nutritional Dimension:

(“plant-based protein” OR “plant protein” OR “vegetable protein” OR “legume protein”)

AND (“nutritional quality” OR “amino acid” OR “protein quality” OR “digestibility” OR “bioavailability” OR “micronutrient”)

AND (“meat alternative” OR “meat substitute” OR “meat analog”)

The Dimension of Sustainability:

(“plant-based meat” OR “plant protein” OR “meat alternative”)

AND (“sustainability” OR “environmental impact” OR “carbon footprint” OR “greenhouse gas” OR “GHG emission” OR “life cycle assessment” OR “LCA” OR “water footprint” OR “land use”)

The Dimension of Acceptability:

(“plant-based meat” OR “meat alternative” OR “plant protein”)

AND (“consumer acceptance” OR “consumer perception” OR “sensory” OR “taste” OR “texture” OR “willingness to consume” OR “food choice” OR “barriers” OR “drivers”)

Inclusion Criteria:

-

Research published from 2015 to 2026 (emphasizing the last five years: 2020–2026).

-

Peer-reviewed articles in indexed scientific journals.

-

Studies published in English or Romanian.

-

Original research, meta-analyses, systematic and narrative reviews.

-

Studies examining at least one of the three investigated dimensions.

-

Research characterized by explicit methodologies and reproducible results.

Exclusion Criteria:

-

Studies released prior to 2015 (excluding foundational/classical texts).

-

Articles that have not been peer-reviewed (like letters to the editor, editorials, and conference abstracts).

-

Studies for which full text was not accessible or have missing data.

-

Studies that only look at animal proteins and do not compare them to plant-based ones.

-

Duplicates and early drafts of the same study.

-

Studies with major undeclared conflicts of interest that were not reported.

2.3. Process for Screening and Choosing

The screening process happened in two steps:

Step 1: Screening of the Title and Abstract:

-

Initial evaluation of relevance based on title and abstract.

-

Use of initial inclusion/exclusion criteria to find studies that might be eligible for full-text evaluation.

-

Result: Of the 218 studies that were first found, 162 were chosen for full-text evaluation.

Stage 2: Full-Text Evaluation:

-

Read all of the chosen studies in full.

-

Strict use of eligibility criteria.

-

Evaluation of methodological quality.

-

Extraction of preliminary data.

-

Result: 125 studies fulfilled all criteria and were incorporated into the final synthesis. The primary reasons for excluding the 93 studies after full-text evaluation were: 28 studies had incomplete data or unclear methods; 32 studies only looked at the technical side of processing without any nutritional or acceptability data; 14 studies did not have any relevant comparison groups; 11 studies had duplicates or data that was similar to other publications; and we could not access the full text of 8 studies.

The screening process was conducted in two stages by evaluating titles, abstracts, and full texts according to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were excluded if they did not address at least one of the three investigated dimensions, lacked sufficient methodological transparency, or did not provide relevant comparative information regarding plant-based and animal protein sources.

2.4. Data Extraction and Management

The following details were taken from each study that was included:

Bibliographic Data: authors, year of publication, title; journal/source, DOI; country of origin of the study.

Methodological Traits: the type of study (experimental, observational, review, etc.); size of the sample; methods of analysis used; length of the study (if necessary).

Data by Dimension:

Food: amount of protein (g/100 g), profile of essential amino acids, protein quality scores (Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score—PDCAAS; Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score—DIAAS), micronutrient content (Fe, Zn, Ca, vitamins), antinutritional factors, bioavailability.

Sustainability: greenhouse gas emissions (kg CO₂-eq), land use (m²), water consumption (L), LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) indicators, eutrophication and acidification potential.

Acceptability: sensory factors (taste, texture, aroma), acceptability scores, barriers and facilitators, purchase intention, consumer segmentation, demographic and psychographic factors.

All extracted information was organized in a structured database using spreadsheet software (Excel/CSV format). Data consistency was verified by checking numerical values and standardizing measurement units across studies. When necessary, conversions between units were performed to ensure comparability of the reported results. In addition, the reliability of the extracted data was evaluated by distinguishing between directly reported values and values derived or estimated from the available information.

Quality considerations were taken into account during the selection and interpretation of the included studies. Studies with clearly described methodologies, transparent data reporting, and peer-reviewed publication status were prioritized during the synthesis process. When interpreting the results, particular attention was given to methodological differences between studies, including experimental design, sample size, and data reporting approaches.

The extracted information served as the basis for the subsequent synthesis and comparative analysis of the reviewed studies, as described in the following section.

2.5. Data Synthesis and Analysis

Because the studies included in this review differed in terms of design, population, and analytical methods, a mixed synthesis approach was adopted. The analysis combined narrative synthesis with structured comparative evaluation in order to integrate findings across the three main dimensions investigated in this study: nutritional characteristics, environmental sustainability, and consumer acceptability. Narrative synthesis was used to identify key themes, recurring patterns, and research gaps in the literature.

Comparative tables and figures were developed to summarize the main characteristics reported in the reviewed studies. These visual elements present information related to nutritional composition, protein quality indicators, environmental impacts, antinutritional factors, consumer segmentation, and processing technologies used in plant-based protein products. The numerical values presented in tables and figures were extracted from previously published studies and used to illustrate general trends reported in the literature. These values were not subjected to original statistical testing but were included to provide a comparative overview of the ranges and patterns described in previous research.

In addition, a qualitative meta-synthesis approach was applied to analyze factors influencing consumer acceptance of plant-based protein products. Thematic analysis was performed using an inductive coding approach in which recurring concepts identified in the selected studies were grouped into broader thematic categories. Two reviewers independently coded the studies and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. When conflicting findings were identified, particularly in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies, the results were interpreted in relation to methodological differences such as functional units, system boundaries, and geographical context.

• As with any literature review, several methodological limitations should be acknowledged. The analysis relied on data reported in previously published studies, which may vary in terms of methodology, geographical context, and analytical approaches. Therefore, the figures and comparative tables included in this review should be interpreted as literature-based syntheses intended to highlight general trends rather than precise quantitative comparisons.

3. Sources of Plant Protein and Nutritional Characteristics

3.1. Legumes

Legumes are the most important type of plant protein source because they are grown and eaten all over the world. Soybeans (Glycine max) are the legumes with the most protein, with about 36–40% protein based on dry weight [15]. Soy proteins have a fairly complete amino acid profile, with all of the essential amino acids present, but methionine is only present in small amounts [16]. Soy-based foods like tofu, tempeh, and soy protein isolate are often used to make meat substitutes [17].

Peas (Pisum sativum) have recently become a popular source of protein in the food industry because they are healthy and work well. Pea proteins have about 20–25% protein and a wide range of lysine, but they do not have enough sulfur amino acids [18]. Many commercial products, like veggie burgers and protein drinks, use pea protein isolate [19].

Lentils (Lens culinaris), beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), and chickpeas (Cicer arietinum) are also good sources of protein, with 20–30% of their weight being protein [4]. These legumes are high in dietary fiber, B vitamins, and minerals like iron and zinc. However, antinutritional factors may make these micronutrients less available [20].

3.2. Cereals and Pseudocereals

Cereals are mostly thought of as sources of carbohydrates, but they are also a big part of getting enough protein, especially in plant-based diets. Wheat (Triticum aestivum) has about 10–15% protein, mostly in the form of gluten, which gives it the viscoelastic properties that are important for baking [21]. Wheat gluten is used in a wide range of plant-based products because it can make things with different textures [22].

Oats (Avena sativa) have 15–17% protein and a better amino acid profile than other cereals because they have more lysine [23]. Oat proteins have good functional properties, like the ability to emulsify and foam, which makes them useful in many food applications [24].

Many consumers perceive that pseudocereals, especially quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) and amaranth (Amaranthus spp.), are very good for you. Quinoa has about 14–16% protein and is thought to be a complete protein source because it has all the essential amino acids in the right amounts [25]. This quality makes quinoa a good choice for vegetarians and vegans [26].

3.3. Oilseeds

Oilseeds have a wide range of protein and lipids in them, and they are becoming more useful in the food industry. Hemp seeds (Cannabis sativa) have about 30–35% protein and give you a full set of amino acids [27]. Hemp proteins are easy to digest and work well in protein drinks and baked goods [28].

Chia seeds (Salvia hispanica) and flax seeds (Linum usitatissimum) have 15–20% protein and are high in omega-3 fatty acids, fiber, and antioxidants [29]. These seeds are useful because they have a full nutritional profile, even though they do not have a wide range of protein [30].

Sunflower and pumpkin seeds are also important sources of protein (20–30%), and they can be used to make protein concentrates and isolates [31]. These proteins have multiple functional applications, like being able to dissolve and gel [32].

3.4. Emerging Sources: Microalgae and Mycoprotein

Microalgae, particularly spirulina (Arthrospira platensis) and chlorella (Chlorella vulgaris), are extraordinarily abundant in protein, comprising 50–70% of their dry weight [33]. These microorganisms that do photosynthesis have a full range of essential amino acids and are full of vitamins, minerals, and bioactive compounds [34]. However, their use in food applications remains limited because they have a strong taste and smell and are expensive to make [35].

Mycoprotein, which is made by fermenting the filamentous fungus Fusarium venenatum, is about 45% protein and has a fibrous structure that feels like meat [36]. This ingredient is found in store-bought foods like Quorn and has a good nutritional profile, with a wide range of fiber and not much saturated fat [37].

Precision fermentation is a new technology that uses genetically modified microorganisms to make proteins that are exactly like those found in animals, but without using animals [38]. This method can be used to make proteins like casein, albumin, and collagen, which could be used to make products with better sensory and functional properties [39].

In addition to plant-based proteins, several other alternative protein sources are currently being explored in the context of sustainable food systems. These include insect proteins, microbial proteins produced through fermentation, and cultured meat developed through cellular agriculture technologies. Insect proteins have attracted increasing attention due to their high protein content and relatively low environmental footprint. Similarly, microbial fermentation technologies enable the production of protein-rich biomass from microorganisms, while cultured meat aims to produce animal protein without conventional livestock production systems. Although these alternative proteins are not the main focus of the present review, they represent important emerging directions in the development of sustainable protein systems [13,14,38,39].

4. Nutritional Aspects: Protein Quality and Micronutrient Bioavailability

4.1. Amino Acid Profile and Protein Quality

The quality of proteins depends on the amino acids they contain and how easy they are to digest. Animal proteins are usually thought to be complete proteins because they have all the essential amino acids in the right amounts for human needs [40]. Most plant-based proteins, on the other hand, are missing one or more essential amino acids, which makes them incomplete proteins [41].

The main problems with plant-based proteins are that cereals do not have enough lysine and legumes do not have enough methionine and cysteine [42]. Protein complementation is the practice of strategically combining different plant protein sources to get around these problems. For instance, mixing cereals with legumes gives you a balanced amino acid profile that is similar to that of animal proteins [43,44].

To determine how good a protein is, you can use protein quality scores like PDCAAS (Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score) and DIAAS (Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score) [45]. The PDCAAS of soy proteins is about 0.91 to 1.00, which is similar to that of animal proteins. Other plant-based proteins have lower scores [46]. DIAAS is a newer and more accurate method that looks at how well each amino acid can be digested in the ileum. It gives a better picture of protein quality [47].

PDCAAS and DIAAS are prevalent methods for assessing protein quality; nevertheless, their outcomes must be evaluated considering the nutritional requirements of various demographic groups. Vulnerable populations, such as children, pregnant women, and the elderly, may require increased amounts of specific essential amino acids and micronutrients. In such circumstances, plant-based meals must be meticulously planned to ensure enough nutrient intake.

Combining various plant protein sources, such as grains and legumes, enhances plant-based diets by increasing amino acid diversity. Additionally, micronutrients that are less prevalent or less bioavailable in plant-based diets, such as vitamin B₁₂, iron, and zinc, warrant greater consideration. Because of this, some groups of people may need to eat a wider variety of foods, add nutrients to their cuisine, or take supplements.

Table 1. Protein quality and digestibility scores [19,46,47,48].

Protein Source	PDCAAS *	DIAAS **	Amino Acid Limitation	Bioavailability (%)
Animal Sources
Beef	0.92	1.11	-	95–98
Whole egg	1.00	1.13	-	97–98
Cow’s milk	1.00	1.14	-	95–97
Fish	1.00	1.09	-	94–96
Legumes
Soy	0.91	0.90	Methionine	85–90
Peas	0.73	0.64	Methionine	80–85
Lentils	0.52	0.43	Methionine, Tryptophan	75–80
Beans	0.68	0.59	Methionine	70–75
Chickpeas	0.78	0.71	Methionine	75–80
Cereals
Rice	0.42	0.37	Lysine	65–70
Wheat	0.42	0.40	Lysine	70–75
Quinoa	0.87	0.82	-	80–85
Oats	0.57	0.52	Lysine	75–80
Seeds
Hemp seeds	0.61	0.56	Lysine	80–85
Chia seeds	0.58	0.53	Lysine	75–80

* PDCAAS = Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score. ** DIAAS = Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score.

shows a full comparison of protein quality scores for different plant and animal sources. You can see that animal proteins usually have higher PDCAAS and DIAAS scores, which are close to or equal to 1.00. This indicates that they provide all essential amino acids in adequate proportions. Among plant sources, soy and quinoa stand out with scores close to those of animal proteins, while cereals and most legumes have lower scores due to limitations in specific amino acids [48].

4.2. Bioavailability of Micronutrients

The bioavailability of micronutrients derived from botanical sources is frequently inferior to that of animal-derived sources, attributable to the existence of antinutritional components and the varying chemical forms of minerals [49]. Iron sourced from plants exists predominantly in the non-heme form, which exhibits a bioavailability ranging from approximately 5–12%, in contrast to the 15–35% bioavailability associated with heme iron found in animal tissues [50].

This difference is especially important for groups of people who are more likely to be iron deficient, such as women of childbearing age [51].

Zinc derived from plant sources exhibits diminished bioavailability, chiefly attributable to phytic acid, which creates insoluble complexes with zinc in the gastrointestinal environment [52]. Studies show that vegetarians may not absorb as much zinc as people who eat meat and fish. This could be 35–50% less than what people who eat meat and fish do [53].

Vitamin B₁₂ is not naturally found in plant sources, as it is produced solely by microorganisms [54]. Because of this, people who follow vegetarian or vegan diets are at risk of not getting enough vitamin B₁₂, which can lead to megaloblastic anemia and problems with the nervous system [55]. To lower the risk of these kinds of deficiencies, it is important to add vitamin B₁₂ to plant-based foods [56].

Calcium from plants is found in large amounts in some foods, like fortified tofu, sesame seeds, and green leafy vegetables. However, oxalates and phytates may make it less available to the body [57]. But some plants that are high in calcium, like broccoli and kale, have similar or even higher bioavailability than milk [58].

4.3. Nutritional Comparisons Between Meat and Plant-Based Alternatives

When meat and plant-based substitutes are directly compared nutritionally, both similarities and notable discrepancies are found. A detailed visual comparison of the nutritional profiles of various protein sources is shown in Figure 3, which also highlights the main nutritional differences between plant-based and animal-derived protein sources, particularly in terms of protein content, essential amino acid profiles, micronutrient composition, and digestibility indicators. While

Table 2. Comparison of nutritional composition between meat and plant-based protein sources (per 100 g) [50,54,59].

Protein Source	Protein (g)	Lipid (g)	Carbohydrates (g)	Fiber (g)	Energy (kcal)	Iron (mg)	Zinc (mg)	B12 Vit (μg)	Calcium (mg)
Animal Sources
Beef	26.0	15.4	0	0	250	2.6	4.8	2.4	18
Pork	27.3	13.9	0	0	242	0.9	2.4	0.7	19
Chicken meat	31.0	3.6	0	0	165	0.9	1.3	0.3	15
Legumes
Soybeans (beans)	36.5	19.9	30.2	9.3	446	15.7	4.9	0	277
Tofu	8.1	4.8	1.9	0.3	76	5.4	0.8	0	350
Lentil	25.8	1.1	60.1	10.7	352	6.5	3.3	0	35
Black beans	21.6	1.4	62.4	15.5	341	5.0	2.0	0	123
Chickpeas	19.3	6.0	60.7	12.5	364	6.2	3.4	0	105
Peas	25.0	1.2	60.0	25.0	341	4.4	3.3	0	55
Cereals and Pseudocereals
Quinoa	14.1	6.1	64.2	7.0	368	4.6	3.1	0	47
Brown rice	7.9	2.9	77.2	3.5	370	1.5	2.0	0	23
Wheat (whole grain)	13.2	2.5	71.2	12.2	340	3.6	2.7	0	29
Oats	16.9	6.9	66.3	10.6	389	4.7	4.0	0	54
Seeds and Nuts
Chia seeds	16.5	30.7	42.1	34.4	486	7.7	4.6	0	631
Hemp seeds	31.6	48.8	8.7	4.0	553	7.9	10.0	0	70
Almonds	21.2	49.9	21.6	12.5	579	3.7	3.1	0	269
Emerging Sources
Spirulina	57.5	7.7	23.9	3.6	290	28.5	2.0	0	120
Chlorella	58.4	9.3	23.2	0.2	387	130.0	71.0	0	221

provides detailed numerical values for the nutritional composition of different protein sources, Figure 3 offers a visual comparison highlighting the main differences between plant-based and animal-derived proteins.

The values illustrated in Figure 3 were compiled from previously published studies and are intended to highlight general nutritional trends reported in the literature rather than results obtained from original experimental analysis. The macronutrient content (protein, fat, and carbs) per 100 g is displayed in the upper left panel; the essential micronutrient content (iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamin B₁₂) is displayed in the upper right panel; the protein quality scores (PDCAAS and DIAAS) are compared in the lower left panel; and the calorie density and dietary fiber content are displayed in the lower right panel. Data presented in this figure were compiled from multiple studies cited in references [40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58] and are intended to illustrate general nutritional trends reported in the literature.

Table 2 shows the big disparities in the nutritional content of animal and plant foods. Meat is a concentrated supply of high-quality protein that does not include any carbs or fiber; however, the amount of fat can vary. Plant sources, on the other hand, have carbs and dietary fiber that help you feel full and keep your digestive system healthy [59]. Plant sources like soy, lentils, and spirulina contain a lot more iron than meat; however, the iron in plants is not as easily absorbed [50]. One big problem with all natural plant sources is that they do not have vitamin B₁₂; thus, they need to be fortified or supplemented [54].

Plant-based burgers and sausages, for example, are often made to have the same nutritional value as meat.

Table 3. Nutritional comparison: commercial plant-based products vs. meat [60,61].

Product	Protein (g/100 g)	Lipid (g/100 g)	Saturated Fats (g/100 g)	Sodium (mg/100 g)	Fiber (g/100 g)	Iron (mg/100 g)	Calcium (mg/100 g)	Additives
Burgers
Beef burger (80% lean)	26.0	15.0	6.0	75	0	2.6	18	0
Beyond Burger	20.0	14.0	5.0	390	2.0	4.2	10	10+
Impossible Burger	19.0	14.0	8.0	370	3.0	4.2	17	12+
Sausage
Pork sausage	13.0	28.0	10.0	850	0	1.2	11	3–5
Beyond Sausage	16.0	12.0	5.0	500	2.0	2.5	20	8+
Meatballs
Beef and pork meatballs	16.0	20.0	7.5	620	0.5	1.8	25	2–4
Plant-based meatballs	14.0	8.0	1.5	480	4.0	3.2	40	8+
Nuggets
Chicken nuggets	16.0	16.0	3.0	600	0.5	0.8	15	5–7
Plant-based nuggets	13.0	10.0	1.0	520	3.0	1.8	25	10+

shows how the nutritional value of certain well-known commercial items compares to that of meat.

Table 3 demonstrates that plant-based foods have a little less protein (10–25%) than meat-based foods, but they do have the big benefit of dietary fiber. One worry is that most plant-based foods have a wide range of salt content, which can be 3–5 times higher than in uncooked meat [60]. The greater quantity of chemicals and processed substances also makes people wonder how much processing is done and what the long-term health effects are [61].

4.4. Factors That Make Foods Less Nutritious and Ways to Reduce Them

Antinutrients are natural substances found in plants that people can eat that might make nutrients less available or hurt health [62]. Phytic acid, trypsin inhibitors, lectins, tannins, and saponins are the most important antinutrients in plant-based proteins [63].

Phytic acid (myo-inositol hexakisphosphate) is the most common antinutritional factor in legumes, cereals, and seeds, forming insoluble complexes with minerals such as iron, zinc, and calcium, thereby reducing their absorption [64]. Soaking, sprouting, fermentation, and heat treatment are all ways to lower the amount of phytic acid in a food [65].

Proteins called trypsin inhibitors stick to the digestive enzymes trypsin and chymotrypsin, which makes it harder for the body to break down proteins [66]. These inhibitors are mostly found in soybeans and other legumes, but they are mostly killed by the right amount of heat [67].

Lectins are proteins that attach to carbohydrates and can make it hard for the body to absorb nutrients and induce harmful effects in the stomach and intestines [68]. Most lectins are killed when legumes are cooked all the way through, making them safe to eat [69].

Table 4. Antinutritional factors and reduction methods [70,71,72,73].

Antinutritional Factor	Main Sources	Negative Effect	Reduction Through Soaking (%)	Reduction Through Boiling (%)	Reduction Through Fermentation (%)
Phytic acid	Legumes, grains, seeds	Reduces absorption of Fe, Zn, Ca	40–60	50–70	70–90
Trypsin inhibitors	Soy, legumes	Reduces protein digestibility	10–20	80–95	70–85
Lectins	Beans, legumes	Interferes with nutrient absorption	5–10	90–99	75–85
Tannins	Beans, sorghum, legumes	Reduces protein digestibility	5–15	40–60	60–75
Saponins	Quinoa, chickpeas, soybeans	Reduces nutrient absorption	10–20	50–65	65–80
Oxalates	Spinach, beets, seeds	Reduces Ca absorption	30–50	30–50	20–40
Glucosinolates	Cruciferous vegetables	Interferes with thyroid function	15–25	60–80	40–60

illustrates the efficacy of various processing techniques in diminishing antinutritional components. Fermentation is the most efficacious technique for diminishing phytic acid, achieving reductions of 70–90% by the action of microbial phytases [70]. Boiling is highly effective in inactivating trypsin inhibitors and lectins, achieving decreases of 80–90% [71]. The integration of multiple processing techniques (e.g., soaking, boiling, or fermentation) can markedly diminish the levels of antinutritional components, thus enhancing the nutritional quality of plant-based proteins [65].

Sprouting is an efficient technique for diminishing antinutrients, as it activates endogenous seed enzymes, such as phytase, which destroys phytic acid [72]. Research indicates that germination over 3–5 days can decrease phytic acid levels by 40–70% and enhance mineral bioavailability [20].

While maintaining the nutritional and sensory qualities of foods, high-pressure processing (HPP) and other new non-thermal technologies may also be able to lower antinutritional factors [73].

Overall, while plant-based proteins may present certain limitations in terms of essential amino acid balance and digestibility, these differences can often be mitigated through dietary diversification and appropriate food processing technologies. Therefore, the nutritional adequacy of plant protein sources should be evaluated not only at the level of individual ingredients but also within the broader context of dietary patterns.

5. Environmental Sustainability: The Ecological Impact of Plant-Based Proteins

5.1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The production of meat, especially ruminant meat, is one of the main reasons why people release greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the air. Beef, on the one hand, makes about 99.5 kg CO₂-eq/kg protein. Pig and chicken, on the other hand, make 12.3 and 9.9 kg of CO₂-equivalent per kilogram of protein, respectively [1]. These emissions come from things like energy use, feed production, manure management, and enteric fermentation, which is how ruminants make methane [74].

Plant-based proteins, however, release much less greenhouse gases. Legumes like peas, lentils, and beans only make 0.4–1.0 kg CO₂-eq/kg protein, which is more than 90% less than beef [1]. Soybeans need more resources than other crops, but they only make about 3.0 kg CO₂-eq/kg protein [75].

Legumes can help reduce the need for synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, which are a major source of N₂O emissions. N₂O is a greenhouse gas that has the potential to cause global warming at a rate about 300 times greater than that of CO₂ [76]. This is because legumes fix atmospheric nitrogen through symbiosis with Rhizobium bacteria. This trait gives legumes an extra advantage when it comes to sustainability [77].

5.2. Land and Water Use

To raise animals and grow feed, meat production needs a wide range of land. Beef uses about 326 m² of land per kg of protein, while pork and chicken use 17.4 and 12.2 m², respectively [1]. Legumes, on the other hand, only use 3 to 5 m² per kg of protein, which is more than 95% less than beef [78].

Plant-based proteins also use a lot less water. It takes about 15,400 L of water to make 1 kg of protein from beef, but only 1800 to 5053 L for legumes [79]. The main reason for this difference is that feed and animals need water to live [80].

Figure 4 summarizes the environmental indicators most frequently used in Life Cycle Assessment studies comparing protein sources, including greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water consumption, and cumulative environmental impacts.

The values illustrated in Figure 4 represent comparative trends reported in the literature and are intended to provide a general overview of the environmental differences between protein sources rather than results derived from original experimental analysis. Overall, the figure highlights the markedly higher environmental burden associated with animal-based protein sources, particularly ruminant meat, compared with most plant-based alternatives. The largest differences are observed for greenhouse gas emissions and land use, where beef shows substantially higher values than legumes and cereal-based protein sources. Water use also varies considerably across protein categories, with some plant sources remaining resource-intensive; however, the overall environmental profile of plant-based proteins remains more favorable. These findings support the conclusion that replacing meat, especially ruminant meat, with plant-derived protein sources may contribute substantially to reducing the environmental pressures associated with food production.

Table 5. Environmental impact: comparison between protein sources [1,74,75,76,77,78,79,80].

Protein Source	GHG Emissions (kg CO2-eq/kg Protein)	Land Use (m2/kg Protein)	Water Use (L/kg Protein)	Eutrophication (g PO4-eq/kg)
Animal Sources
Beef	99.5	326	15,400	304
Sheep meat	72.3	185	10,400	178
Pork meat	12.3	17.4	5988	43
Chicken	9.9	12.2	4325	35
Fish (Aquaculture)	13.6	3.7	3691	52
Eggs	4.5	6.3	3265	20
Milk	3.2	8.9	628	10
Legumes
Tofu (soybean)	3.0	3.5	2516	5.4
Lentils	0.9	3.4	5053	2.5
Peas	0.4	3.8	1800	1.8
Beans	1.0	4.2	4055	2.9
Chickpeas	0.6	5.4	4177	2.1
Cereals
Rice	4.0	2.8	2497	8.7
Wheat	1.4	3.9	1827	3.4
Oats	2.5	7.6	2420	4.8
Nuts and Seeds
Almonds	2.3	9.2	16,095	3.8
Nuts	0.7	6.8	9280	1.9

shows in detail how different protein sources affect the environment. The statistics show that plant-based proteins, notably legumes, have a much smaller effect on the environment than ruminant meat. The average drop in GHG emissions is 50–90%, and the average drop in land usage is 75–95% [1]. It is vital to remember that there are big differences within each group, which are caused by farming methods, weather, and how things are processed [75].

5.3. Assessment of the Life Cycle

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a complete process for establishing how a product affects the environment over its whole life, from getting the raw materials to throwing it away [81]. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment studies between meat and plant-based alternatives frequently validate the environmental advantages of plant-based proteins [82].

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies typically consider several stages of the production chain, including raw material production, processing, transportation, and end-of-life stages. The specific system boundaries used in LCA analyses may vary between studies, depending on the technological schemes and methodological assumptions applied. In addition, agro-climatic conditions and regional agricultural practices can significantly influence the environmental indicators reported in different studies [1,70].

A recent LCA study compared burgers made with cattle to burgers made with plant-based protein. The plant-based burger made 89% fewer greenhouse gas emissions, used 93% less land, 87% less water, and added 92% less to eutrophication [83]. The main reason for these benefits is that the animal farming step is no longer needed, which uses the most resources [84].

However, it is crucial to remember that highly processed plant-based protein products can be worse for the environment than plain beans since they need more energy to produce, package, and ship [82]. For instance, an ultra-processed plant-based burger can release 2 to 4 times more pollution than home-cooked beans, but it is still far more environmentally friendly than cattle [83].

However, the interpretation of environmental impact metrics in LCA research requires prudence due to methodological inconsistencies across studies. The reported outcomes may vary significantly based on system boundaries (e.g., cradle-to-gate versus cradle-to-grave evaluations), functional units (e.g., impacts per kilogram of produce or per kilogram of protein), and regional agricultural practices.

Moreover, various agricultural methodologies, such as conventional and organic production, may influence environmental metrics, including land utilization and yield efficiency. Thus, comparisons between plant and animal protein sources must consider these methodological aspects to avoid unduly simplified interpretations of sustainability outcomes.

5.4. Comparative Ecological Benefits

The shift to plant-based proteins not only decreases GHG emissions and resource use but also provides additional environmental advantages. The production of legumes enhances soil fertility through nitrogen fixation, diminishing the reliance on synthetic fertilizers and promoting the vitality of agricultural ecosystems [85]. Incorporating legumes into crop rotation can mitigate soil erosion, enhance soil structure, and augment biodiversity [86].

Decreasing meat production could liberate substantial land areas for alternative purposes, such as restoring natural ecosystems, sequestering carbon via reforestation, and cultivating foods for direct human use. Models indicate that a worldwide shift to plant-based diets might liberate almost 75% of existing farmland, equivalent to the combined area of the United States, China, the European Union, and Australia [87].

The effect on biodiversity is considerable. Meat production significantly contributes to deforestation, particularly in areas like the Amazon, where forests are converted into pastures or land for cultivating feed. Decreasing meat consumption may mitigate stress on natural ecosystems and contribute to the preservation of biodiversity [88].

Although plant-based proteins generally show lower environmental impacts than ruminant meat, the magnitude of these differences may vary depending on production systems, agricultural practices, and regional climatic conditions. Consequently, environmental comparisons between protein sources should be interpreted carefully, taking into account methodological differences between Life Cycle Assessment studies [89].

6. Consumer Acceptability: Determinants

6.1. Sensory Aspects: Taste, Texture and Aroma

Sensory factors are among the primary impediments to the widespread adoption of plant-based proteins. The likelihood of individuals purchasing an item again is significantly influenced by its taste, texture, and aroma [7]. People believe that a significant number of plant-based foods are unappealing, have a distinct texture, and lack the same level of flavor as meat [8].

Volatile chemicals, including aldehydes, ketones, and sulfur compounds, are present in plant-based proteins, particularly those found in legumes [90]. These substances are produced as a result of the oxidation of lipids and the degradation of amino acids during processing and storage [91]. The food industry is confronted with a significant technological challenge in the process of eliminating or masking these unpleasant flavors [92].

Texture is an additional critical component. The muscle fibers are arranged in a specific manner due to the anisotropic fibrous structure of the tissue. This results in a distinctive texture that is apparent when chewed [93]. It is challenging to recreate this structure using plant-based proteins, and it necessitates sophisticated processing technologies [11]. Many individuals believe that the texture of numerous plant-based foods is excessively soft, dry, or similar to that of flesh [8].

Figure 5 summarizes the main factors influencing consumer acceptance of plant-based protein products as reported in previous studies. These factors include sensory barriers related to taste and texture, motivational drivers such as health and environmental concerns, consumer segmentation patterns, and economic barriers including price sensitivity.

Table 6. Barriers and motivational factors in consumer acceptability [7,9,60].

Categories	Factor	Impact (Scale 1–10)	Prevalence (%)	Affected Demographic Group
Sensory barriers	Unexpected taste/off-flavor	8.5	68	General
	Inadequate texture	8.2	62	General
	Unpleasant aroma	7.8	54	General
	Persistent aftertaste	7.2	48	General
	Persistent unpleasant aftertaste	6.5	42	Young consumers
Psychological barriers	Food neophobia	7.5	35	Seniors (>55 years old)
	Cultural attachment to meat	8	58	Men, rural areas
	Perception of artificiality	7.3	51	All groups
	Doubts about satiety	6.8	44	Athletes, physical workers
Economic barriers	Premium price (+20–50%)	8.8	72	Perceived value for money
	Limited availability	6.5	38	Rural area
	Perceived price–quality ratio	7.2	55	All groups
Positive motivational factors	Health benefits	7.8	64	Women, middle age
	Environmental concerns	7.2	48	Young people (18–35 years old), educated
	Animal welfare	6.5	42	Women, urban
	Curiosity/novelty	5.8	38	Young, urban
	Medical recommendations	7.0	28	People with chronic conditions

highlights the complexity of factors influencing consumer acceptance. Sensory barriers have the greatest impact, with unexpected taste and inappropriate texture being the most frequently cited reasons for rejection [7]. Economic barriers, particularly premium pricing, affect a large proportion of consumers (72%), limiting the accessibility of plant-based products [60]. On the other hand, health benefits and environmental concerns are strong motivations for adoption, especially among young and educated consumers [9].

Consumer perceptions of plant-based products may vary significantly depending on cultural traditions, economic conditions, and regional dietary habits. Studies conducted in different countries often report different motivations and barriers related to plant-based food adoption. Therefore, the results summarized in Table 6 should be interpreted within the specific social and geographical contexts in which the original studies were conducted [7,9].

6.2. Motivations for Environmental and Health

Among the most potent incentives for consumers to adopt plant-based diets are health-related intentions. Recent research indicates that diets that are high in plant protein are linked to a decreased risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and specific types of cancer [94]. In part, these advantages are due to the high fiber, antioxidant, and phytochemical content of plant sources, as well as their lower saturated fat and cholesterol content [95].

Environmental concerns are also a significant motivating factor, particularly for youthful and educated consumers. The media’s coverage of climate change and awareness campaigns has substantially increased awareness of the environmental impact of meat production in recent years [96]. Consumers who prioritize environmental consciousness are considerably more inclined to implement vegetarian or flexitarian diets and actively pursue alternatives to meat [97].

For consumers who are apprehensive about the conditions of intensive animal husbandry, animal welfare is an additional significant motivator [10]. Women and urban consumers are subject to this concern to a greater extent [98].

6.3. Psychological and Socio-Cultural Barriers

Psychological and socio-cultural barriers substantially affect the acceptance of plant-based proteins. Food neophobia, defined as the reluctance to try new or unfamiliar foods, is more common among older consumers and may hinder the adoption of plant-based alternatives [99]. This barrier can be overcome with regular exposure, complementing sampling, and education [100].

The cultural preference for meat is a considerable barrier, especially in countries where meat consumption is associated with social status, masculinity, and culinary tradition. In several cultures, meat is perceived as a symbol of wealth and hospitality, whereas meatless meals are considered insufficient or inferior. This perspective is particularly pronounced among males and consumers in rural areas [101,102].

The perception of artificiality is a growing concern, especially concerning highly processed plant-based products that have lengthy chemical lists and additives [103]. Consumers increasingly choose “clean” and “natural” foods, resulting in the dismissal of items with unfamiliar or perceived artificial ingredients [104].

Table 7. Consumer segmentation and marketing strategies [9,10,100].

Segment	Characteristics	Market Size (%)	Main Motivations	Main Barriers	Recommended Strategies
Early adopters	Age 25–40 Higher education Above-average income Urban	12%	Innovation Environment Health	Accepted premium price Limited availability	Focus on innovation Ingredient transparency Sustainability certifications
Flexitarians	All ages Varied education Average income Urban/suburban	35%	Health Variety Environment (secondary)	Taste Texture Price	Sensory improvements Price parity Wide availability
Curious but reluctant	Age 30–55 Average education Average income	28%	Curiosity Health (limited information)	Distrust Familiarity Perception of artificiality	Consumer education Free tastings Credible endorsements
Conservatives	Age > 45 Attached to traditions Rural areas	18%	Social pressure Medical recommendations	Cultural resistance Skepticism Preference for meat	Consumer education Free tastings Credible endorsements
Resistors	All ages Identity linked to meat consumption Climate change skeptics	7%	External force (medical, economic)	Ideological opposition Identity Masculinity	Not the primary target Focus on direct personal benefits

provides a comprehensive segmentation of consumers along with marketing techniques customized for each segment. Flexitarians constitute the predominant market sector (35%) and serve as the primary target for most plant-based products, since they are receptive to alternatives yet discerning about flavor, texture, and cost [9]. Early adopters (12%) are prepared to pay a premium for innovative and sustainable products, constituting a significant niche for new product introductions [100]. Inquisitive yet hesitant consumers (28%) necessitate information and confidence about product quality and safety [10].

6.4. Economic Considerations and Price Affordability

Price is one of the biggest reasons why plant-based proteins are not more widely used. Commercial plant-based goods are generally 20 to 50 percent more expensive than their meat-based counterparts, which makes them less affordable for people with low or intermediate incomes [60]. Part of the reason for this pricing discrepancy is that the plant-based business has to spend more on research and development, invest in more modern processing methods, and has lower economies of scale than the meat industry [105].

However, prices are expected to decrease as the industry expands and production technologies improve. According to economic studies, some types of products, especially ground beef and processed foods, could reach price parity with meat in the next 5 to 10 years [38]. This tendency could speed up adoption a lot, since price is a big concern for most people [106].

Availability of products is also a problem, especially in rural areas and underdeveloped countries where there are not many plant-based protein options [9]. To make things more accessible, it is important to expand distribution networks and make sure that products are available in more than just specialist stores [10].

The cultural and economic contexts in which individuals reside significantly influence their preference for plant-based diets. Numerous studies conducted in Western markets indicate that environmental and health considerations significantly influence food decisions. Conversely, in certain regions globally, culinary customs, food accessibility, and cultural perceptions of meat consumption may exert a more significant influence on dietary choices.

Cultural disparities in flavor and texture may influence perceptions of plant-based goods. Economic concerns are also paramount. For instance, plant-based solutions may be less accessible in regions with lower purchasing power due to their higher cost. These distinctions indicate that efforts to encourage increased consumption of plant-based proteins should be tailored to the culinary traditions and socioeconomic circumstances of each region.

Consumer acceptance remains one of the key factors determining the large-scale adoption of plant-based protein products. Even when environmental and nutritional benefits are recognized, purchasing decisions are strongly influenced by sensory quality, cultural habits, and perceived product value. For this reason, technological innovation and consumer education may play complementary roles in facilitating dietary transitions toward more sustainable protein sources.

7. Product Processing and Quality Improvement Technologies

7.1. High Moisture Extrusion

High-moisture extrusion (HME) is a prevalent method for producing fibrous meat alternatives [11]. The method involves simultaneously applying heat, pressure, and shear forces to a mixture of plant-based proteins and water, maintaining a moisture content of 40–70%. This induces the denaturation of proteins, leading to their realignment into an anisotropic structure resembling meat [107].

Key parameters in the extrusion process are temperature (120–180 °C), screw rotation speed, feed rate, and screw configuration [108]. By controlling these parameters, one may regulate the texture, density, and mechanical properties of the final product [109]. Soy and pea proteins are the predominant forms of proteins utilized in extrusion due to their efficacy and availability.

High-moisture extrusion offers numerous advantages, including ease of scalability, cost-effectiveness, and the capability to produce a diverse array of textures [12]. However, the technique is energy-intensive and permits limited alterations to the forms and formulas of the products [109].

Processing technologies such as high-moisture extrusion may require substantial energy inputs, particularly during heating, texturization, and drying stages. The exact energy demand depends on factors such as equipment scale, processing temperature, moisture content of the raw material, and production capacity [14].

7.2. Fermentation and Biotechnology

Fermentation is an ancient technique that has been modified to enhance plant-based proteins. Fermentation can reduce antinutritional factors, enhance protein digestibility, impart favorable flavors, and generate beneficial bioactive compounds [110]. For centuries, individuals in Asia have consumed traditional fermented foods such as tempeh, miso, and natto. These foods are beneficial and palatable [111].

Precision fermentation is an advanced biotechnology that employs genetically engineered microorganisms to produce proteins identical to those found in animals. This technique enables the synthesis of proteins such as casein, albumin, collagen, and heme without the utilization of animals [39]. The Impossible Burger possesses the taste and aroma of meat due to fermented heme [112].

Precision fermentation produces proteins that are effective, include all essential amino acids, and do not induce allergic reactions [13]. However, the costs associated with production remain high, and the establishment of regulations and gaining public acceptance pose significant challenges [105].

7.3. Technology for Shear Cells

Shear Cell Technology is an innovative method that enables the fabrication of anisotropic protein structures through the application of controlled shear pressures [113]. A mixture of protein and water is heated in a shear cell. The shear stresses position the proteins preferentially, resulting in a fibrous structure resembling muscle [114].

This approach provides superior control over structure and texture compared to extrusion. This indicates that you may produce items with more intricate textures that resemble meat. Shear structuring can create substantial portions of “meat” with fibers aligned appropriately for applications such as steaks and filets [11].

Challenges include the necessity for specific equipment, the complexity of the process, and its current limitations in scalability [113]. However, as technology advances, these issues are expected to diminish.

7.4. Emerging Technologies: Three-Dimensional Printing and Cellular Cultivation

3D food printing is an innovative method that enables the creation of food with intricate shapes and precise ingredients [115]. The process of creating three-dimensional objects involves depositing layers of food “ink” (vegetable protein-based pastes) sequentially. This approach enables the creation of products that closely resemble the appearance and texture of flesh [115].

Benefits of 3D printing encompass extensive personalization, precise management of nutritional composition, and the capability to create intricate structures unattainable through conventional means [116]. This technique is currently suitable primarily for high-end or niche products due to its poor production speed, high cost, and limited scalability [117].

Cell culture, also referred to as “cultured meat” or “lab-grown meat,” involves the cultivation of animal cells in a laboratory to produce genuine muscle tissue without the necessity of slaughtering animals. Although it is not a plant-based protein technology, it holds significance in the realm of alternatives to conventional meat [118]. The initial cultured beef products have received certification for consumption in Singapore and the United States. This represents an important milestone in the development of alternative protein technologies [106].

Figure 6 illustrates the main technological approaches used in the development of plant-based protein products, including processing techniques aimed at improving texture, reducing antinutritional factors, and enhancing product functionality.

Figure 6a contrasts five processing methods—soaking, germination, fermentation, heat treatment, and enzymatic hydrolysis—regarding their efficacy in reducing phytate levels in plant-based raw materials. The figures indicate significant variability in effectiveness, with heat treatment achieving the greatest reduction at 91%, followed by enzymatic hydrolysis at 84% and fermentation at 70%. Germination (44%) and soaking (25%) exert far less influence.

These findings demonstrate the susceptibility of phytate to degradation by thermal and enzymatic processes. Heat treatment is more effective as it disrupts phytate–mineral complexes, facilitating hydrolysis, as demonstrated by prior research. Enzymatic and microbiological processes appear to facilitate the degradation of phytate through the action of phytase, sourced either endogenously or exogenously. From a technological perspective, the findings indicate that the combined application of thermal and enzymatic technologies may be the most effective approach to reducing antinutrient levels. The substantial decrease in phytate is nutritionally important for improving mineral bioavailability, particularly in populations reliant mostly on plant-based diets.

Figure 6b evaluates the effectiveness of uniform processing methods in reducing trypsin inhibitors, compounds known to impede protein digestibility by inhibiting proteolytic enzymes. The results once more indicate that heat treatment is the most effective method for eliminating these inhibitors (83%), demonstrating their thermal instability. Enzymatic hydrolysis (77%) and fermentation (40%) demonstrate considerable reductions, but germination (37%) and soaking (18%) exhibit minimal impact.

The observed pattern corroborates the notion that thermal processing is the paramount method for diminishing protease inhibitors, particularly in legumes such as soybeans. The moderate effects of fermentation and enzymatic hydrolysis suggest that proteolytic or microbial activity contributes to inhibitor degradation, albeit to a smaller extent than heat. The results have direct implications for food formulation: integrating thermal processing with biological therapies may enhance protein digestibility and overall nutritional quality in plant-based protein products.

Figure 6c illustrates the rapid expansion of the global market for plant-based proteins, increasing from $10 billion in 2020 to a projected $71 billion by 2030. The growth trajectory is steady, although an acceleration is anticipated post-2026.

This pattern indicates the convergence of consumer and environmental influences. The industry is expanding due to increased interest in health-conscious diets, concerns regarding climate change, and the rapid advancement of alternative protein technology. The anticipated increase signifies further investment opportunities and highlights the strategic importance of innovation in sensory quality, nutritional enhancement, and sustainable production. The findings indicate that plant-based proteins are transitioning from niche products to integral components of the majority of diets, significantly impacting global food systems.

Figure 6d delineates the foremost research and development priorities. Taste (9.5) and texture (9.2) are the fundamental sensory attributes. Subsequently, there is a reduction in off-flavors (8.8) and an enhancement in nutrients (8.3). Individuals exhibit concern for sustainability (7.9) and clean-label formulation (7.5), albeit to a lesser extent.

The prioritization pattern indicates that the primary reason for the limited popularity of plant-based protein products is consumer reluctance to purchase them. Although sustainability and nutritional quality are significant, the findings indicate that sensory optimization is the paramount criterion for market success. Consequently, research and development will likely concentrate on novel texturization technologies, flavor-masking strategies, and ingredient innovations that provide plant-based foods comparable in taste and texture to animal-based foods. These objectives align with broader industry trends emphasizing the creation of consumer-friendly products.

Table 8. Processing technologies and effects on product quality [118,119,120,121].

Technology	Principle	Advantages	Disadvantages	Main Applications
High moisture extrusion	Application of heat, pressure, and shearing	Fibrous texture High scalability Moderate cost	High energy consumption Limited flexibility	Minced meat analogues, filets
Precision fermentation	Microorganisms produce specific proteins	Complete amino acid profile High functionality Allergen-free	High costs Strict regulations Consumer acceptance	Proteins identical to animal proteins
Cell structuring by shearing	Alignment of proteins by shear forces	Anisotropic texture Mimics muscle structure	Specialized equipment Complex process	Filets, large pieces of meat
3D food printing	Deposition of successive layers	High customization Complex design Nutritional control	Slow speed Very high costs Limited scalability	Premium, customized products
High-pressure processing (HPP)	Pressure 400–600 MPa	Preserves nutrients Improves safety Improved texture	Equipment costs Batch processing	Pasta, ready-to-eat products
Electrospinning	Protein fibers through electric field	Nano/micro structures Controlled texture	Low scalability High costs	Premium, innovative products
Cell culture (cultured meat)	In vitro animal cell growth	Identical to meat No animal slaughter	Extremely high costs Complex regulations Social acceptance	“Real” meat without animal origin

presents a comprehensive comparison of the principal processing methods, detailing their advantages and disadvantages. High-moisture extrusion and high-pressure treatment are established and commercially viable technologies. Conversely, precision fermentation and shear cell construction remain in the experimental or nascent commercial phases [12]. Emerging technologies such as 3D printing and electrospinning are now undergoing testing or research and require further development prior to commercialization [115].

Recent research in plant biotechnology has demonstrated the feasibility of enhancing methionine and lysine levels in grains and legumes [118].

A primary objective is to reduce the concentration of antinutritional compounds and enhance protein digestibility. Identifying more efficient and cost-effective methods for processing plant-based proteins to eliminate phytic acid, trypsin inhibitors, and other antinutritional factors could significantly enhance their nutritional value [65].

Numerous commercial plant-based foods contain high levels of salt, posing a significant public health concern. Individuals employ sodium to enhance flavor, improve palatability, and prolong shelf life; however, excessive consumption may result in hypertension and cardiovascular disease [119]. It is essential to devise methods for reducing salt content without compromising flavor or aroma [120].

Potassium chloride, yeast extracts, and amino acids serve as salt replacements that help reduce sodium content in meals. Nonetheless, these additions may introduce flavors that are unpalatable to some individuals [121]. Fermentation and the incorporation of herbs and spices are two techniques that enhance food flavor without increasing sodium content [111].

Despite significant advancements in the technology of plant-based protein products, the cost-effectiveness of these innovations warrants examination. Numerous contemporary processing technologies, such as high-moisture extrusion, precision fermentation, and advanced structuring methods, require specialized equipment, technical expertise, and substantial energy consumption [122].

These constraints may hinder small- and medium-sized food producers from accessing them, particularly in regions where industrial infrastructure remains under development. Consequently, subsequent research should concentrate on developing processing technologies that are applicable across diverse production systems, economically viable, and preserve the nutritional integrity and sensory attributes of food [123,124].

While technological advances have significantly improved the sensory and functional properties of plant-based protein products, their large-scale implementation also raises economic and energy-efficiency considerations. Balancing technological performance with sustainability and production costs will therefore remain an important challenge for future research and industrial development [125].

8. Conclusions

The transition from meat-based diets toward plant-based protein sources represents an important opportunity to address several major global challenges, including public health concerns, environmental sustainability, and the long-term resilience of food systems. Plant-based proteins from legumes, cereals, oilseeds, and emerging sources such as microalgae and mycoprotein offer promising alternatives that can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, lowering pressure on land and water resources, and supporting more sustainable agricultural practices.

However, the replacement of meat with plant-based proteins is not without challenges. From a nutritional perspective, although many plant-based proteins provide valuable nutrients, some limitations remain regarding the profile of essential amino acids and the bioavailability of certain micronutrients such as iron, zinc, and vitamin B₁₂. These limitations can be addressed through strategies such as protein complementation, food fortification, and the application of appropriate processing technologies that reduce antinutritional factors and improve digestibility.

Consumer acceptance remains another critical factor influencing the large-scale adoption of plant-based products. Sensory attributes—particularly taste, texture, and aroma—continue to represent important barriers for many consumers. In addition, psychological, cultural, and socioeconomic factors, including food traditions, perceptions of naturalness, and price accessibility, strongly influence purchasing decisions. Improving sensory quality, increasing consumer awareness, and developing products that align with regional dietary habits may therefore play a key role in expanding the market for plant-based proteins.

Technological innovations such as high-moisture extrusion, precision fermentation, shear cell structuring, and other emerging processing techniques have significantly improved the texture, functionality, and nutritional profile of plant-based products. Nevertheless, the scalability and economic feasibility of these technologies should also be considered, particularly in the context of small- and medium-scale producers and in regions with limited technological infrastructure.

While plant-based proteins are widely recognized for their environmental advantages compared with conventional meat production, it is also important to consider potential trade-offs associated with large-scale production systems. Intensive monocropping of certain protein crops, such as soy or peas, may pose risks related to biodiversity loss, soil degradation, and increased agrochemical use if not managed sustainably. For this reason, the development of sustainable plant-based food systems should be accompanied by responsible agricultural practices, crop diversification, and regionally adapted production strategies.

Future research should focus on improving the nutritional quality and functional properties of plant-based proteins, optimizing processing technologies, reducing sodium and additive content in commercial products, and generating more long-term data regarding the health impacts of plant-based diets. At the same time, interdisciplinary collaboration between researchers, the food industry, policymakers, and consumers will be essential for facilitating the transition toward more sustainable and nutritionally balanced dietary patterns.

Overall, plant-based proteins represent an important component of future sustainable food systems. However, their successful integration into global diets will require a comprehensive approach that simultaneously addresses nutritional, technological, environmental, economic, and cultural dimensions.