Meat replacement products - The Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Philipp Gustke
Edited by: –
Last updated: May 15, 2026

Executive summary

Meat replacement products aim to reduce the environmental and animal welfare impacts of conventional meat while meeting demand for protein and familiar eating experiences. The document groups the main technologies into plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs), animal cell-based meat alternatives (ABMAs, often called cultivated or cultured meat), and insect-based meat alternatives (IBMAs), and compares their maturity, cost trajectories, environmental footprints, and social acceptance.

For most organizations, PBMAs are the most commercially available option today. They typically offer substantial greenhouse gas and land-use advantages versus conventional meat, but performance varies by product design, processing intensity, and ingredient sourcing. ABMAs promise meat-like sensory properties and the potential for tailored nutrition, yet they remain constrained by scaling challenges, high costs, and regulatory complexity. IBMAs can be highly resource-efficient and nutrient-dense, but they face significant cultural barriers and allergen considerations in many markets.

The analysis highlights cross-cutting decision factors that matter for organizational sustainability strategies: product affordability and scalability, life cycle assessment assumptions (especially energy sources), nutritional and health trade-offs linked to processing and additives, consumer acceptance drivers such as taste and familiarity, and the evolving policy landscape for labeling and novel food approvals. Organizations can use these insights to inform procurement standards, product portfolio choices, R&D priorities, and stakeholder communication about trade-offs and expected impacts.

1 Introduction

Our diet is subject to global challenges. Climate change, resource scarcity, animal welfare, and a growing world population are just a few examples. At the same time, meat consumption has risen rapidly since the 1980s.¹ Due to these problems, a shift toward conserving resources while ensuring that demand is met is a fundamental step. Since animal-based foods are often resource-intensive, a switch to more resource- efficient foods is necessary. To guarantee that the population’s protein requirements can still be attained, there are a number of different meat substitutes that vary greatly in terms of origin and stage of development and are currently the subject of extensive research. The importance of meat substitutes has continued to grow in recent years.

Currently, there exist multiple approaches to the production of meat substitutes. These technologies have significantly changed consumer behavior and created new markets. This article focuses on the following three meat substitutes: plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs), animal-based meat alternatives (ABMAs), and insect-based meat alternatives (IBMAs). There are other promising sources for meat substitutes, but given the scope of this thesis, these three provide a representative overview for comparing the various stages of technology and thus provide as comprehensive a picture as possible of meat substitutes and their current status. Meat substitutes aim to meet the protein needs of the world’s population while enabling improvements in ecological and ethical aspects. This article examines the dynamics behind latest developments and provides a comprehensive literature review of the current state of technology on various aspects of meat substitutes. The paper is structured as follows: Chapter 2 begins by describing the technological basis of meat alternatives and presents the three categories examined: PBMAs, ABMAs, and IBMAs. Chapter 3 focuses on the economic performance of the technologies, while Chapter 4 compares their environmental impacts. Chapter 5 analyzes the social aspects, with a focus on health and acceptance. Chapter 6 examines the political and legal framework conditions and their influence on the development and distribution of meat alternatives. Finally, Chapter 7 summarizes the results and provides an outlook on future developments.

2 Description and history

The following chapter begins with an overview of what meat substitutes are and a selection of common raw materials. Based on this introduction, the function of the respective technology behind the meat substitute is discussed. The development of the respective meat substitute to its current state is also outlined. Over the past 25 years, the number of publications on meat substitutes has strongly risen, reaching a growth rate of 58.5% in.2021 In the past, research has focused on alternative proteins and their nutritional and sustainability-related properties. The current research trend is toward quality improvement and the investigation of health effects.²

2.1 Definition and delimitation of meat substitutes

At present, there is no legal definition for meat substitutes. However, products that aim to imitate conventional meat in terms of sensory or nutritional characteristics are generally considered to be meat substitutes. Meat substitutes occur in multiple forms, such as cutlets or nuggets. They mostly consist of plant-based ingredients such as soy or pea protein.³ They are currently classified into four supercategories based on their origin: plant-based, microorganism-based, animal cell-based, and insect-based. The raw materials used and the production processes of these alternatives, differ fundamentally.⁴ Meat alternatives (PBMAs) are usually based on legumes, soybeans, wheat, and lentils. Various forming processes are used to imitate the fibrous structure and texture of meat.⁵ Comparable to other meat substitute products, PBMAs also have a number of advantages and disadvantages, particularly as increased environmental friendliness, but also the loss of essential micronutrients, which will be outlined in more detail below.⁶ This article considers PBMA as a whole, but places a particular focus on soy-based meat alternatives, as soy has the most extensive history as a meat substitute technology. Another main base material is microorganism-based meat alternatives (MBMAs). Despite their high effectiveness in terms of protein and nutrient content, they were not the main focus of this paper due to its limited length and depth of content. Animal cell-based meat alternatives (ABMAs) are meat grown in the laboratory by culturing stem cells. They have the greatest potential to mimic the sensory properties of meat, but also face a number of challenges, for instance low consumer acceptance.⁴ The last main category, insect-based meat alternatives (IBMAs), are proteins that can be obtained from various insects such as crickets or mealworms. They contain a lot of nutrients, however, in this case as well, consumer acceptance is one of the main problems for their widespread use.⁷ Despite containing animal tissue, insects are listed here as a meat alternative, they are not predominantly considered meat in cultural and linguistic terms, which is also as a result of their different biological properties. The paper therefore focuses explicitly on PBMA, ABMA, and IBMAs, as examining these three alternatives provides the best possible overview of the technological status of meat substitute products.

2.2 Current technology and its historical development

2.2.1 PBMAs

PBMAs can be divided into three generations. Initially, tofu and tempeh were primarily consumed due to their texture and nutritional content.⁸ As demand increased, the range of products on offer expanded rapidly. One concern with plant-based products at that time was that they were less firm and had a rubbery texture.⁹ The second generation attempted to imitate the structure even better through advanced technologies such as extrusion. In the third generation, development moved away from the premise that plant-based alternatives must necessarily be less healthy than their meat equivalents.⁴ By combining different plants in PBMA, for instance soy and peas, it is possible to improve the amino acid profile and overall structure of PBMA.¹⁰ The process of manufacturing novel vegan meat substitutes can be roughly divided into three phases. First, isolation and functionalization take place. This involves extracting the plant protein concentrate from the respective plant. The proteins from the plants are then hydrolyzed. This step serves to improve the functional properties. The subsequent step is formulation. Binders, fats, and flavors are added to the hydrolyzed product, serving to improve the sensory profile of the product. Additional nutrients are added to this mixture with the aim of matching or even exceeding the nutrient content of conventional meat. Finally, the product is processed. This can be done in various ways. The end product is obtained, for example, by stretching, kneading, shear cell processing, press molding, folding, layering, or extrusion of the mixture of the individual components.¹¹ In addition, there are some plant proteins that also have biological activities, such as antioxidant and antimicrobial properties.¹² Proteins of plant origin also have significantly different properties in their structure, which means that the proteins vary in their solubility and reactivity under different extraction conditions.¹³ For this reason, the structure and function of the proteins must be guaranteed during production, which is a major challenge in maximizing yield. Dry and aqueous extraction protocols are used for this purpose to ensure this abilities.¹⁴ Over the years, various methods have been developed to produce meat substitutes. It was first introduced in 1970 to increase the protein content of defatted brewer’s yeast extracts using isolated soy protein and, secondly, to improve for instance the texture of hamburger recipes.¹⁵ This resulted in various areas of research, leading to a wide range of different meat-like products, known as meat analogues and textured vegetable protein. In order to improve its texture, this was added to real Meat, but can also be used as a complete meat substitute.¹⁶ It is precisely this variant that has become increasingly important in the food industry in recent years.¹⁷ The following section takes a closer look at how this technology works and what alternatives are available in production. Due to its protein quality and satisfactory functional properties, soy protein has been used for many years as the main ingredient in these textured protein products for many different meat substitutes.¹⁶ Up to the present, soy is still used as the standard for comparing different protein sources and techniques due to its properties.¹⁸ In recent years, research has moved away from the exclusive use of soy protein isolates or concentrates toward a combination of different protein sources to differentiate the meat substitute products on the market.¹⁹ These combinations, for example with wheat gluten, have led to improvements in the texture, color, and taste of meat substitutes, and the similarity to conventional meat has steadily increased.²⁰ When considering the composition of more fibrous meat analogues, they always have a similar composition to ensure optimal properties. They consist of 20-50% plant protein, 0- 5% plant lipids, and 2-30% polysaccharides and other ingredients that are used to improve the meat-like appearance.²¹ To achieve this, it is crucial to select the appropriate extraction method for the respective protein matrix. These can vary greatly. Examples include dry, wet, enzymatic, subcritical and supercritical water extraction, and reverse micelle extraction.²² The dry method uses air, which makes it energy-intensive. However, the method cannot be used with every raw material, as a high fat content can lead to unwanted clumping of impurities.²² The different methods each have their own advantages and disadvantages. With the wet method, various functional properties such as foaming, gel formation, and emulsification can be taken into account.²² Enzyme-based methods are associated with high costs, but they can deliver high-quality samples.²³ Subcritical and supercritical extraction do not require organic solvents.²³ Physical, chemical, and biological processes can improve the functionality of plant proteins and enhance the taste, nutritional value, and functional properties of corresponding products.²⁴ PBMAs have changed significantly over the years. Whereas soy proteins were initially used almost exclusively in meat alternative technology, a variety of other protein variants are now widely used. These include wheat, peas, potatoes, and rice, among others.²⁴ Two overarching strategies are used in the production of PBMAs. The top-down approach, which includes extrusion, for example, in which plant-based materials are converted into fibrous products. The commercialization of plant-based meat substitute technologies began in the 1950s.²⁵ Research into PBMA is constantly evolving. There are many new studies on various factors of PBMAs, such as their types, forms, and functional properties.²⁶ These are some of the aspects that are currently the focus of research.

2.2.2 ABMAs

The difficult thing about producing ABMAs is replicating the animal’s muscles, as this is a process that has evolved over millions of years. The technology behind ABMAs is based on stem cell proliferation. The goal of ABMAs is to mimic the complex muscle structure of a farm animal with just a few cells. To do this, a piece of muscle is taken from the living animal.²⁷ Muscle cells are then differentiated through stimuli in the culture medium and mechanical stimulation.²⁸ The task of tissue engineering is to replicate these in vivo conditions on a scale that enables mass production.²⁸ Skeletal muscles can develop in three different ways: embryonic myogenesis, adult myogenesis, and muscle regeneration.²⁹ Tissue engineering focuses on replicating muscle regeneration or embryonic myogenesis.²⁸ Which of the two variants is used to mimic the niche environment with the aim of producing skeletal muscle depends on the cell source used. Myocyte regeneration is often replicated because they make up the main component of meat. However, several cell types are necessary for a complete replication of muscle tissue.²⁸ Currently, the optimal cell source for tissue engineering products is still highly controversial in terms of animal species, breed, and tissue origin. There are various strategies for meat production.

The easiest is the reproduction of stem or muscle cells. Cell lines can be generated either by induction, resulting in unlimited proliferation,³⁰ or by selecting spontaneous mutations, in which cells acquire immortality.³¹ However, these methods also present challenges such as subculturing and continuous evolution.²⁸ In the production of ABMAs, a distinction is made between primary cells and cell mainly used as primary cells.²⁸ Nevertheless, there is also research on mesenchymal stem cells and embryonic stem cells. However, these methods are also associated with a number of problems, such as low yield and a very high price.³² ABMAs could also be obtained by removing an unfertilized egg from a female and then fertilizing it in a test tube.³³ This cell line could potentially be used indefinitely,³⁴ but it would be a genetically modified organism.³⁵ The basic process is such that, during skeletal muscle development, the culture medium is often supplemented with 10-20%28 growth medium. In addition, 0.5-2% fetal calf serum is added during the differentiation phase.³⁶ Depending on the cell type, horse or chicken embryo serum is also used for optimization. The serum contains many different growth hormones, hormones, vitamins, amino acids, fatty acids, and trace elements, and is often supplemented with various antibiotics. It is possible to cultivate cells without such serum, but this is much more challenging.³⁷ At present, these types of sera are not yet worthwhile. This arises from cells preferring animal materials that resemble their physiological environment.³⁸ In the nutrient medium (usually calf serum), the cells divide and grow together to form a new piece of muscle. Its fibers are attached to a scaffold, supplied with nutrients, and mechanically stretched.²⁸ Thin 3D cultures are sufficient for producing ABMAs in the form of burgers or sausages. Nonetheless, if you want to produce slaughter meat-like products, you need thicker 3D structures that are supplied with nutrients and oxygen.²⁸ Cultivating such a thick piece of meat, consisting of nerves, blood vessels, fat cells, and muscle fibers, is currently still impossible and will remain so in the nearer future.³⁹ For the time being, it will not cover the same range as conventional meat. For this purpose, the system consisting of multiple cell types combined with a replicated blood vessel is too complex. However, a muscle protein made exclusively from muscle cells is a short-term goal.²⁸ For ABMAs to become a commercial product, scaffolds and bioreactors must enable differentiation on a large scale, which is presently not the case.²⁸ There are some important limitations in the production of ABMAs. One potential problem arises from the large number of cell divisions during cultivation.³⁹ This can lead to dysregulation of the cell lines, which may have an impact on human metabolism. By contrast, ABMAs could make it possible to adjust the nutrient content, to, for example, increase the omega-3 fat content.⁴⁰ However, it is currently not yet clear how such nutrients can be absorbed by humans and whether the health benefits are reduced by the culture medium.³⁹ There are also important aspects to consider when performing biopsies. For example, it is important to note that adult muscle stem cells can only divide 50-60 times. Indicating that a new biopsy would be necessary for each cell line.⁴¹ Another point is that the hydrogels used to mimic natural tissue are still of animal origin. In addition, real meat undergoes biochemical changes after slaughter because the muscle tissue is no longer supplied with oxygen. This process is known as maturation for optimal tenderness of the meat. This step is not yet taken into account in the production of ABMAs.⁴¹ Tissue engineering techniques for the development of ABMAs originate from the 1970s and 1980s in regenerative medicine and were transferred to food production in the 1990s.²⁸

2.2.3 IBMAs

The last main category, insect-based meat alternatives (IBMAs), are proteins that can be obtained from various insects such as crickets or mealworms. Despite their animal tissue, insects are listed here as meat alternatives because they are not predominantly considered meat in cultural and linguistic terms. This is also due to their different biological properties. Insects have been part of human culture as food for a very long time. They were already being consumed thousands of years ago. In many different cultures and regions, they are still consumed today due to their nutritional properties and high availability. In Western culture, consumption has significantly declined because of low acceptance of entomophagy among large sections of the population.⁴² Due to the still very low acceptance of entomophagy among large sections of the population, whole insects are currently mainly crushed during production and then added as insect-based ingredients in powder form to other foods such as burger patties or as cricket flour in cookies.⁴³ However, insects can also be consumed whole, for example in the form of fried crickets. The processing of insects takes place in three main steps: pre-treatment, drying, and formulation.⁴⁴ Pre-treatment usually involves freezing or blanching.⁴⁵ Drying is carried out in the form of confectionery drying to ensure a longer shelf life.⁴⁴ Other techniques such as autoclaving or ohmic heating can also contribute to improving various functional properties, for instance increasing solubility. Insect protein is a highly efficient source of protein. The corresponding proteins come from the muscles and fat bodies of the insects as well as the cuticle. The protein content obtained varies between 13% and 77%, but can be significantly increased by extraction methods.⁴⁶ Insects have a high potential to meet the human requirement for essential amino acids. Insects are also a suitable source of fats.⁴⁷ Additionally they are also a more efficient origin of some important nutrients such as calcium, iron, magnesium, and zinc than conventional meat.⁴⁸

2.2.4 Comparison

As shown in Table 1, the various technologies behind meat substitute products are at very different stages of development. The production of ABMAs requires the most complex technological processes of all the alternatives examined.⁴⁹ In comparison, IBMAs and PBMAs require little effort.⁵⁰ PBMAs have a long history and are relatively well established, but they also face a number of challenges, such as their sensory properties. IBMAs, on the other hand, have always been eaten by homo sapiens, but there are also some challenges, for example cultural rejection. ABMAs, on the other hand, are novel foods and are hardly available on market.⁵⁰ In comparison, conventional meat has long been optimized, but is associated with ethical and environmental problems.

Table 1: Overview of the technological development status of PBMAs, ABMAs, IBMAs, and conventional meat

Meat

Development

Technological

Advantages

Challenges

alternative

status

Effort

Challenges

PBMAs

Established and

Medium

Large product

Partially highly

widely available

(extrusion,

variety, broad

processed, sensory

commercially

protein

processing)

acceptance

properties

ABMAs

Under

Very high

Meat-like

High costs,

development,

(tissue

sensory

scalability,

few approvals

engineering,

properties,

acceptance

bioreactors)

animal welfare

IBMAs

Traditional,

Low to medium

High nutritional

Cultural rejection,

regionally

(crushing, drying)

value, resource

allergy risks

widespread

efficiency

Conventional

Globally

Low (intensive

High

Environmen-

meat

established,

animal

acceptance, low

tal impact,

mass market

husbandry)

price, strong

animal

infrastructure

welfare issues, health risks

3 Market and cost development of the technology

The following chapter takes a closer look at the economic development of meat alternatives: PBMAs, IBMAs, and ABMAs. The cost developments of the products are analyzed. A particular focus is placed on price levels, economies of scale, and a comparison with conventional meat. Subsequently, the industry behind the technologies is examined in more detail, with a focus on sales developments and growth prospects. In this context, the largest market leaders at the national and international level are also mentioned, along with a selection of important key figures.

3.1 PBMAs

PBMA has evolved from a niche product to a mainstream market with over 6,000 product launches since 2015.⁵¹ PBMA used to include tofu, tempeh, and seitan.⁵² This has now changed fundamentally, although soy is still the main raw material source for PBMA.⁸ This results from various reasons, such as the cross-linking capacity of soy, the availability of the raw material, and techno-functional properties such as the ability to bind oil and water.⁵² Compared to other meat meat is already quite widespread among other meat alternatives, which can be attributed to both their production costs and choice of ingredients.⁵³ Furthermore, they are nutritionally valuable.⁵⁴ Due to the lack of taste acceptance, many additives are currently used to achieve a pleasant flavor.⁴⁷ The higher price is one of the main obstacles for PBMAs, resulting in PBMAs having only a small market share compared to conventional meat.³⁵ However, it analysts expect that the price of PBMA will align with that of conventional meat once research and development costs have been covered, economies of scale have been achieved in production processes, and more meat processing companies enter the market for meat substitutes.⁵⁵ If price convergence is achieved or the price of meat is even undercut, this can lead to conventional meat becoming primarily a premium product.⁵⁶ PBMAs has already benefited from efficiency gains. In order to further penetrate the market in the future, there are other important factors to consider, such as the price elasticity of inputs, market dynamics, and learning effects in production processes. Price comparisons with conventional meat are difficult due to its heavy subsidies⁵⁶ and the failure to internalize their externalities.⁴⁹ In the present, plant-based meat substitutes are about 82% more expensive than their meat equivalents.⁵⁷ PBMAs are on average twice as expensive as beef, three times as expensive as pork, and four times as expensive as chicken.²¹ In the following, annual sales of PBMA in recent years are analyzed and their economic success is assessed using sales development forecasts. The sales of PBMAs have already shown exponential growth up to the year 202158 and also the market potential for PBMAs has also been high over the past 10 years. In 2020, this resulted in record sales of $4.2 billion. Compared to the previous year, this represented growth of 24%.⁵⁸ In the same year, PBMA reached a market value of USD 1.4 billion.⁵⁷ This trend is set to continue in a similar vein in the coming years. A value of USD 9.42 billion was expected for PBMA in 2023.¹⁸ This expectation could not be met, but PBMA still generated approximate sales of US$6.4 billion worldwide in 2023, representing an increase of just under US$1 billion within a year. To put this figure into perspective, it means that PBMA accounted for approximately 1% of the total meat market.⁵⁹ By 2030, the market share is expected to increase further to around 6% with an annual growth rate of approximately 18%,⁵⁹ which corresponds to a sales volume of USD 85 billion.³⁵ This development will be primarily attributable to the increasing number of vegetarians, flexitarians, and vegans, especially in Europe.¹⁶ It is expected to triple the amount consumed, leading to better scalability and thus a decrease in the price difference.⁵⁹ The mentioned development is not yet resulting in losses for the meat products market, but there are already a number of meat companies that are adding PBMA as a product category to their product range. One example of successful establishment is Rügenwalder Mühle. In Germany, they are the clear market leader in plant-based meat substitutes.⁵⁸ Rügenwalder Mühle started out as a conventional meat producer. As of 2021, however, 58% of their product range consists of plant-based alternatives, with the aim of further expanding this in the future. Other international big player on the market for plant-based meat substitutes include Beyond Meat, Impossible Foods, and Nestlé with its Garden Gourmet brand. They also offer a range of different plant-based products such as burger patties, sausages, and schnitzel. Nestlé, for example, increased its sales in 2021 by almost €30 million compared to 2020, from just under €234 million, largely due to the plant-based meat substitute business, as the market for some conventional meat products declined during the same period.⁶⁰^,⁶¹

3.2 ABMAs

In 2022, there were over 150 companies on six continents involved in the production of cultured meat. A total of USD 2.6 billion was invested in these companies. The value chain was also expanded to include a large number of different companies involved in the development of technological solutions.⁶² Mosa Meat from Maastricht presented the first in vitro burger in.2013 At that time, the price for it was over 300,000 US dollars.³⁸ Over the past few years, the price has dropped to below 100 euros compared to the first burger.⁶³ Since 2019, the company has no longer used calf serum for the cultivation of its meat.⁶⁴ This represents an important step in product development, moving the product entirely in the direction of a meat substitute with as little animal use as possible. In addition, the serum is a significant cost factor, which is many times too expensive. in order to compete with conventional meat, regardless of other production costs.⁶⁵ Other major cost factors include ensuring the sterility of the bioreactors and securing the growth factors as part of the culture medium.⁶⁶ In 2017, Upside Food from San Francisco introduced in vitro poultry, which is said to take three weeks to produce. Another producer is Shojinmeat Project in Japan, which is also attempting to produce inexpensively on an industrial scale.⁶⁴ SuperMeat, an Israeli company, guarantees that no antibiotics are used in production. Furthermore Innocent Meat, a start-up in Rostock, is attempting to build a network that does not require any special knowledge of control or production.⁶⁴ There are many large international companies that want to enter the cultured meat market, such as Nestle, which aims at producing products consisting of both cultured meat and plants in collaboration with Believer Meat. Another example of such an entry is JBS, which bought the startup BioTech Foods in 2022 to enter the cultured meat market.⁶⁷ Currently, the production costs of in vitro meat are still extremely high. However, it analysts expect that this could change in the near future.³⁸ This is due to the fact that the current state of technology does not yet allow for competitiveness with conventional meat.⁶⁸ Cultured meat first came onto the market in December 2020, and four companies now have market approvals. A price of US$13.67 was achieved for 1 kilogram of hybrid chicken meat (50% cell-based, 50% plant-based).⁶⁹ Nevertheless, production costs are so high that replacing 1% of the beef market would range between USD 1.58 billion⁷⁰ and USD 4.84–5.45 billion, which results in uncompetitive costs.⁷¹ One of the most important challenges in reducing prices and thus promoting the spread of cultured meat is scalability, which is currently still failing.⁷² In the following, ABMA’s annual sales figures for recent years are analyzed and economic success is assessed using sales development forecasts. Due to the fact that cell-based meat is currently hardly commercially available, the research is based on a few LCAs,⁷³ whose assumptions should be treated with caution due to a lack of scientific knowledge.³⁵ In 2023, cultured meat had a market volume of $40 million more than the $0.16 billion in.2022 By 2027, a further increase to $0.39 billion is forecast,⁶⁷ with an annual growth rate of 11.4%.²² This shows that the forecasts for market development are positive, but there are reports that conclude that the costs of ABMAs will not be able to compete with conventional meat in the future. Taking into account all relevant production steps, the cost of cultivated meat is €8 per kilo. This does not cover production costs such as personnel costs, and it would still be more expensive than 1 kg of minced meat.⁷⁴ It therefore remains to be seen whether scalability can be achieved in order to reach a lower price level on a sustainable basis. In current developments, cell immortalization is also becoming increasingly important due to the limited proliferation of muscle stem cells.²²

3.3 IBMAs

Insects are already an important source of income, especially in some emerging and developing countries. In these countries, the purchase value of insects is even higher than that of conventional livestock.⁷⁴ The insects used for this purpose are collected or bred. In the case of collection, considerable labor costs arise for the companies involved.⁷⁵ Raising and keeping insects requires only minimal investments and technological equipment do not need to be as extensive.⁷⁵ Both established companies and start-ups are competing in the market for insect products, with the latter increasingly working to diversify their offerings.⁷⁶ In the Western world, large companies are involved in insect processing, for instance Ÿnsect, a French company that produces insect-based feed for farm animals. This strategy has the advantage that, in some farm animals such as chickens, the use of insect-based feed has been shown to result in improved weight gain compared to the standard diet.⁷⁷ Examples in America include Entomo Farms, EnviroFlight, and NextProtein, which are already developing various forms of food.⁷⁸ In Germany, there are also a number of companies researching insect-based products, such as Bugfoundation in Osnabrück, which is developing an insect burger based on buffalo worms,⁷⁹ or Snack- Insects that develop insect-based pasta.⁸⁰ In 2020, already 42 companies in Europe were producing insect-based products, and in 2019, there were over 250 insect-based foods on the market.⁸¹ The harvesting and breeding of insects are one way to create a large number of jobs that do not require a great deal of technical knowledge.⁸² Currently, however, insects are used more for pet food in industrialized countries.⁷⁸ One reason is that the production costs for IBMAs in the form of food for humans are very high, which is mainly due to low automation and thus high labor costs.⁸³ Another advantage of insects is that they play an important role in plant reproduction. They therefore have a significant function in providing agriculturally relevant land.⁸⁴ In the subsequent section, the annual sales of ABMAs in recent years are analyzed and their economic success is assessed using sales development forecasts. The market value of insect protein amounted to USD 144 million in.2021 According to forecasts, analysts expect it to rise to USD 1.33 billion by 2026.²² An annual growth rate of almost 29% is forecasted up to 2033.³⁵ The market for IBMAs is expected a significant growth in the coming years. Nevertheless, the scale of insect farming is considered too small to compete with conventional meat.⁸⁵ This is primarily due to the high cost of energy, as efficient growth only occurs at high temperatures. Due to this fact, in Combination with several other factors, such as labor and automation costs, production in Western countries remains unlikely.⁸⁶ Establishing reliable supply chains will be essential to building consumer confidence and ensuring future scalability.⁸⁷

3.4 Comparison

Over the past few years, investment in research and development of meat alternatives has increased significantly. Many leading meat processing companies are planning to develop their own plant-based substitute products or invest in or acquire existing ones.⁸⁸ ABMAs are still in their infancy, but are now arriving on the market alongside IBMAs. So far, however, they have not been able to fully meet the high expectations.⁸⁹ This is mainly due to their taste and texture.⁹⁰ To date, however, they have not really been able to remains questionable whether these alternatives will be able to compete with meat in terms of price in the future and provide sufficient quantities of suitable production resources, even if the challenges of taste and consistency are solved.²² Each food product has an individual supply chain, which connects the different stages primary production, ingredient processing, product processing, distribution, and consumer preparation. The relative influence of each link depends on the individual aim.⁹¹ Despite the increasing interest the market for PBMAs continues to be limited. In 2019, it was only worth US$939 million, which, for example, represents only 1% of meat sales in the US alone.⁹² Meat had a market volume of US$1.3 trillion in 2023.⁶⁷ In comparison, alternative proteins reached a market value of US$77.0 billion in.2022 A market value of $193.75 billion is forecast for 2028.⁸⁴ The market for alternative proteins is growing worldwide, most strongly in Asia-Pacific, with an expected annual growth rate of 18.5% in the period from 2021 to 2027.⁹³ In the USA, a volume of USD 50 billion was exceeded in 2020, and an annual growth rate of 17.5% is estimated between 2021 and 2027.⁹³ For Europe, an average annual growth rate of 12% is forecast between 2021 and 2028, with an expected volume of USD 7 billion in 2028.⁹⁴ In the Middle East and Africa, the average annual growth rate is 10.3%. and the market volume is expected to exceed the US$1 billion mark.⁹⁴ IBMAs and ABMAs will achieve price reductions in the future through increasing scalability. Examining the scaling potential of meat substitutes, there are several critical factors. For example, high initial investments in production facilities such as bioreactors are required for ABMAs, which makes expansion difficult. Obstacles include the scalability of supply chains to achieve commercial viability, particularly in low- and middle-income countries while competing with animal protein companies. Increasing competition in the market may lead to lower costs. At the same time, market growth could also result in market saturation.⁹⁴ The sometimes considerable economic differences between meat alternatives and conventional meat are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Economic comparison of PBMA, ABMA, IBMAs, and conventional meat

Meat

Market volume

Price level vs.

Growth

Market leader/

alternative

Meat

potential

Company

PBMAs

~$6.4 billion

+82% more

High (18%

Beyond Meat,

expensive

CAGR until

Rügenwalder

2030)

Mühle, and Nestlé

ABMAs

~$ 0.2

Significantly

Medium

Mosa Meat and

billion

more expensive

(depending on scale)

Upside Foods

IBMAs

~$0.14 billion

Comparable to

Very high (29%

Ÿnsect, Bug-

more expensive

CAGR until 2033)

foundation

Conventional

~$1.3 billion

Base value

Low (saturated

JBS, Tyson

meat

market)

Foods, Tönnies

4 Development in environmental balance

The following chapter analyzes both the ecological performance of the various meat substitute products and their development over time. Along with other aspects, the meat substitute products are examined in terms of the factors greenhouse gas emissions and land and water consumption, resulting in an overview of the respective environmental life cycle assessment. The individual environmental life cycle assessments are then compared with each other in order to highlight the respective ecological impact of each meat substitute product.

4.1 PBMAs

PBMAs have significant ecological advantages compared to meat and other meat substitutes.⁹⁵ When analyzing the average greenhouse gas footprint, data indicates that it is 43.63% and 90% lower than that of poultry, pork, or beef, respectively.⁹⁶ Another relevant metric in the life cycle assessment is the average land use. Here, plant-based substitutes are 77%, 82%, and 93% more efficient than poultry, pork, and beef, respectively.³⁵ Recent life cycle analyses have found that PBMAs are also significantly more water-efficient in terms of eutrophication, aquatic acidification, and ecotoxicity.⁹⁷ Another advantage of PBMA is that they require less deforestation, produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and require less land than conventional meat.⁹⁶^,⁹⁷ It the evidence suggests that PBMA enables significant emissions savings.⁹⁷ This means that plant-based protein sources are more environmentally friendly than animal proteins.⁵⁴ Still, it is important to note that this comparison must be viewed with caution due to distortions.⁹⁸ Yet, it can be said that it is possible to feed more people by partially replacing meat with plant-based substitutes.⁹⁹ However, when comparing PBMA with unprocessed plant-based foods, it appears that PBMA was 1.6, 4.6, and 7 times more GHG-intensive than tofu, legumes, and peas, respectively.³⁵ Similarly, the average land area required for cultivation was 32.52.75% higher compared to tofu, peas, and legumes.³⁵ It is therefore important to note that the environmental impact can increase significantly with increasing processing.

Nevertheless, the raw material in particular has a significant impact on the environment.¹⁰⁰

4.2 ABMAs

When comparing various ecological metrics of ABMAs, it is immediately apparent that there are some significant differences in the results. These differences can be attributed, among other things, to the fact that some of the assumptions are purely theoretical, as there are only a few comprehensive life cycle analyses available due to the novelty of the research field. One life cycle analysis, for instance, shows that cultured meat can enable a 99% reduction in energy and land use and a 90% reduction in water consumption.⁵⁵ Other life cycle analyses shows a different picture, especially concerning energy consumption.⁷³ In this case, the industrial energy requirement exceeded that of all conventional types of meat.¹⁰¹ On the one hand, energy consumption could be higher due to additional processing steps. At the same time, emissions can be reduced through the use of renewable energy sources.⁷³ However, it can be stated without doubt that the growth of the medium requires a significant proportion of the energy consumption in ABMA production.¹⁰² Nonetheless, there is considerable potential for innovation here, which could significantly reduce the energy assumptions used and thus also reduce the environmental impact.⁵⁵ Further life cycle analyses conclude that ABMAs are associated with lower greenhouse gas emissions, lower eutrophication potential, and lower land use compared to conventional meat.⁵⁵ The land requirement is roughly comparable to that of poultry meat.³⁵ Another metric is GHG emissions. In this case as well, the exact results are unclear, as the GHG footprint of ABMAs varies more widely due to different model assumptions. Still, it can be said that the GHG footprint is lower than that of beef, but it appears to be higher than that of other types of meat, as well as tofu, legumes, and peas (4.8-, 13.4-, and 20.6-times, respectively).³⁵

4.3 IBMAs

IBMAs have significant environmental advantages compared to meat and other meat substitutes. A life cycle analysis has shown that insect-based substitutes are among the alternatives with the lowest environmental impact.¹⁰³ The environmental impact of insect production is limited almost exclusively to the energy consumption for frying and the main feed.¹⁰² Insects are a very efficient food source. One reason is that up to 100% of their live weight is edible, compared to only 55% for pigs and chickens and as little as 40% for cattle.¹⁰⁴ In terms of overall efficiency, they have a slight advantage over chickens, a 2.5-fold advantage over pigs, and a 5-fold advantage over cattle.¹⁰⁵ Another advantage is that the global warming potential of their production is the lowest compared to all conventional protein sources.¹⁰⁶ Another relevant factor to their ecological efficiency is that only about 18m2 of agricultural land is needed to produce one kilogram of insect protein.¹⁰⁶ The insects themselves require the smallest amount of land; rather, the production of feed requires the largest share. Thus IBMAs are more effective than the conventional meat production in terms of land use. One more advantage of IBMAs is that insects do not require additional drinking water for nutrition, which also distinguishes them from all conventional animal production.¹⁰⁷ For example, one kilogram of edible biomass from mealworms requires approximately 4,300 liters of water.¹⁰⁸ This results in a CO2-eq value of 2.7 per kilogram of edible biomass for mealworm production, which is also lower than all conventional animal sources.refer to the appendix A It the evidence suggests that mealworms contribute significantly less to global warming in protein production than conventional meat sources.¹⁰⁶ These results can also be applied to other insects, such as crickets. Throughout improved cultivation and processing techniques, insect-based substitute products have the potential to further reduce their environmental impact in the future.¹⁰²

4.4 Comparison

When comparing the life cycle analyses of meat and meat alternatives, it is important to note that the GHG footprint consists mainly of methane in the case of beef and CO2 from electricity consumption in the case of alternatives, resulting in a longer- lasting but less intense warming effect.¹⁰⁰ Various environmental metrics show that livestock farming is clearly inferior in many areas compared to the corresponding meat substitutes. For example, 1 kilogram of beef requires 550-700 litres of water.¹⁰⁹ Another relevant metric is land use. Approximately 2.5 billion hectares of land are used for livestock farming.³⁵ Livestock farming contributes significantly to biodiversity loss.¹¹⁰ More over disrupts nutrient cycles, which promotes eutrophication of water bodies.¹¹¹ A comparison of conventional animal production shows that beef has the highest environmental impact and poultry meat the lowest.¹¹² Several studies suggest that reducing animal production has a significantly greater impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions than technological innovation in this sector.¹¹³ Looking at future forecasts, it can be seen that chicken production as well as soy meal production, has a technology readiness level of.⁹ ABMAs and insect-based meat substitutes achieve a value of 4. refer to the appendix B This shows that the latter have a significantly higher potential for performance and efficiency in their production.¹⁰² In conclusion, it can be stated that plant-based-proteins possess a lower environmental impact, which is attributable to positive effects on biodiversity, land use, water consumption, climate, human health, and animal welfare.¹¹⁴ Table 3 highlights the significant ecological advantages of meat alternatives over conventional meat and compares the environmental footprints of the various alternatives.

Table 3: Comparison of the environmental impacts of PBMA, ABMA, IBMAs, and conventional meat

Meat alternative

Greenhouse gas

Land use

Water

Other

emissions

consumption

environmental

aspects

PBMAs

-43% to -90%

-77% to -93%

Significantly

Efficient, but

compared to

lower

higher than

meat

unprocessed

plants

ABMAs

Potentially lower

Comparable to

Unclear,

Depends heavily

than beef but

poultry

sometimes very

on the energy

higher than poultry

high

source

IBMAs

Lowest values

Very low space

No drinking

Low

of all

requirements

water required

Biodiversity impact

Conventional Meat

Highest values (especially cattle: methane

2.5 billion hectares worldwide

Very high (up to 15,000 l/kg cattle

Deforestation and loss of biodiversity

5 Social impact

The next chapter is initiated with examining the health effects associated with each meat substitute product. It analyzes both the potential positive effects on human health, such as the reduction of diet-related diseases, and the possible negative consequences for human health, such as a higher risk for cardiovascular diseases due to increased processing of the products. In this context, further social implications of meat substitute technology are briefly discussed. Examples include the creation of new and diverse jobs through innovative technologies, while at the same time increasing the risk to workers and residents through increased pesticide use. This is followed by an analysis of social acceptance of meat substitute products. It shows

how acceptance of meat substitute products has changed and names reasons for the current level of acceptance.

5.1 Effects on human health

5.1.1 PBMAs

In general, PBMAs offer a large number of health benefits for humans. Thanks to their beneficial nutrient profiles, such as their saturated fat, cholesterol, and fiber content,⁹⁴ they can help with weight loss or muscle building. These benefits can be further enhanced through various ingredients and processing methods.⁹⁷ Another advantage is that PBMAs contain numerous antinutrients.¹¹⁵ On the one hand, they are associated with positive effects, such as cancer-preventive or adipose properties.¹¹⁶ On the other hand, they can also have harmful effects on human health.¹¹⁷ Many plant-based substitute products have similar amounts of calories and protein as traditional meat.¹¹⁸ However, the disadvantage is that these are often highly processed foods that contain higher levels of sodium.¹¹⁹ Highly processed foods can also be associated with higher calorie intake, weight gain, and other long-term negative health effects.³⁵ It should also be noted that the use of pesticides in the cultivation of PBMA often leads to long-term chronic health problems for residents and workers on such farms.¹²⁰ In addition, the use of herbicides can lead to the development of antibiotic resistance.¹²¹

5.1.2 ABMAs

It is significant that there is currently minimal industrial production of ABMAs. The following argument must take into account that some of the assumptions are purely theoretical and may differ in reality. It is currently unclear to what extent the nutrient profile of conventional meat can be technically replicated in terms of quality and composition of various micronutrients.¹²² However, targeted production may lead to improvements in nutrition, health, and well-being.¹²² The controlled laboratory conditions allow targeted regulation of nutritional value, texture, and taste.¹¹² It would be possible, for example, to control the amount of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids and adjust them as desired.³⁸ This intervention could reduce nutritionrelated diseases such as cardiovascular disease.¹¹² Another significant advantage of ABMAs is that market diversity and competitiveness increase through the industrial introduction of different producers, resulting in the creation of highly skilled jobs.²⁸ This labor market would require skills that go beyond current qualifications in the traditional field. Chemists, cell biologists, muscle researchers, technicians, and many other skills would be needed.²⁸^,¹²³ This can be both an advantage and a disadvantage. Another important aspect is that the controlled environment potentially increases hygiene and safety, reducing the likelihood of pathogens and contamination. However, as implementing this fully would involve enormous costs, antibiotic treatment would probably be used, which, if consumed in large quantities, could, for instance, lead to antibiotic resistance in humans, for example.¹²⁴ There is also a risk of epigenetic changes that can affect human muscle structure, health, and metabolism.⁵⁵ Another point that must be taken into account is that ABMAs could exacerbate the differences between rich and poor.¹²⁵ On the one hand, this could be the case, because ABMAs will be cheaper than conventional meat, which will only be available to the wealthier sections of the population.¹²⁵ Nonetheless, the more likely scenario is that ABMAs will be the more expensive option and thus a luxury product.¹²⁶

5.1.3 IBMAs

Due to their high protein content and nutrient density, IBMAs could be an important factor in combating hunger and malnutrition.¹²⁷ Insects are also a good source of bioactive ingredients that have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, among other things, and can therefore offer health advantages for human.¹²⁸ For instance, they may help prevent obesity and diabetes and at the same time support the microbiome.¹²⁹ Nevertheless, additional research is needed for more precise confirmation.¹³⁰ Another advantage of IBMAs is particularly evident in emerging and developing countries. In these countries, insect farming and insect collection create a large number of jobs.¹²⁷ It the evidence suggests that insects pose a low zoonotic risk to humans.¹³¹ However, a potential problem could arise from the excessive consumption of insect chitin, as it is a carbohydrate that is difficult for humans to digest. Still, a detailed investigation of the health effects is still lacking.¹²⁷ The allergy potential, particularly with regard to dust mites and crustaceans, has not yet been fully clarified either.¹³¹ Another important aspect is that wild-caught insects pose a risk of pesticide exposure to humans. But, if the insects used have been bred under certain strict conditions, this risk is virtually non-existent.¹²⁷

5.2 Development of consumer acceptance and trends

5.2.1 PBMAs

Many studies show that PBMA generally have a lower popularity rating among participants, resulting in a low intention to use PBMA.¹⁰³ There are various reasons for this. On the one hand, PBMA suffer from negative preconceptions regarding taste and consistency.¹³² It has been found that familiarity is a very important factor in the acceptance of PBMAs.¹³³ Furthermore, it has been proven that the context of a meal is of great importance for its acceptance.¹³⁴ However, there are a multitude of other factors that influence the acceptance of PBMAs. In summary, it can be said that the acceptance of PBMAs is also significantly influenced by the following factors: Certain product characteristics, such as the degree of processing,¹³⁵ dietary preferences, consumer preferences, market share, associations, meat binding, emotional and situational factors, education, income, price effects, environmental impacts, age, resource consumption, religious and political views, gender, sensory characteristics, nutritional profile⁵⁸ as well as the price-performance ratio.¹³⁶ Another important aspect is that food neophobia can occur with new technologies, as well as with the use of foods that are considered a violation of consumers’ culinary culture.¹³⁷ Looking at the purchasing behavior of Generation Z in isolation, it is striking that the most important characteristics for PBMA in this group are, in descending order, origin, price, and vegan.¹³⁸

5.2.2 ABMAs

Taking into account study results on the popularity ratings of ABMAs, it is striking that the reasons for acceptance vary enormously, depending on culinary culture in which the survey was conducted.¹³⁹ A representative survey, for example, concludes that two-thirds of those surveyed are willing to try ABMAs, but only one- third would consume them regularly.¹⁴⁰ Yet, according to the survey, just under 48% of consumers are more willing to eat cultured meat than soy-based meat substitutes. In contrast, only just under 32% would consider it a substitute for conventional meat.¹⁴⁰ It can therefore be concluded that there is hypothetical interest in ABMAs expressed by consumers.¹⁴¹ However, there is a number of reasons why current interest in ABMAs is limited. Food technology neophobia appears to be the biggest negative factor for consumer acceptance of cultured meat.¹⁴² Another major factor are safety concerns that arise due to consumers’ perception of unnaturalness.¹⁴³^,¹⁴⁴ This Perception is arising from high-tech process involved in the production of ABMAs, which is perceived as scientific and unnatural, resulting in a negative product image.

This finding is supported by further studies which conclude that the initial reaction of consumers who receive information about cultured meat is dominated by feelings of disgust and the impression that it is unnatural.³⁸ This finding is supported by other studies, which conclude that consumers’ initial reaction upon receiving information about cultivated meat is dominated by feelings of disgust and the impression of unnaturalness.¹⁴⁵ It is also interesting to note that consumers perceive the environmental and animal welfare benefits of ABMAs, but seemingly do not attach much importance to them.¹⁴⁶ Rather consumer acceptance seems to depend on factors such as increasing familiarity, increasing feasibility, media coverage, regulation, tasting opportunities, and the availability of ABMAs.¹⁴⁶ It has also been shown that acceptance among German consumers to buy ABMAs has increased over the last few years.¹⁴² This illustrates that various information stimuli are capable of influencing considered opinions about ABMAs. However, spontaneous, intuitive reactions remain unaffected.¹⁴⁷

5.2.3 IBMAs

When looking at study results on the popularity ratings of IBMAs, it is striking that there are many different reasons for acceptance and that the level of acceptance varies considerably depending on the culinary culture. The culinary or cultural background has an enormous influence on consumer acceptance. Chinese study participants, for instance, being much more willing to consume IBMAs than Germans.¹³⁵ A representative study from Belgium concludes that 19% of respondents are willing to consume insects as a meat substitute.¹⁴⁸ It was also found that people seem more open to consume processed insects.¹³⁵ Another factor that increases the willingness to consume IBMAs is experience with the topic. If people have already consumed IBMAs or learned more about entomophagy, their negative reaction to eating insects decreases.¹⁴⁹ Gender also appears to be one of the main factors influencing acceptance.¹⁵⁰ 12.8% of men accept insects as a meat substitute, compared to only 6.3% of women.¹⁴⁸ Another study confirms these findings and shows that the most likely early adopters of IBMAs in Western countries, with a predicted probability of over 75%, are young men with a weak attachment to meat, high environmental awareness, and openness to new foods.¹⁴⁸

5.3 Comparison

It the evidence suggests that the acceptance of the various meat substitute products is consistently low compared to the acceptance of meat. The acceptance of IBMAs is the lowest, followed by the acceptance of ABMAs. Legumes and other PBMAs have the highest acceptance. The reasons and their weighting in terms of acceptance levels vary depending on the source of the meat substitute. It can be said that taste, health aspects, appearance, disgust, neophobia, and familiarity are among the most important factors in the acceptance of meat replacement products.¹⁵¹^,¹⁵² As shown in Table 4, meat alternatives also differ significantly in their social impact.

Table 4: Social impacts and consumer acceptance of PBMAs, ABMAs, IBMAs, and conventional meat

Meat alternative

Health aspects

Risks

Consumer

Main reasons

acceptance

for acceptance level

PBMAs

Less

Highly

Relatively high

Price, taste, and

cholesterol,

processed,

familiarity

high in fiber

pesticide risks

ABMAs

Potentially

Antibiotic

Low

Feeling of

controllable

resistance and

unnaturalness

nutrient content

epigenetic risks

and price

IBMAs

High protein

Allergies, chitin,

Low

Disgust and low

and micronutrient content

cultural rejection

familiarity

Conventional

Source of

Cardiovascular

Very high

Tradition,

meat

protein, rich in micronutrien ts (e.g., B12, iron)

diseases, zoonoses

taste, and price

6 Policy measures that have influenced technological development

The following chapter examines the political and legal framework conditions that are crucial for the development and marketing of meat substitute products. To begin with, it examines the measures that have influenced the technologies of PBMA, ABMA, and IBMAs at the national and international level. Emphasis is placed on the effects of approval procedures, labeling requirements, and legal definitions. Alternatives are then examined, and a final comparison of the political measures is conducted.

6.1 PBMA

A look at the political and legal framework for PBMAs shows that there are sometimes significant differences in measures when compared internationally. In the EU, it has been proposed to amend a corresponding regulation (1308/2013) to the effect that terms such as steak or burger may only be used for conventional may be used f o r meat products. The EU’s definitions of meatrefers to the appendix C exclude cultured and plant-based meat from being labeled as meat, which causes marketing problems for the companies involved.¹⁵³ This is exacerbated by efforts by conventional meat producers to ban meat-like terms for meat alternatives.¹⁵⁴ At the same time, a bill was introduced in the US that requires the term “imitation” to be used for all plant-based meat substitutes. Another important aspect in connection with PBMAs is the Novel Food Regulation. It regulates the requirements that a new product must meet before it can be placed on the market. In general, PBMA products in the EU are not covered by the Novel Food Regulation, as they are mostly made from products that were already consumed before 1997.refers to appendix D However, there are cases in which proteins from known plants are considered novel under the Novel Food Regulation, which means they are subject to significantly higher requirements. This highlights the political and legislative difficulties that PBMA face in different regions of the world, which are at least partly caused by the gigantic conventional meat industry.¹⁵⁵

6.2 ABMAs

The political and legal framework for PBMA varies significantly from country to country. Several countries have introduced regulations on production and marketing in recent years. In the US, the FSIS and FDA established an agreement in 2019 setting out the regulations under which ABMA can be marketed. In this context, two companies in the US have been approved. In the EU, there have been no applications for approval for the introduction of cultured meat to date. In 2023, Italy even attempted to ban the production and marketing of ABMAs altogether. In Brazil, thanks to the RIISPOA regulation (Decree No.9,013, 2017), the production of novel products of animal origin is permitted, which gives the market launch of ABMAs international significance.⁶⁷ Many governments from different countries are investing in areas of ABMA production. In Israel, the government has provided various companies and universities with over $18 million in research funding to advance ABMAs. In 2020, a Singaporean startup was granted approval to sell cultivated chicken meat, resulting in a restaurant sale for the equivalent of US$23. In the US, the first sales approvals were also granted in 2023.⁶⁷ In 2024, a company in Israel was also granted regulatory approval to market cultivated beef.⁶⁷ The US and various EU countries have a total of 43 companies developing ABMAs in various forms.¹⁵⁶ This is linked to high levels of investment by different governments in different countries. Globally, almost US$900 million was invested in ABMAs in 2022.⁶⁷ On the one hand, this can promote technological progress in cultivated meat variations and, at the same time, influence the balance between supply and demand.¹⁵⁷ A further key aspect of ABMA production in this context is that ABMAs made from animal tissue are always subject to the Novel Food Regulation, unless they involve genetically modified cell lines, in which case the GMO Food Regulation takes precedence. Both regulations impose sometimes extremely high requirements on companies, which may be one reason for the delay in approval applications.²⁸^,¹⁵⁶

6.3 IBMAs

The political and legal regulations for PBMA vary considerably in some cases when compared internationally. In recent years, numerous countries have issued their own guidelines for the manufacture and distribution of these products. The precautionary principle applies to all novel foods in the EU.refers to the appendix E Since it came into force in 2018, these foods have been assessed on the basis of the Novel Food Regulation (EU/2015/2283). The regulation applies to all foods that were not consumed before 1997, i.e., before the original Novel Food Regulation was first introduced in Europe.¹⁵⁸ Insects therefore clearly fall under this regulation and are subject to its requirements. The regulation stipulates that food companies are responsible for proving that their products are safe and that their nutritional effects are clear.¹⁵⁹ This is an expensive and time-consuming process that poses considerable problems, especially for small businesses.¹⁵⁶ Therefore, the Novel-Food- Regulation is widely seen as a barrier to market access for innovations such as IBMAs.⁵⁰ In some EU member states, certain insects are conditionally approved as food due to interpretation issues with the Novel Food Regulation. In these member states, foods containing IMBA components may be sold on a transitional basis until the Commission decision.¹⁵⁹ Nevertheless, the EU already has IBMAs that have obtained permanent approval. One example is the mealworm, which has been approved in the EU since.2020 However, this approval is limited to certain specified forms of processing and is subject to clear labeling requirements.¹⁶⁰^,¹⁶¹ The following 11 additional insect species are currently under review:refers to the Appendix F Other countries where the consumption of insects has a longer tradition, such as China, often have much lower requirements for IBMAs, which means that product launches can often be faster and more cost-effective.⁹⁴

6.4 Comparison

Table 5 shows the differences in the political and legal frameworks. In many regions, the political trend is towards increasing investment in PBMAs, IBMAs, and ABMAs. To this end, countries have different approaches to making these products safe for the population. The most important regulations concerning meat substitutes in the EU are, for example:

• Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) Regulation (EU) No. 1829/2003

• Novel Food Regulation (EU) 2015/2283

• EU Food Law Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002

• Regulation on food information to consumers (EU) No. 1169/2011222

All of these EU requirements stem from the overarching goal of protecting consumers by providing accurate information while at the same time enabling fair competition among companies. Other countries, such as the US, have similar regulatory agencies to the FDA, which are designed to ensure safe implementation.⁶⁷

Table 5: Political and legal framework for PBMAs, ABMAs, IBMAs, and conventional meat

Meat

EU regulation

Regulation

Political

Barriers

alternative

Worldwide

Support

PBMAs

Discussion

Varies,

Partially

Lobbying

about terms

e.g., USA:

promoted

pressure from

(burger/steak),

“Imitation”

the meat

usually no novel food requirement

labeling

industry

ABMAs

Novel food and

First

Government

High costs,

GMO

approvals in

investment

slow approval

regulation, no

Singapore,

(e.g., Israel)

process

approvals to

USA, and

date

Israel

IBMAs

Novel Food

Often less

Partial

Complex

Regulation,

strict in Asia

promotion

approval

first species

(especially

process,

approved

feed

acceptance

)

problems

Conventional

Comprehensivel

Established

High political

Hardly any

meat

y regulated,

worldwide,

support

obstacles

subsidies

heavily

despite

promoted

ecological problems

7 Conclusion

The growing world population is leading to increased meat consumption, which exacerbates environmental pressures, health risks, and ethical issues. Meat alternatives are therefore becoming increasingly important. PBMAs are already widely available and are experiencing strong market growth, even though they are currently still more expensive than conventional meat. However, scaling up production and increased demand could lead to price advantages. ABMAs are technologically promising, but due to high production costs and a lack of scalability, they are not yet competitive at this stage. Nevertheless, companies and governments around the world are investing heavily in this technology. IBMAs are particularly environmentally efficient and economically established in some regions, but face cultural barriers and high production costs, especially in Western markets. From an environmental perspective, all three alternatives offer significant advantages over meat, especially in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, land and water consumption. PBMAs and IBMAs perform best in this regard, while the ecological balance of ABMAs still requires further technological progress. On a social level, meat alternatives can have positive effects on public health by reducing the risk of diet-related diseases, but at the same time they also pose risks, for example through high processing or possible cross- allergies. Consumer acceptance remains a key hurdle: while PBMAs enjoy comparatively high approval ratings, ABMAs and, above all, IBMAs are still met with skepticism, which is largely due to cultural factors, familiarity, and price perception.

Politically, meat alternatives are strongly influenced by legal frameworks. In the EU, the Novel Food Regulation and discussions about product labeling in particular influence market access. While PBMA face comparatively few hurdles, IBMAs and ABMAs are confronted with complex approval procedures. Some countries specifically promote the technologies through investments and approvals, while others want to implement bans on corresponding meat substitute products. To summarize, this paper demonstrates that meat alternatives offer ecological and ethical advantages, but their economic potential is closely linked to political regulation and social acceptance. The overview summarized in Table 6 illustrates that no meat alternative covers all dimensions equally well, but that they can be a good alternative to conventional meat in different aspects.

Table 6: Overall comparison of meat alternatives in terms of technology, economics, ecology, social and political aspects

Criterion

PBMAs

ABMAs

IBMAs

Conventional

(plant-based)

(animal-based)

(insect-based)

Meat

Technological

Established,

Still in

Traditional,

Globally

status

widely available,

development,

Simple processing

established,

low

medium

high effort

Effort

effort

(bioreactors)

(animal husbandry)

Economy

~$6.4 billion

Very small

Small market,

~$1.3 trillion

Market

market size,

partly

Market,

volume, higher

extremely

competitive,

favorable,

price, strong

expensive,

high growth

saturated

growth

high investment

volume

potential

Ecology

43–90%

Potentially

Lowest

Highest

Emissions

better than beef,

environmental

impact

compared to

but high energy

impact,

(emissions,

meat,

requirements

extremely

land, water)

significantly

resource-

lower

Land/water

efficient

Social aspects

Relatively high

Skepticism,

Low acceptance

Very high

acceptance,

“unnatural,”

in the West,

acceptance,

health benefits,

potential

high nutrient

traditional

but highly

health risks,

density, allergy

roots, but

processed

animal

risk

health

welfare

risks &

benefits

animal suffering

Politics/law

Few hurdles,

Strict approval

Novel Food in

Strongly

mainly

(novel food),

EU, first

promoted,

labeling

few countries

approvals,

high subsidies,

debates

allow

globally

various

few obstacles

References

1
González, N., Marquès, M, Nadal, M.& Domingo, J. Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010–2020) evidences. Food Research International, 137, 109341. (2020). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7256495/?utm_source (accessed on 23.09.2025).
2
Xie, Y., Cai, L., Zhou, G., & Li, C. Global research landscape and trends of plant- based meat analogs: a bibliometric analysis. Food Materials Research, 4, e020. (2024). https://www.maxapress.com/article/id/66686e4ffa6c580a0f25c6f8?utm_source (aufgerufen am 23.09.2025).
3
Ishaq, A., Irfan, S., Sameen, A. & Khalid, N. Plant-based meat analogs: A review with reference to health, nutrition, and sustainability. Food Research International, 157, 109893. (2022). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9198813/ (accessed on 23.09.2025).
4
Jang, J. & Lee, D. W. Advancements in plant-based meat analogs enhancing sensory and nutritional attributes. npj Science of Food 8, 50, 1-5. (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11306346/pdf/41538_2024_Article_292.pd f (accessed on 23.09.2025).
5
Rubio, N. R., Xiang, N. & Kaplan, D. L. Plant-based and cell-based approaches to meat production. Nature Communications 11, 6276. (2020). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20061-y (aufgerufen am 23.09.2025).
6
Sha, L., Xiong, Y. Plant protein-based alternatives of reconstructed meat. Science, technology, and challenges. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 102, 51–61. (2020). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224420304830 (accessed on 23.09.2025).
7
Papastavropoulou, K., Xiao, J. & Proestos, C. Edible insects: Tendency or necessity (a review). eFood e58, 4. (2022). https://iadns.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/efd2.58 (accessed on 23.09.2025).
8
Zhang, T. et al. The development history and recent updates on soy protein-based meat alternatives. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 109, 702–710. (2021). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224421000674 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
9
Bakhsh, A., Lee, S.-J., Lee, E.-Y., Hwang, Y.-H. & Joo, S.-T. Evaluation of Rheological and Sensory Characteristics of Plant‑Based Meat Analog with Comparison to Beef and Pork. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 41, 983–996. (2021). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8564321/pdf/kosfa-41-6-983.pdf (aufgerufen am 24.09.2025).
10
Schreuders, F. K. G. et al. Mapping the texture of plant protein blends for meat analogues. Food Hydrocoll. 118. (2021). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268005X21001697 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
11
Gerhardt, C., Ziemßen, F., Warschun, M., Donnan, D. & Kühnle, H.-J. How Will Cultured Meat and Meat Alternatives Disrupt the Agricultural and Food Industry. Kearney, 9. (2019). https://www.kearney.com/documents/291362523/291366549/How+Will+Cultured+M eat+and+Meat+Alternatives+Disrupt+the+Agricultural+and+Food+Industry.pdf (accessed on 24.09.2025).
12
Jafari, M., Doost, A. S., Nasrabadi, M. N., Boostani, S. & Van der Meeren, P. Phytoparticles for the stabilization of Pickering emulsions in the formulation of novel food colloidal dispersions. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 98, 117–128. (2020). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224419309574?via%3Dihub (accessed on 24.09.2025).
13
Wang, H. et al. Effect of Spray-Drying and Freeze-Drying on the Properties of Soybean Hydrolysates. J. Chem. 20. (2020). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2020/9201457 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
14
Ismail, B. P., Senaratne-Lenagala, L., Stube, A. & Brackenridge, A. Protein demand: review of plant and animal proteins used in alternative protein product development and production. Anim. Front. 10, 53–63. (2020). https://academic.oup.com/af/article/10/4/53/5943509?login=true (accessed on 24.09.2025).
15
Gibson, D. L. & Dwivedi, B. K. Production of meat substitutes from spent brewers’ yeast and Soy Protein. Canadian Institute of Food Technology Journal,3, 113–115. (1970). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008386070742918 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
16
Zahari, I., Östbring, K., Purhagen, J. K. & Rayner, M. Plant-Based Meat Analogues from Alternative Protein: A Systematic Literature Review. Foods 11, 2870. (2022). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/11/18/2870 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
17
Kyriakopoulou, K., Dekkers, B. L. & van der Goot, A. J. Plant-Based Meat Analogues. In Sustainable Meat Production and Processing 103–126. (2019). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128148747000067 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
18
Jia, W., Curubeto, N., Rodríguez-Alonso, E., Keppler, J. K. & van der Goot, A. J. Rapeseed protein concentrate as a potential ingredient for meat analogues. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 72. (2021). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1466856421001594 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
19
Zahari, I. et al. Development of High-Moisture Meat Analogues with Hemp and Soy Protein Using Extrusion Cooking. Foods 9, 772. (2020). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/9/6/772 (aufgerufen am 24.09.2025).
20
Chiang, J. H., Loveday, S. M., Hardacre, A. K. & Parker, M. E. Effects of soy protein to wheat gluten ratio on the physicochemical properties of extruded meat analogues. Food Struct. 19. (2019). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213329118300911 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
21
Munialo, C. D. & Vriesekoop, F. Plant-based foods as meat and fat substitutes. Food Sci. Nutr. 11, 4. (2023). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fsn3.3421 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
22
Lee, S. Y. et al. Cutting-edge technologies of meat analogs: A review. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 45, 235. (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11743842/pdf/kosfa-45-1-223.pdf (accessed on 24.09.2025).
23
Gouseti, O. et al. Applications of enzyme technology to enhance transition to plant proteins: A review. Foods 12, 2518. (2023). https://www.mdpi.com/2304- 8158/12/13/2518 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
24
Nowacka, M. et al. Developments in plant proteins production for meat and fish analogues. Molecules 28, 2966. (2023). https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/28/7/2966 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
25
Mylan, J., Andrews, J. & Maye, D. The big business of sustainable food production and consumption: Exploring the transition to alternative proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 120, 5-7. (2023). https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.2207782120 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
26
Xiao, X., Zou, P.-R., Hu, F., Zhu, W. & Wei, Z.-J. Updates on plant-based protein products as an alternative to animal protein: Technology, properties, and their health benefits. Molecules 28, 4016. (2023). https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/28/10/4016 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
27
Post, M. J. Cultured beef: Medical technology to produce food. J. Sci. Food Agric. 94, 1039–1041. (2014). https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jsfa.6474 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
28
Stephens, N. et al. Bringing cultured meat to market: Technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 78, 155. (2018). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224417303400 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
29
Grefte, S., Kuijpers-Jagtman, A. M., Torensma, R. & Von den Hoff, J. W. Skeletal muscle development and regeneration. Stem Cells Dev. 16, 857–868. (2007). https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/scd.2007.0058 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
30
Ramboer, E., et al. Strategies for immortalization of primary hepatocytes. Journal of Hepatology. 30, 925–943. (2014). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827814003948 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
31
Fraeye, I., Kratka, M., Vandenburgh, H. & Thorrez, L. Sensorial and nutritional aspects of cultured meat in comparison to traditional meat: Much to be inferred. Front. Nutr. 7, 35. (2020). https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2020.00035/full (accessed on 24.09.2025).
32
Stern-Straeter, J. et al. Evaluation of the effects of different culture media on the myogenic differentiation potential of adipose tissue- or bone marrow-derived human mesenchymal stem cells. Int. J. Mol. Med. 32, 160–170. (2013). https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ijmm.2013.1555 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
33
Welin, S. Introducing the new meat. Problems and prospects. Etikk i Praksis – Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics 7, 24–37. (2013). https://www.ntnu.no/ojs/index.php/etikk_i_praksis/article/view/1788 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
34
Specht, E. A., Welch, D. R., Rees Clayton, E. M. & Lagally, C. D. Opportunities for applying biomedical production and manufacturing methods to the development of the clean meat industry. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 132, 155–166. (2018). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369703X1830024X (accessed on 24.09.2025).
35
Santo, R. et al. Considering plant-based meat substitutes and cell-based meats: A public health and food systems perspective. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 134. (2020). https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food- systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00134/full (accessed on 24.09.2025).
36
Chiron, S. et al. Complex interactions between human myoblasts and the surrounding 3D fibrin-based matrix. PLoS ONE, 7. (2012). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0036173 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
37
Aswad, H., Jalabert, A. & Rome, S. Depleting extracellular vesicles from fetal bovine serum alters proliferation and differentiation of skeletal muscle cells in vitro. BMC Biotechnol. 16, 32. (2016). https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84962007142 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
38
Chriki, S. & Hocquette, J.-F. The myth of cultured meat: A review. Front. Nutr. 7,7. (2020). https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2020.00007/full (accessed on 24.09.2025).
39
Scollan, N. D. et al. Enhancing the nutritional and health value of beef lipids and their relationship with meat quality. Meat Sci. 97, 384–394. (2014). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174014000606 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
40
Kadim, I. T., Mahgoub, O., Baqir, S., Faye, B. & Purchas, R. Cultured meat from muscle stem cells: A review of challenges and prospects. J. Integr. Agric. 14, 222–233. (2015). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095311914608819 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
41
Hocquette, J.-F. Is in vitro meat the solution for the future? Meat Sci. 120, 167–176. (2016). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174016301358 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
42
Olivadese, M. & Dindo, M. L. Edible Insects: A Historical and Cultural Perspective on Entomophagy with a Focus on Western Societies. Insects 14, 690. (2023). https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/14/8/690?utm_source (accessed on 24.09.2025).
43
Queiroz, L. S., Silva, N. F. N., de Carvalho, A. F. & Casanova, F. Impact of emerging technologies on colloidal properties of insect proteins. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 49. (2023). https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/302528761/1_s2.0_S221479932200 1606_main_1_.pdf (accessed on 24.09.2025).
44
Liang, Z., Zhu, Y., Leonard, W. & Fang, Z. Food Research International 182. (2024). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996924002072 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
45
Singh, Y., Cullere, M., Kovitvadhi, A., Chundang, P. & Dalle Zotte, A. Effect of different killing methods on physicochemical traits, nutritional characteristics and in vitro human digestibility and oxidative stability during storage of the house cricket (Acheta domesticus L.). Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 65. (2020). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1466856420303908 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
46
Ghosh, S., Lee, S.-M., Jung, C. & Meyer-Rochow, V. B. Nutritional composition of five commercial edible insects in South Korea. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 20, 686–694. (2017). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1226861517300924?via%3Dihub (accessed on 24.09.2025).
47
Lee, H. J., Yong, H. I., Kim, M., Choi, Y. S. & Jo, C. Status of meat alternatives and their potential role in the future meat market – A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 33, 1533–1543. (2020). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7463075/pdf/ajas-20-0419.pdf (accessed on 24.09.2025).
48
Zielińska, E., Baraniak, B., Karaś, M., Rybczyńska, K. & Jakubczyk, A. Selected species of edible insects as a source of nutrient composition. Food Res. Int. 77, 460–466. (2015). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996915301824?via%3Dihub (accessed on 24.09.2025).
49
Lucas, E., Guo, M., & Guillén-Gosálbez, G. (2023). Low-carbon diets can reduce global ecological and health costs. Nature Food, 4(5), 394-406.
50
Van der Weele, C., Feindt, P., van der Goot, A. J., van Mierlo, B. & van Boekel, M. Meat alternatives: an integrative comparison. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 88, 505–512. (2019). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224418308409 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
51
Boukid, F. Plant-based meat analogues: from niche to mainstream. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 247, 297–308. (2021). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/S00217-020-03630-9 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
52
Nishinari, K., Fang, Y., Guo, S. & Phillips, G.O. Soy proteins: A review on composition, aggregation and emulsification. Food Hydrocolloids 39, 301–318. (2014). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268005X14000319 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
53
Estell, M., Hughes, J. & Grafenauer, S. Plant protein and plant-based meat alternatives: Consumer and nutrition professional attitudes and perceptions. Sustainability 13, 1478. (2021). https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1478 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
54
Munialo, C.D. A review of alternative plant protein sources, their extraction, functional characterisation, application, nutritional value and pinch points to being the solution to sustainable food production. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 59, 1–17. (2024). https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ijfs.16467 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
55
Bonny, S.P.F., Gardner, G.E., Pethick, D.W. & Hocquette, J.-F. What is artificial meat and what does it mean for the future of the meat industry? Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14, 255-263. (2015). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095311914608881 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
56
Good Food Institute. State of the Industry Report: Plant-Based Meat, Eggs, and Dairy. (2020). https://gfi.org/marketresearch/ (accessed on 24.09.2025).
57
Battle, M., Carter, M., Colley Clarke, J., Fathman, L., Gertner. D., Kirchner, J., Mansukhani Kogar, N., Leet-Otley, T, Panescu, P. (2025). 2024 State of the industry report Plant-based : Meat, seafood, eggs and dairy. The Good Food Institute.
58
Szenderák, J., Fróna, D. & Rákos, M. Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Substitutes: A Narrative Review. Foods, 11(9). (2022). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/11/9/1274 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
59
Troya, M., Kurawadwala, H., Byrne, B., Dowdy, R., Weston, Z. (2022). Anticipating 2030 production requirements for plant-based meat. The Good Food Institute.
60
Schnitker, K. Strategisches Management zur Entwicklung von Nachhaltigkeitsstrategien: Fallstudie: Rügenwalder Mühle Carl Müller GmbH & Co. KG. In Nachhaltigkeitsmarketing (eds. Ahrend, K. M. et al.) 39–91 (Springer Vieweg, 2023). https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-658-38521-7_2 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
61
Rügenwalder Mühle. Weiter dynamischer Wachstumskurs trotz Herausforderungen. (2022). https://www.ruegenwalder.de/de/ueber- uns/presse/ruegenwalder-muehle-legt-starke-zahlen-vor-und-baut-marktfuehrerschaft- aus#:~:text=Bad%20Zwischenahn%20%E2%80%93%20Die%20R%C3%BCgenwald er%20M%C3%BChle,Prozent%20im%20Vergleich%20zum%20Vorjahr. (accessed on 24.09.2025).
62
The Science of Cultivated Meat. The Good Food Institute (2021). https://gfi.org/science/the-science-of-cultivated-meat/ (accessed on 24.09.2025).
63
González, A. & Koltrowitz, S. Corrected: The $280,000 lab-grown burger could be a more palatable $10 in two years. Reuters (2019). https://www.reuters.com/article/us-food-tech-labmeat/the-280000-lab-grown-burger- could-be-a-more-palatable-10-in two-years-idUSKCN1U41W8/ (accessed on 24.09.2025).
64
Böhm, I., Ferrari, A. & Woll, S. In-vitro-Fleisch: Eine technische Vision zur Lösung der Probleme der heutigen Fleischproduktion und des Fleischkonsums? Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und Systemanalyse (ITAS) (2017). https://www.itas.kit.edu/pub/v/2017/boua17b.pdf (accessed on 24.09.2025).
65
Van der Weele, C. & Tramper, J. Cultured meat: every village its own factory? Trends Biotechnol. 32, 294–296. (2014). https://www.cell.com/trends/biotechnology/fulltext/S0167-7799(14)00086- 9?cc=y%3Fcc%3Dy (accessed on 24.09.2025).
66
Reiss, J., Robertson, S., & Suzuki, M. Cell Sources for Cultivated Meat: Applications and Considerations throughout the Production Workflow. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22. (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34299132/ (accessed on 24.09.2025).
67
Dutra da Silva, B., Conte-Junior, C. A. Perspectives on cultured meat in countries with economies dependent on animal production: A review of potential challenges and opportunities. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 149. (2024). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224424002279 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
68
Goodwin, C. M., Aimutis, W. R., & Shirwaiker, R. A. (2024). A scoping review of cultivated meat techno-economic analyses to inform future research directions for scaled-up manufacturing. Nature Food, 1-10.
69
Pasitka, L., Wissotsky, G., Ayyash, M. et al. Empirical economic analysis shows cost-effective continuous manufacturing of cultivated chicken using animal-free medium. Nature Food 5, 693–702 (2024).
70
Negulescu, P. G., Risner, D., Spang, E. S., Sumner, D., Block, D., Nandi, S., & McDonald, K. A. (2023). Techno‐economic modeling and assessment of cultivated meat: Impact of production bioreactor scale. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 120(4), 1055-1067.
71
Vergeer, R., Sinke, P., Odegard, I. (2021). TEA of cultivated meat. Future projections for different scenarios.
72
Tomiyama, A.J., Ong, S., Choudhury, D., & Naing, M.W. Bridging the gap between the science of cultured meat and public perception. Trends Food Sci. Technol., 104, 144-152. (2020). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224420305495 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
73
Mattick, C.S., Landis, A.E., Allenby, B.R., & Genovese, A. Anticipatory Life Cycle Analysis of In Vitro Biomass Cultivation for Cultured Meat Production in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol., 49, 11941–11949. (2015). https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.5b01614 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
74
Van der Weele, C., & Tramper, J. Cultured meat: every village its own factory? Trends Biotechnol., 32, 294–296. (2014). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24856100/ (accessed on 24.09.2025).
75
Shelomi, M. Why we still don’t eat insects: Assessing entomophagy promotion through a diffusion of innovations framework. Trends Food Sci. Technol., 45, 311–318. (2015). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441500151X?via%3Dihub (accessed on 24.09.2025).
76
Lange, K. W. & Nakamura, Y. Edible insects and their potential anti-obesity effects: a review. Food Sci. Anim. Prod. 1. (2023). https://www.sciopen.com/article/10.26599/FSAP.2023.9240008 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
77
Fiebelkorn, F. Insekten als Nahrungsmittel der Zukunft. Biologie in unserer Zeit (Biuz), 104-110. (2017). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/biuz.201710617 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
78
Seckman, D. J. Overview of the Insect F view of the Insect Food and F ood and Feed Industr eed Industry. (2021). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entodistmasters/82/ (accessed on 24.09.2025).
79
Bugfoundation. https://www.bugfoundation.com/home.html (accessed on 24.09.2025).
80
Neuhaus, E. Insekten-Essen kommt bei Metro-Kunden gut an. Welt (Online) (2018). https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/webwelt/article178303554/Plumento-Foods- Insekten-Essen-kommt-bei-Metro-Kunden-gut-an.html (accessed on 24.09.2025).
81
umanlan, J. C., Williams, M. & Jayasena, V. Edible insects: environmentally friendly sustainable future food source. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 57, 6317–6325. (2022). https://academic.oup.com/ijfst/article/57/10/6317/7806795 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
82
Imathiu, S. Benefits and food safety concerns associated with edible insects. NFS Journal 18, 1-11. (2020). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235236461930046X?via%3Dihub (accessed on 24.09.2025).
83
Veldkamp, T., et al. Insects as a sustainable feed ingredient in pig and poultry diets: A feasibility study. Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands (2012). https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/428703 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
84
Medeiros, F., et al. Current Status and Economic Prospects of Alternative Protein Sources for the Food Industry. Appl. Sci. 14. (2024). https://www.mdpi.com/2076- 3417/14/9/3733 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
85
de Jong, B., & Nikolik, G. (2021). No longer crawling: insect protein to come of age in the 2020s. RaboResearch, Rabobank, Utrecht, the Netherlands
86
Biteau, C., Bry-Chevalier, T., Crummett, D., Ryba, R., & Jules, M. S. (2024). Is turning food waste into insect feed an uphill climb? A review of persistent challenges. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 49(1), 492-501.
87
Hwang, J., Kim, J. Edible Insects: How to Increase the Sustainable Consumption Behavior among Restaurant Consumers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12). (2021) https://www.mdpi.com/1660- 4601/18/12/6520 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
88
Mouat, M. J., Prince, R. & Roche, M. M. Making Value Out of Ethics: The Emerging Economic Geography of Lab-grown Meat and Other Animal-free Food Products. Economic Geography, 95(2), 136–158. (2019). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00130095.2018.1508994 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
89
Yun, S. H. et al. Current Technologies and Future Perspective in Meat Analogs Made from Plant, Insect, and Mycoprotein Materials: A Review. Food Science of Animal Resources, 44(2), 326–355. (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11097034/pdf/kosfa-44-2-326.pdf (accessed on 24.09.2025).
90
Lee, S. Y. et al. Current Technologies and Future Perspective in Meat Analog Development Using Plant-, Insect-, and Protein-Derived Materials. Food Science of Animal Resources, 44(1), 1–18. (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10789558/pdf/kosfa-44-1-1.pdf (accessed on 24.09.2025).
91
Apaiah, K. R. (2009). Designing Food Supply Chains: A Structured Methodology. Wageningen University & Research. (2009). https://edepot.wur.nl/121798 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
92
Li, Y. Feeding the Future: Plant-Based Meat for Global Food Security and Environmental Sustainability. Cereal Foods World, 65(4), 42–47. (2020). https://www.grains.k- state.edu/research/ccl/files/publication_pdf/2020_CFW_Li_Plant%20meat.pdf (accessed on 24.09.2025).
93
Pulidindi, K. Alternative Proteins Market for Food Application, 2034 Report. Global Market Insights Inc. (2025). https://www.gminsights.com/industry- analysis/alternative-protein-market-for-food-application (accessed on 24.09.2025).
94
Talwar, R., Freymond, M., Beesabathuni, K. & Lingala, S. Current and Future Market Opportunities for Alternative Proteins in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Current Developments in Nutrition, 8. (2024). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2475299123266196#cebib0010 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
95
Nasrabadi, M. N., Sedaghat Doost, A. & Mezzenga, R. Modification approaches of plant-based proteins to improve their techno-functionality and use in food products. Food Hydrocolloids, 118. (2021). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268005X21002058 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
96
Munialo, C. D. A review of alternative plant protein sources, their extraction, functional characterisation, application, nutritional value and pinch points to being the solution to sustainable food production. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 59(1), 462–472. (2024). https://academic.oup.com/ijfst/article/59/1/462/7808157 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
97
Bryant, C. J. Plant-based animal product alternatives are healthier and more environmentally sustainable than animal products, 6. (2022). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666833522000612 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
98
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992. (2018). https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aaq0216 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
99
Albanito, F. Carbon implications of converting cropland to bioenergy crops or forest for climate mitigation: a global assessment. GCB Bioenergy, 8(1), 81–95. (2016). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcbb.12242 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
100
Herrmann, M. A comparative nutritional life cycle assessment of processed and unprocessed soy-based meat and milk alternatives including protein quality adjustment. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 8. (2024). https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food- systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1413802/full (accessed on 24.09.2025).
101
Tuomisto, H. L., Ellis, M. J. & Haastrup, P. Environmental impacts of cultured meat: alternative production scenarios. American Center for Life Cycle Assessment, 1, 1–14. (2014). https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/38629617.pdf (accessed on 24.09.2025).
102
Smetana, S., Mathys, A., Knoch, A. & Heinz, V. Meat alternatives: Life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(9), 1254–1267. (2015). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-015-0931-6 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
103
Hartmann, C. & Siegrist, M. Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 61, 11–25. (2017). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224416302904 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
104
van Huis, A. Potential of insects as food and feed in assuring food security. Annual Review of Entomology, 58, 563–583. (2013). https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ento-120811- 153704 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
105
Jansson, A. & Berggren, Å. Insects as Food – Something for the Future? Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. (2015). https://publications.slu.se/?file=publ/show&id=68924 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
106
Oonincx, D.G.A.B. & de Boer, I.J.M. Environmental impact of the production of mealworms as a protein source for humans – A life cycle assessment. PLOS ONE, 7(12). (2012). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051145 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
107
Rumpold, B.A. & Schlüter, O. K. Potential and challenges of insects as an innovative source of protein for food and feed. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 17, 1–11. (2013). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1466856412001452?via%3Dihub (accessed on 24.09.2025).
108
Miglietta, P.P., De Leo, F., Ruberti, M. & Massari, S. Mealworms for food: A water footprint perspective. Water, 7(11), 6190–6203. (2015). https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/7/11/6190 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
109
Doreau, M., Corson, M. S. & Wiedemann, S. G. Water use by livestock: A global perspective for a regional issue. Animal Frontiers, 2(2), 9–15. (2012). https://academic.oup.com/af/article/2/2/9/4638620 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
110
Machovina, B., Ripple, W. J. & Feeley, K. J. Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption. Science of the Total Environment, 536, 419–431. (2015). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969715303697?casa_token=y TGwSxoORLUAAAAA:W3OwPGuSVoA7AQ_Ldu6pBqt5F4pKYMokoZ3z8bYeN Wook8DMN0E3A9sMV0mhm68eYD0yBI2e06k (accessed on 24.09.2025).
111
Bouwman, L. et al. Exploring global changes in nitrogen and phosphorus cycles in agriculture induced by livestock production over the 1900–2050 period. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(52), 20882–20887. (2013). https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1012878108 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
112
Tuomisto, H. L., & Teixeira de Mattos, M. J. Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(14), 6117–6123. (2011). https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es200130u?ref=article_openPDF (accessed on 24.09.2025).
113
Melina, V., Craig, W., & Levin, S. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian diets. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 116(12), 1970–1980. (2016). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212267216311923?via%3Dihub (accessed on 24.09.2025).
114
Leip, A. et al. Impacts of European livestock production: Nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus and greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, water eutrophication and biodiversity. Environmental Research Letters, 10(11), 115004. (2015). https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/115004/meta (accessed on 24.09.2025).
115
McAuliffe, G. A. et al. Protein quality as a complementary functional unit in life cycle assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 28(2), 146–155. (2023). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-022-02123-z (accessed on 24.09.2025).
116
Lee, H. J., Yong, H. I., Kim, M., Choi, Y.-S. & Jo, C. Status of meat alternatives and their potential role in the future meat market. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci., 10, 1533–1543 (2020). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7463075/ (accessed on 24.09.2025).
117
Munialo, C. D., & Andrei, M. General health benefits and sensory perception of plant-based foods. In Advances in Food and Nutrition Research Vol. 101, 13–26. (2023). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780323898423000178?via% 3Dihub (accessed on 24.09.2025).
118
Bohrer, B. M. An investigation of the formulation and nutritional composition of modern meat analogue products. Food Science and Human Wellness, 8, 320–329. (2019). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213453019301144 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
119
Hall, K. D. et al. Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake. Cell Metabolism, 30(1), 67–77. (2019). https://www.cell.com/cell- metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(19)30248-7?uuid=uuid%3A3e50c90d-ca83-48c3- 80e4-82e925189f1b (accessed on 24.09.2025).
120
Harrison, J. L. (2011). Pesticide Drift and the Pursuit of Environmental Justice. MIT Press. https://books.google.de/books?hl=de&lr=&id=_sk- GjaA2ZYC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=SgVMUvBoCy&sig=JcHD9e6EJZs6ALix8JrUv vBqceQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on 24.09.2025).
121
Kurenbach, B. et al. Sublethal exposure to commercial formulations of the herbicides dicamba, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, and glyphosate cause changes in antibiotic susceptibility in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. mBio, 6(2), e00009-15. (2015). https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.00009-15 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
122
Post, M. J. Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects. Meat Science, 92(3), 297–301. (2012). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174012001210 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
123
Mouat, M. J., Prince, R., & Roche, M. M. Cultured meat and cowless milk: On making markets for animal-free food. Journal of Cultural Economy, 11(4), 315–329. (2018). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17530350.2018.1452277 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
124
Datar, I. Possibilities for an in vitro meat production system. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies 11, 1741–1748. (2010). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1466856409001222 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
125
Bonny, S. P. F., Gardner, G. E., Pethick, D. W., & Hocquette, J.-F. What is artificial meat and what does it mean for the future of the meat industry? Journal of Integrative Agriculture 14(2), 1–13. (2017). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272424528_What_is_artificial_meat_and_w hat_does_it_mean_for_the_future_of_the_meat_industry (accessed on 24.09.2025).
126
Bryant, C. J. Culture, meat, and cultured meat. Journal of Animal Science, 98(8). (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32745186/ (accessed on 24.09.2025).
127
Rumpold, Dr.-Ing. Brigit und Dr.-Ing.Oliver Schlüter (2017): Insekten: Nahrung der Zukunft?, in Ländlicher Raum, Jg. 68, Nr. 03/2017, S.76-78.
128
D’Antonio, V.; Battista, N.; Sacchetti, G.; Di Mattia, C.; Serafini, M. (2021a): Functional properties of edible insects: a systematic review. In: Nutr. Res. Rev., S. 1–22. DOI: 10.1017/s0954422421000366.
129
Lee, J. H.; Kim, T.-K.; Jeong, C. H.; Yong, H. I.; Cha, J. Y.; Kim, B.-K.; Choi, Y.-S. (2021): Biological activity and processing technologies of edible insects: a review. In: Food science and biotechnology 30 (8), S. 1003–1023. DOI: 10.1007/s10068-021-00942-8. 1013 ff.
130
Huis, A. van (2020): Nutrition and health of edible insects. In: Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care 23 (3), S. 228–231. DOI: 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000641.
131
de Gier, S. & Verhoeckx, K. Insect (food) allergy and allergens. Molecular Immunology, 100, 82–106. (2018). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161589018300944?via%3Dihub (accessed on 24.09.2025).
132
Hoek, A. C., van Boekel, M. A. J. S., Voordouw, J. & Luning, P. A. Identification of new food alternatives: How do consumers categorize meat and meat substitutes? Food Qual. Prefer. 22, 241– 248 (2011). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329311000176 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
133
Hoek, A. C. et al. Are meat substitutes liked better over time? A repeated in- home use test with meat substitutes or meat in meals. Food Qual. Prefer, 28(1), 253–262. (2013). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329312001280 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
134
Elzerman, J. E., Hoek, A. C., van Boekel, M. A. J. S. & Luning, P. A. Consumer acceptance and appropriateness of meat substitutes in a meal context. Food Qual. Prefer. 2, 233-240 (2011). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329310001990 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
135
Hartmann, C., Shi, J., Giusto, A. & Siegrist, M. The psychology of eating insects: A cross-cultural comparison between Germany and China. Food Qual. Prefer. 44, 148–156. (2015). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329315001044 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
136
Dean, D. Should I really pay a premium for this? Consumer Perspectives on Cultured Muscle, Plant-Based and Fungal-Based Protein as Meat Alternatives. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 36, 1–25. (2024). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08974438.2023.2169428 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
137
Safdar, B. et al. Prospects for plant-based meat: Current standing, consumer perceptions, and shifting trends. Foods, 11(23), 3770. (2022). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/11/23/3770 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
138
Meixner, O., Malleier, M. & Haas, R. Towards sustainable eating habits of Generation Z: Perception of and willingness to pay for plant-based meat alternatives. Sustainability, 16(8), 3414. (2024). https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/8/3414 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
139
Liu, J., Hocquette, É., Ellies-Oury, M.-P., Chriki, S. & Hocquette, J.-F. Chinese consumers’ attitudes and potential acceptance toward artificial meat. Foods, 10(2), 353. (2021). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/10/2/353 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
140
Wilks, M. & Phillips, C. J. C. Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States. PLoS ONE, 12(2), e0171904. (2017). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171904&uuid=Sn DPFVoUIsBU4Xqc18039 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
141
Goodwin, J. N. & Shoulders, C. W. The future of meat: A qualitative analysis of cultured meat media coverage. Meat Science 95, 445-450. (2013). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174013002210 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
142
Dupont, J., Harms, T. & Fiebelkorn, F. Acceptance of cultured meat in Germany—Application of an extended theory of planned behaviour. Foods, 11(3), 424. (2022). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/11/3/424 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
143
Siegrist, M. & Sütterlin, B. Importance of perceived naturalness for acceptance of food additives and cultured meat. Appetite 113, 141–148. (2017). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666317303926 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
144
Laestadius, L. I. & Caldwell, M. A. Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions of in vitro meat as evidenced by online news comments. Public Health Nutr., 18(13), 2457–2467. (2015). https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health- nutrition/article/is-the-future-of-meat-palatable-perceptions-of-in-vitro-meat-as- evidenced-by-online-news comments/99ABC527FD839475BDD0BDEB2727F3F6 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
145
Verbeke, W. ‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers’ reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Meat Science, 102, 49–58. (2015). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174014005014 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
146
Bryant, C. & Barnett, J. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review. Meat Science, 143, 8-17. (2018). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174017314602 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
147
Bekker, G. A., Fischer, A. R. H., Tobi, H. & van Trijp, H. C. M. Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: The case of cultured meat. Appetite, 108, 245-254. (2017). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666316305037 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
148
Verbeke, W. Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Qual. Prefer, 39, 147–158. (2015). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329314001554 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
149
Tan, H. S. G., van den Berg, E. & Stieger, M. The influence of product preparation, familiarity and individual traits on the consumer acceptance of insects as food. Food Qual. Prefer. 52, 1–11. (2016). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329316300908 (aufgerufen am 24.09.2025).
150
Megido, R. C. et al. Consumer acceptance of insect-based alternative meat products in Western countries. Food Quality and Preference, 52, 1–11. (2016). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095032931630091X (accessed on 24.09.2025).
151
Onwezen, M. C., Bouwman, E. P., Reinders, M. J. & Dagevos, H. A systematic review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: Pulses, algae, insects, plant- based meat alternatives, and cultured meat. Appetite, 159. (2021). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666320316809 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
152
Weinrich, R. Opportunities for the adoption of health-based sustainable dietary patterns: A review on consumer research of meat substitutes. Sustainability, 11(15), 4028. (2019). https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4028 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
153
Verzijden, K. & Buijs, J. Meat 3.0 — How cultured meat is making its way to the market. JSTOR Daily (2020). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26998475?seq=1 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
154
Vallone, S. & Lambin, E. F. Public policies and vested interests preserve the animal farming status quo at the expense of animal product analogs. One Earth 6, 276–278. (2023). https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(2300347-0 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
155
Froggatt, A. & Wellesley, L. Meat Analogues: The Regulatory Landscape in the EU. Chatham House. (2019). https://www.chathamhouse.org/2019/02/meat- analogues/4-regulatory-landscape-eu (accessed on 24.09.2025).
156
Seehafer, A. & Bartels, M. Meat 2.0 – The Regulatory Environment of Plant- Based and Cultured Meat. European Food and Feed Law Review, 14, 323-331 (2019). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26775798?seq=1 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
157
Morais-da-Silva, R. L., Villar, E. G., Reis, G. G., Sanctorum, H. & Molento, C. F. M. The expected impact of cultivated and plant-based meats on jobs: the views of experts from Brazil, the United States and Europe. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9, 297. (2022). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01316-z (accessed on 24.09.2025).
158
Rimbach, G., Nagursky, J. & Erbersdobler, H. F. Fleisch und Wurstwaren. In Lebensmittel-Warenkunde für Einsteiger (Springer Vieweg, 2025). https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-70674-9_4#Sec27 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
159
Lähteenmäki-Uutela, A., Rahikainen, M., Lonkila, A. & Yang, B. Alternative proteins and EU food law. Food Control 130, 107607 (2021). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956713521004746 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
160
Gürbüz, B. N., Pastrana, L. M., Pereira, R. N. & Cerqueira, M. A. Alternative Protein-Based Meat and Fish Analogs by Conventional and Novel Processing Technologies: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Foods 14, 498. (2025). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/14/3/498 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
161
Skotnicka, M., Karwowska, K., Kłobukowski, F., Borkowska, A. & Pieszko, M. Possibilities of the Development of Edible Insect-Based Foods in Europe. Foods 10, 766. (2021). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/10/4/766 (accessed on 24.09.2025).

1
González, N., Marquès, M, Nadal, M.& Domingo, J. Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010–2020) evidences. Food Research International, 137, 109341. (2020). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7256495/?utm_source (accessed on 23.09.2025).
2
Xie, Y., Cai, L., Zhou, G., & Li, C. Global research landscape and trends of plant- based meat analogs: a bibliometric analysis. Food Materials Research, 4, e020. (2024). https://www.maxapress.com/article/id/66686e4ffa6c580a0f25c6f8?utm_source (aufgerufen am 23.09.2025).
3
Ishaq, A., Irfan, S., Sameen, A. & Khalid, N. Plant-based meat analogs: A review with reference to health, nutrition, and sustainability. Food Research International, 157, 109893. (2022). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9198813/ (accessed on 23.09.2025).
4
Jang, J. & Lee, D. W. Advancements in plant-based meat analogs enhancing sensory and nutritional attributes. npj Science of Food 8, 50, 1-5. (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11306346/pdf/41538_2024_Article_292.pd f (accessed on 23.09.2025).
5
Rubio, N. R., Xiang, N. & Kaplan, D. L. Plant-based and cell-based approaches to meat production. Nature Communications 11, 6276. (2020). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-20061-y (aufgerufen am 23.09.2025).
6
Sha, L., Xiong, Y. Plant protein-based alternatives of reconstructed meat. Science, technology, and challenges. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 102, 51–61. (2020). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224420304830 (accessed on 23.09.2025).
7
Papastavropoulou, K., Xiao, J. & Proestos, C. Edible insects: Tendency or necessity (a review). eFood e58, 4. (2022). https://iadns.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/efd2.58 (accessed on 23.09.2025).
8
Zhang, T. et al. The development history and recent updates on soy protein-based meat alternatives. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 109, 702–710. (2021). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224421000674 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
9
Bakhsh, A., Lee, S.-J., Lee, E.-Y., Hwang, Y.-H. & Joo, S.-T. Evaluation of Rheological and Sensory Characteristics of Plant‑Based Meat Analog with Comparison to Beef and Pork. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 41, 983–996. (2021). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8564321/pdf/kosfa-41-6-983.pdf (aufgerufen am 24.09.2025).
10
Schreuders, F. K. G. et al. Mapping the texture of plant protein blends for meat analogues. Food Hydrocoll. 118. (2021). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268005X21001697 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
11
Gerhardt, C., Ziemßen, F., Warschun, M., Donnan, D. & Kühnle, H.-J. How Will Cultured Meat and Meat Alternatives Disrupt the Agricultural and Food Industry. Kearney, 9. (2019). https://www.kearney.com/documents/291362523/291366549/How+Will+Cultured+M eat+and+Meat+Alternatives+Disrupt+the+Agricultural+and+Food+Industry.pdf (accessed on 24.09.2025).
12
Jafari, M., Doost, A. S., Nasrabadi, M. N., Boostani, S. & Van der Meeren, P. Phytoparticles for the stabilization of Pickering emulsions in the formulation of novel food colloidal dispersions. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 98, 117–128. (2020). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224419309574?via%3Dihub (accessed on 24.09.2025).
13
Wang, H. et al. Effect of Spray-Drying and Freeze-Drying on the Properties of Soybean Hydrolysates. J. Chem. 20. (2020). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2020/9201457 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
14
Ismail, B. P., Senaratne-Lenagala, L., Stube, A. & Brackenridge, A. Protein demand: review of plant and animal proteins used in alternative protein product development and production. Anim. Front. 10, 53–63. (2020). https://academic.oup.com/af/article/10/4/53/5943509?login=true (accessed on 24.09.2025).
15
Gibson, D. L. & Dwivedi, B. K. Production of meat substitutes from spent brewers’ yeast and Soy Protein. Canadian Institute of Food Technology Journal,3, 113–115. (1970). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008386070742918 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
16
Zahari, I., Östbring, K., Purhagen, J. K. & Rayner, M. Plant-Based Meat Analogues from Alternative Protein: A Systematic Literature Review. Foods 11, 2870. (2022). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/11/18/2870 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
17
Kyriakopoulou, K., Dekkers, B. L. & van der Goot, A. J. Plant-Based Meat Analogues. In Sustainable Meat Production and Processing 103–126. (2019). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128148747000067 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
18
Jia, W., Curubeto, N., Rodríguez-Alonso, E., Keppler, J. K. & van der Goot, A. J. Rapeseed protein concentrate as a potential ingredient for meat analogues. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 72. (2021). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1466856421001594 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
19
Zahari, I. et al. Development of High-Moisture Meat Analogues with Hemp and Soy Protein Using Extrusion Cooking. Foods 9, 772. (2020). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/9/6/772 (aufgerufen am 24.09.2025).
20
Chiang, J. H., Loveday, S. M., Hardacre, A. K. & Parker, M. E. Effects of soy protein to wheat gluten ratio on the physicochemical properties of extruded meat analogues. Food Struct. 19. (2019). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213329118300911 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
21
Munialo, C. D. & Vriesekoop, F. Plant-based foods as meat and fat substitutes. Food Sci. Nutr. 11, 4. (2023). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/fsn3.3421 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
22
Lee, S. Y. et al. Cutting-edge technologies of meat analogs: A review. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 45, 235. (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11743842/pdf/kosfa-45-1-223.pdf (accessed on 24.09.2025).
23
Gouseti, O. et al. Applications of enzyme technology to enhance transition to plant proteins: A review. Foods 12, 2518. (2023). https://www.mdpi.com/2304- 8158/12/13/2518 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
24
Nowacka, M. et al. Developments in plant proteins production for meat and fish analogues. Molecules 28, 2966. (2023). https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/28/7/2966 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
25
Mylan, J., Andrews, J. & Maye, D. The big business of sustainable food production and consumption: Exploring the transition to alternative proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 120, 5-7. (2023). https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.2207782120 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
26
Xiao, X., Zou, P.-R., Hu, F., Zhu, W. & Wei, Z.-J. Updates on plant-based protein products as an alternative to animal protein: Technology, properties, and their health benefits. Molecules 28, 4016. (2023). https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/28/10/4016 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
27
Post, M. J. Cultured beef: Medical technology to produce food. J. Sci. Food Agric. 94, 1039–1041. (2014). https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jsfa.6474 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
28
Stephens, N. et al. Bringing cultured meat to market: Technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 78, 155. (2018). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224417303400 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
29
Grefte, S., Kuijpers-Jagtman, A. M., Torensma, R. & Von den Hoff, J. W. Skeletal muscle development and regeneration. Stem Cells Dev. 16, 857–868. (2007). https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/scd.2007.0058 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
30
Ramboer, E., et al. Strategies for immortalization of primary hepatocytes. Journal of Hepatology. 30, 925–943. (2014). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168827814003948 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
31
Fraeye, I., Kratka, M., Vandenburgh, H. & Thorrez, L. Sensorial and nutritional aspects of cultured meat in comparison to traditional meat: Much to be inferred. Front. Nutr. 7, 35. (2020). https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2020.00035/full (accessed on 24.09.2025).
32
Stern-Straeter, J. et al. Evaluation of the effects of different culture media on the myogenic differentiation potential of adipose tissue- or bone marrow-derived human mesenchymal stem cells. Int. J. Mol. Med. 32, 160–170. (2013). https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ijmm.2013.1555 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
33
Welin, S. Introducing the new meat. Problems and prospects. Etikk i Praksis – Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics 7, 24–37. (2013). https://www.ntnu.no/ojs/index.php/etikk_i_praksis/article/view/1788 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
34
Specht, E. A., Welch, D. R., Rees Clayton, E. M. & Lagally, C. D. Opportunities for applying biomedical production and manufacturing methods to the development of the clean meat industry. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 132, 155–166. (2018). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369703X1830024X (accessed on 24.09.2025).
35
Santo, R. et al. Considering plant-based meat substitutes and cell-based meats: A public health and food systems perspective. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 134. (2020). https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food- systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00134/full (accessed on 24.09.2025).
36
Chiron, S. et al. Complex interactions between human myoblasts and the surrounding 3D fibrin-based matrix. PLoS ONE, 7. (2012). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0036173 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
37
Aswad, H., Jalabert, A. & Rome, S. Depleting extracellular vesicles from fetal bovine serum alters proliferation and differentiation of skeletal muscle cells in vitro. BMC Biotechnol. 16, 32. (2016). https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84962007142 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
38
Chriki, S. & Hocquette, J.-F. The myth of cultured meat: A review. Front. Nutr. 7,7. (2020). https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2020.00007/full (accessed on 24.09.2025).
39
Scollan, N. D. et al. Enhancing the nutritional and health value of beef lipids and their relationship with meat quality. Meat Sci. 97, 384–394. (2014). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174014000606 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
40
Kadim, I. T., Mahgoub, O., Baqir, S., Faye, B. & Purchas, R. Cultured meat from muscle stem cells: A review of challenges and prospects. J. Integr. Agric. 14, 222–233. (2015). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095311914608819 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
41
Hocquette, J.-F. Is in vitro meat the solution for the future? Meat Sci. 120, 167–176. (2016). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174016301358 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
42
Olivadese, M. & Dindo, M. L. Edible Insects: A Historical and Cultural Perspective on Entomophagy with a Focus on Western Societies. Insects 14, 690. (2023). https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/14/8/690?utm_source (accessed on 24.09.2025).
43
Queiroz, L. S., Silva, N. F. N., de Carvalho, A. F. & Casanova, F. Impact of emerging technologies on colloidal properties of insect proteins. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 49. (2023). https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/302528761/1_s2.0_S221479932200 1606_main_1_.pdf (accessed on 24.09.2025).
44
Liang, Z., Zhu, Y., Leonard, W. & Fang, Z. Food Research International 182. (2024). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996924002072 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
45
Singh, Y., Cullere, M., Kovitvadhi, A., Chundang, P. & Dalle Zotte, A. Effect of different killing methods on physicochemical traits, nutritional characteristics and in vitro human digestibility and oxidative stability during storage of the house cricket (Acheta domesticus L.). Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 65. (2020). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1466856420303908 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
46
Ghosh, S., Lee, S.-M., Jung, C. & Meyer-Rochow, V. B. Nutritional composition of five commercial edible insects in South Korea. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 20, 686–694. (2017). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1226861517300924?via%3Dihub (accessed on 24.09.2025).
47
Lee, H. J., Yong, H. I., Kim, M., Choi, Y. S. & Jo, C. Status of meat alternatives and their potential role in the future meat market – A review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 33, 1533–1543. (2020). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7463075/pdf/ajas-20-0419.pdf (accessed on 24.09.2025).
48
Zielińska, E., Baraniak, B., Karaś, M., Rybczyńska, K. & Jakubczyk, A. Selected species of edible insects as a source of nutrient composition. Food Res. Int. 77, 460–466. (2015). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996915301824?via%3Dihub (accessed on 24.09.2025).
49
Lucas, E., Guo, M., & Guillén-Gosálbez, G. (2023). Low-carbon diets can reduce global ecological and health costs. Nature Food, 4(5), 394-406.
50
Van der Weele, C., Feindt, P., van der Goot, A. J., van Mierlo, B. & van Boekel, M. Meat alternatives: an integrative comparison. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 88, 505–512. (2019). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224418308409 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
51
Boukid, F. Plant-based meat analogues: from niche to mainstream. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 247, 297–308. (2021). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/S00217-020-03630-9 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
52
Nishinari, K., Fang, Y., Guo, S. & Phillips, G.O. Soy proteins: A review on composition, aggregation and emulsification. Food Hydrocolloids 39, 301–318. (2014). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268005X14000319 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
53
Estell, M., Hughes, J. & Grafenauer, S. Plant protein and plant-based meat alternatives: Consumer and nutrition professional attitudes and perceptions. Sustainability 13, 1478. (2021). https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1478 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
54
Munialo, C.D. A review of alternative plant protein sources, their extraction, functional characterisation, application, nutritional value and pinch points to being the solution to sustainable food production. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 59, 1–17. (2024). https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ijfs.16467 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
55
Bonny, S.P.F., Gardner, G.E., Pethick, D.W. & Hocquette, J.-F. What is artificial meat and what does it mean for the future of the meat industry? Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14, 255-263. (2015). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095311914608881 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
56
Good Food Institute. State of the Industry Report: Plant-Based Meat, Eggs, and Dairy. (2020). https://gfi.org/marketresearch/ (accessed on 24.09.2025).
57
Battle, M., Carter, M., Colley Clarke, J., Fathman, L., Gertner. D., Kirchner, J., Mansukhani Kogar, N., Leet-Otley, T, Panescu, P. (2025). 2024 State of the industry report Plant-based : Meat, seafood, eggs and dairy. The Good Food Institute.
58
Szenderák, J., Fróna, D. & Rákos, M. Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Substitutes: A Narrative Review. Foods, 11(9). (2022). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/11/9/1274 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
59
Troya, M., Kurawadwala, H., Byrne, B., Dowdy, R., Weston, Z. (2022). Anticipating 2030 production requirements for plant-based meat. The Good Food Institute.
60
Schnitker, K. Strategisches Management zur Entwicklung von Nachhaltigkeitsstrategien: Fallstudie: Rügenwalder Mühle Carl Müller GmbH & Co. KG. In Nachhaltigkeitsmarketing (eds. Ahrend, K. M. et al.) 39–91 (Springer Vieweg, 2023). https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-658-38521-7_2 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
61
Rügenwalder Mühle. Weiter dynamischer Wachstumskurs trotz Herausforderungen. (2022). https://www.ruegenwalder.de/de/ueber- uns/presse/ruegenwalder-muehle-legt-starke-zahlen-vor-und-baut-marktfuehrerschaft- aus#:~:text=Bad%20Zwischenahn%20%E2%80%93%20Die%20R%C3%BCgenwald er%20M%C3%BChle,Prozent%20im%20Vergleich%20zum%20Vorjahr. (accessed on 24.09.2025).
62
The Science of Cultivated Meat. The Good Food Institute (2021). https://gfi.org/science/the-science-of-cultivated-meat/ (accessed on 24.09.2025).
63
González, A. & Koltrowitz, S. Corrected: The $280,000 lab-grown burger could be a more palatable $10 in two years. Reuters (2019). https://www.reuters.com/article/us-food-tech-labmeat/the-280000-lab-grown-burger- could-be-a-more-palatable-10-in two-years-idUSKCN1U41W8/ (accessed on 24.09.2025).
64
Böhm, I., Ferrari, A. & Woll, S. In-vitro-Fleisch: Eine technische Vision zur Lösung der Probleme der heutigen Fleischproduktion und des Fleischkonsums? Institut für Technikfolgenabschätzung und Systemanalyse (ITAS) (2017). https://www.itas.kit.edu/pub/v/2017/boua17b.pdf (accessed on 24.09.2025).
65
Van der Weele, C. & Tramper, J. Cultured meat: every village its own factory? Trends Biotechnol. 32, 294–296. (2014). https://www.cell.com/trends/biotechnology/fulltext/S0167-7799(14)00086- 9?cc=y%3Fcc%3Dy (accessed on 24.09.2025).
66
Reiss, J., Robertson, S., & Suzuki, M. Cell Sources for Cultivated Meat: Applications and Considerations throughout the Production Workflow. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22. (2021). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34299132/ (accessed on 24.09.2025).
67
Dutra da Silva, B., Conte-Junior, C. A. Perspectives on cultured meat in countries with economies dependent on animal production: A review of potential challenges and opportunities. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 149. (2024). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224424002279 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
68
Goodwin, C. M., Aimutis, W. R., & Shirwaiker, R. A. (2024). A scoping review of cultivated meat techno-economic analyses to inform future research directions for scaled-up manufacturing. Nature Food, 1-10.
69
Pasitka, L., Wissotsky, G., Ayyash, M. et al. Empirical economic analysis shows cost-effective continuous manufacturing of cultivated chicken using animal-free medium. Nature Food 5, 693–702 (2024).
70
Negulescu, P. G., Risner, D., Spang, E. S., Sumner, D., Block, D., Nandi, S., & McDonald, K. A. (2023). Techno‐economic modeling and assessment of cultivated meat: Impact of production bioreactor scale. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 120(4), 1055-1067.
71
Vergeer, R., Sinke, P., Odegard, I. (2021). TEA of cultivated meat. Future projections for different scenarios.
72
Tomiyama, A.J., Ong, S., Choudhury, D., & Naing, M.W. Bridging the gap between the science of cultured meat and public perception. Trends Food Sci. Technol., 104, 144-152. (2020). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224420305495 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
73
Mattick, C.S., Landis, A.E., Allenby, B.R., & Genovese, A. Anticipatory Life Cycle Analysis of In Vitro Biomass Cultivation for Cultured Meat Production in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol., 49, 11941–11949. (2015). https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.5b01614 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
74
Van der Weele, C., & Tramper, J. Cultured meat: every village its own factory? Trends Biotechnol., 32, 294–296. (2014). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24856100/ (accessed on 24.09.2025).
75
Shelomi, M. Why we still don’t eat insects: Assessing entomophagy promotion through a diffusion of innovations framework. Trends Food Sci. Technol., 45, 311–318. (2015). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441500151X?via%3Dihub (accessed on 24.09.2025).
76
Lange, K. W. & Nakamura, Y. Edible insects and their potential anti-obesity effects: a review. Food Sci. Anim. Prod. 1. (2023). https://www.sciopen.com/article/10.26599/FSAP.2023.9240008 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
77
Fiebelkorn, F. Insekten als Nahrungsmittel der Zukunft. Biologie in unserer Zeit (Biuz), 104-110. (2017). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/biuz.201710617 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
78
Seckman, D. J. Overview of the Insect F view of the Insect Food and F ood and Feed Industr eed Industry. (2021). https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/entodistmasters/82/ (accessed on 24.09.2025).
79
Bugfoundation. https://www.bugfoundation.com/home.html (accessed on 24.09.2025).
80
Neuhaus, E. Insekten-Essen kommt bei Metro-Kunden gut an. Welt (Online) (2018). https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/webwelt/article178303554/Plumento-Foods- Insekten-Essen-kommt-bei-Metro-Kunden-gut-an.html (accessed on 24.09.2025).
81
umanlan, J. C., Williams, M. & Jayasena, V. Edible insects: environmentally friendly sustainable future food source. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 57, 6317–6325. (2022). https://academic.oup.com/ijfst/article/57/10/6317/7806795 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
82
Imathiu, S. Benefits and food safety concerns associated with edible insects. NFS Journal 18, 1-11. (2020). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235236461930046X?via%3Dihub (accessed on 24.09.2025).
83
Veldkamp, T., et al. Insects as a sustainable feed ingredient in pig and poultry diets: A feasibility study. Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands (2012). https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/428703 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
84
Medeiros, F., et al. Current Status and Economic Prospects of Alternative Protein Sources for the Food Industry. Appl. Sci. 14. (2024). https://www.mdpi.com/2076- 3417/14/9/3733 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
85
de Jong, B., & Nikolik, G. (2021). No longer crawling: insect protein to come of age in the 2020s. RaboResearch, Rabobank, Utrecht, the Netherlands
86
Biteau, C., Bry-Chevalier, T., Crummett, D., Ryba, R., & Jules, M. S. (2024). Is turning food waste into insect feed an uphill climb? A review of persistent challenges. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 49(1), 492-501.
87
Hwang, J., Kim, J. Edible Insects: How to Increase the Sustainable Consumption Behavior among Restaurant Consumers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12). (2021) https://www.mdpi.com/1660- 4601/18/12/6520 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
88
Mouat, M. J., Prince, R. & Roche, M. M. Making Value Out of Ethics: The Emerging Economic Geography of Lab-grown Meat and Other Animal-free Food Products. Economic Geography, 95(2), 136–158. (2019). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00130095.2018.1508994 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
89
Yun, S. H. et al. Current Technologies and Future Perspective in Meat Analogs Made from Plant, Insect, and Mycoprotein Materials: A Review. Food Science of Animal Resources, 44(2), 326–355. (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11097034/pdf/kosfa-44-2-326.pdf (accessed on 24.09.2025).
90
Lee, S. Y. et al. Current Technologies and Future Perspective in Meat Analog Development Using Plant-, Insect-, and Protein-Derived Materials. Food Science of Animal Resources, 44(1), 1–18. (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10789558/pdf/kosfa-44-1-1.pdf (accessed on 24.09.2025).
91
Apaiah, K. R. (2009). Designing Food Supply Chains: A Structured Methodology. Wageningen University & Research. (2009). https://edepot.wur.nl/121798 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
92
Li, Y. Feeding the Future: Plant-Based Meat for Global Food Security and Environmental Sustainability. Cereal Foods World, 65(4), 42–47. (2020). https://www.grains.k- state.edu/research/ccl/files/publication_pdf/2020_CFW_Li_Plant%20meat.pdf (accessed on 24.09.2025).
93
Pulidindi, K. Alternative Proteins Market for Food Application, 2034 Report. Global Market Insights Inc. (2025). https://www.gminsights.com/industry- analysis/alternative-protein-market-for-food-application (accessed on 24.09.2025).
94
Talwar, R., Freymond, M., Beesabathuni, K. & Lingala, S. Current and Future Market Opportunities for Alternative Proteins in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Current Developments in Nutrition, 8. (2024). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2475299123266196#cebib0010 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
95
Nasrabadi, M. N., Sedaghat Doost, A. & Mezzenga, R. Modification approaches of plant-based proteins to improve their techno-functionality and use in food products. Food Hydrocolloids, 118. (2021). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268005X21002058 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
96
Munialo, C. D. A review of alternative plant protein sources, their extraction, functional characterisation, application, nutritional value and pinch points to being the solution to sustainable food production. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 59(1), 462–472. (2024). https://academic.oup.com/ijfst/article/59/1/462/7808157 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
97
Bryant, C. J. Plant-based animal product alternatives are healthier and more environmentally sustainable than animal products, 6. (2022). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666833522000612 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
98
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992. (2018). https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aaq0216 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
99
Albanito, F. Carbon implications of converting cropland to bioenergy crops or forest for climate mitigation: a global assessment. GCB Bioenergy, 8(1), 81–95. (2016). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcbb.12242 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
100
Herrmann, M. A comparative nutritional life cycle assessment of processed and unprocessed soy-based meat and milk alternatives including protein quality adjustment. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 8. (2024). https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food- systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1413802/full (accessed on 24.09.2025).
101
Tuomisto, H. L., Ellis, M. J. & Haastrup, P. Environmental impacts of cultured meat: alternative production scenarios. American Center for Life Cycle Assessment, 1, 1–14. (2014). https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/38629617.pdf (accessed on 24.09.2025).
102
Smetana, S., Mathys, A., Knoch, A. & Heinz, V. Meat alternatives: Life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20(9), 1254–1267. (2015). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-015-0931-6 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
103
Hartmann, C. & Siegrist, M. Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 61, 11–25. (2017). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224416302904 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
104
van Huis, A. Potential of insects as food and feed in assuring food security. Annual Review of Entomology, 58, 563–583. (2013). https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-ento-120811- 153704 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
105
Jansson, A. & Berggren, Å. Insects as Food – Something for the Future? Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. (2015). https://publications.slu.se/?file=publ/show&id=68924 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
106
Oonincx, D.G.A.B. & de Boer, I.J.M. Environmental impact of the production of mealworms as a protein source for humans – A life cycle assessment. PLOS ONE, 7(12). (2012). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0051145 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
107
Rumpold, B.A. & Schlüter, O. K. Potential and challenges of insects as an innovative source of protein for food and feed. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 17, 1–11. (2013). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1466856412001452?via%3Dihub (accessed on 24.09.2025).
108
Miglietta, P.P., De Leo, F., Ruberti, M. & Massari, S. Mealworms for food: A water footprint perspective. Water, 7(11), 6190–6203. (2015). https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/7/11/6190 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
109
Doreau, M., Corson, M. S. & Wiedemann, S. G. Water use by livestock: A global perspective for a regional issue. Animal Frontiers, 2(2), 9–15. (2012). https://academic.oup.com/af/article/2/2/9/4638620 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
110
Machovina, B., Ripple, W. J. & Feeley, K. J. Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption. Science of the Total Environment, 536, 419–431. (2015). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969715303697?casa_token=y TGwSxoORLUAAAAA:W3OwPGuSVoA7AQ_Ldu6pBqt5F4pKYMokoZ3z8bYeN Wook8DMN0E3A9sMV0mhm68eYD0yBI2e06k (accessed on 24.09.2025).
111
Bouwman, L. et al. Exploring global changes in nitrogen and phosphorus cycles in agriculture induced by livestock production over the 1900–2050 period. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(52), 20882–20887. (2013). https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1012878108 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
112
Tuomisto, H. L., & Teixeira de Mattos, M. J. Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(14), 6117–6123. (2011). https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es200130u?ref=article_openPDF (accessed on 24.09.2025).
113
Melina, V., Craig, W., & Levin, S. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian diets. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 116(12), 1970–1980. (2016). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212267216311923?via%3Dihub (accessed on 24.09.2025).
114
Leip, A. et al. Impacts of European livestock production: Nitrogen, sulphur, phosphorus and greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, water eutrophication and biodiversity. Environmental Research Letters, 10(11), 115004. (2015). https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/115004/meta (accessed on 24.09.2025).
115
McAuliffe, G. A. et al. Protein quality as a complementary functional unit in life cycle assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 28(2), 146–155. (2023). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-022-02123-z (accessed on 24.09.2025).
116
Lee, H. J., Yong, H. I., Kim, M., Choi, Y.-S. & Jo, C. Status of meat alternatives and their potential role in the future meat market. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci., 10, 1533–1543 (2020). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7463075/ (accessed on 24.09.2025).
117
Munialo, C. D., & Andrei, M. General health benefits and sensory perception of plant-based foods. In Advances in Food and Nutrition Research Vol. 101, 13–26. (2023). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780323898423000178?via% 3Dihub (accessed on 24.09.2025).
118
Bohrer, B. M. An investigation of the formulation and nutritional composition of modern meat analogue products. Food Science and Human Wellness, 8, 320–329. (2019). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213453019301144 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
119
Hall, K. D. et al. Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake. Cell Metabolism, 30(1), 67–77. (2019). https://www.cell.com/cell- metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(19)30248-7?uuid=uuid%3A3e50c90d-ca83-48c3- 80e4-82e925189f1b (accessed on 24.09.2025).
120
Harrison, J. L. (2011). Pesticide Drift and the Pursuit of Environmental Justice. MIT Press. https://books.google.de/books?hl=de&lr=&id=_sk- GjaA2ZYC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&ots=SgVMUvBoCy&sig=JcHD9e6EJZs6ALix8JrUv vBqceQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on 24.09.2025).
121
Kurenbach, B. et al. Sublethal exposure to commercial formulations of the herbicides dicamba, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, and glyphosate cause changes in antibiotic susceptibility in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. mBio, 6(2), e00009-15. (2015). https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.00009-15 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
122
Post, M. J. Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects. Meat Science, 92(3), 297–301. (2012). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174012001210 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
123
Mouat, M. J., Prince, R., & Roche, M. M. Cultured meat and cowless milk: On making markets for animal-free food. Journal of Cultural Economy, 11(4), 315–329. (2018). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17530350.2018.1452277 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
124
Datar, I. Possibilities for an in vitro meat production system. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies 11, 1741–1748. (2010). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1466856409001222 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
125
Bonny, S. P. F., Gardner, G. E., Pethick, D. W., & Hocquette, J.-F. What is artificial meat and what does it mean for the future of the meat industry? Journal of Integrative Agriculture 14(2), 1–13. (2017). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272424528_What_is_artificial_meat_and_w hat_does_it_mean_for_the_future_of_the_meat_industry (accessed on 24.09.2025).
126
Bryant, C. J. Culture, meat, and cultured meat. Journal of Animal Science, 98(8). (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32745186/ (accessed on 24.09.2025).
127
Rumpold, Dr.-Ing. Brigit und Dr.-Ing.Oliver Schlüter (2017): Insekten: Nahrung der Zukunft?, in Ländlicher Raum, Jg. 68, Nr. 03/2017, S.76-78.
128
D’Antonio, V.; Battista, N.; Sacchetti, G.; Di Mattia, C.; Serafini, M. (2021a): Functional properties of edible insects: a systematic review. In: Nutr. Res. Rev., S. 1–22. DOI: 10.1017/s0954422421000366.
129
Lee, J. H.; Kim, T.-K.; Jeong, C. H.; Yong, H. I.; Cha, J. Y.; Kim, B.-K.; Choi, Y.-S. (2021): Biological activity and processing technologies of edible insects: a review. In: Food science and biotechnology 30 (8), S. 1003–1023. DOI: 10.1007/s10068-021-00942-8. 1013 ff.
130
Huis, A. van (2020): Nutrition and health of edible insects. In: Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care 23 (3), S. 228–231. DOI: 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000641.
131
de Gier, S. & Verhoeckx, K. Insect (food) allergy and allergens. Molecular Immunology, 100, 82–106. (2018). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161589018300944?via%3Dihub (accessed on 24.09.2025).
132
Hoek, A. C., van Boekel, M. A. J. S., Voordouw, J. & Luning, P. A. Identification of new food alternatives: How do consumers categorize meat and meat substitutes? Food Qual. Prefer. 22, 241– 248 (2011). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329311000176 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
133
Hoek, A. C. et al. Are meat substitutes liked better over time? A repeated in- home use test with meat substitutes or meat in meals. Food Qual. Prefer, 28(1), 253–262. (2013). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329312001280 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
134
Elzerman, J. E., Hoek, A. C., van Boekel, M. A. J. S. & Luning, P. A. Consumer acceptance and appropriateness of meat substitutes in a meal context. Food Qual. Prefer. 2, 233-240 (2011). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329310001990 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
135
Hartmann, C., Shi, J., Giusto, A. & Siegrist, M. The psychology of eating insects: A cross-cultural comparison between Germany and China. Food Qual. Prefer. 44, 148–156. (2015). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329315001044 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
136
Dean, D. Should I really pay a premium for this? Consumer Perspectives on Cultured Muscle, Plant-Based and Fungal-Based Protein as Meat Alternatives. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 36, 1–25. (2024). https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08974438.2023.2169428 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
137
Safdar, B. et al. Prospects for plant-based meat: Current standing, consumer perceptions, and shifting trends. Foods, 11(23), 3770. (2022). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/11/23/3770 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
138
Meixner, O., Malleier, M. & Haas, R. Towards sustainable eating habits of Generation Z: Perception of and willingness to pay for plant-based meat alternatives. Sustainability, 16(8), 3414. (2024). https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/8/3414 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
139
Liu, J., Hocquette, É., Ellies-Oury, M.-P., Chriki, S. & Hocquette, J.-F. Chinese consumers’ attitudes and potential acceptance toward artificial meat. Foods, 10(2), 353. (2021). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/10/2/353 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
140
Wilks, M. & Phillips, C. J. C. Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States. PLoS ONE, 12(2), e0171904. (2017). https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0171904&uuid=Sn DPFVoUIsBU4Xqc18039 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
141
Goodwin, J. N. & Shoulders, C. W. The future of meat: A qualitative analysis of cultured meat media coverage. Meat Science 95, 445-450. (2013). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174013002210 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
142
Dupont, J., Harms, T. & Fiebelkorn, F. Acceptance of cultured meat in Germany—Application of an extended theory of planned behaviour. Foods, 11(3), 424. (2022). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/11/3/424 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
143
Siegrist, M. & Sütterlin, B. Importance of perceived naturalness for acceptance of food additives and cultured meat. Appetite 113, 141–148. (2017). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666317303926 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
144
Laestadius, L. I. & Caldwell, M. A. Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions of in vitro meat as evidenced by online news comments. Public Health Nutr., 18(13), 2457–2467. (2015). https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health- nutrition/article/is-the-future-of-meat-palatable-perceptions-of-in-vitro-meat-as- evidenced-by-online-news comments/99ABC527FD839475BDD0BDEB2727F3F6 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
145
Verbeke, W. ‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers’ reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Meat Science, 102, 49–58. (2015). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174014005014 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
146
Bryant, C. & Barnett, J. Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review. Meat Science, 143, 8-17. (2018). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174017314602 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
147
Bekker, G. A., Fischer, A. R. H., Tobi, H. & van Trijp, H. C. M. Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: The case of cultured meat. Appetite, 108, 245-254. (2017). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666316305037 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
148
Verbeke, W. Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society. Food Qual. Prefer, 39, 147–158. (2015). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329314001554 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
149
Tan, H. S. G., van den Berg, E. & Stieger, M. The influence of product preparation, familiarity and individual traits on the consumer acceptance of insects as food. Food Qual. Prefer. 52, 1–11. (2016). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329316300908 (aufgerufen am 24.09.2025).
150
Megido, R. C. et al. Consumer acceptance of insect-based alternative meat products in Western countries. Food Quality and Preference, 52, 1–11. (2016). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095032931630091X (accessed on 24.09.2025).
151
Onwezen, M. C., Bouwman, E. P., Reinders, M. J. & Dagevos, H. A systematic review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: Pulses, algae, insects, plant- based meat alternatives, and cultured meat. Appetite, 159. (2021). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666320316809 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
152
Weinrich, R. Opportunities for the adoption of health-based sustainable dietary patterns: A review on consumer research of meat substitutes. Sustainability, 11(15), 4028. (2019). https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4028 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
153
Verzijden, K. & Buijs, J. Meat 3.0 — How cultured meat is making its way to the market. JSTOR Daily (2020). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26998475?seq=1 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
154
Vallone, S. & Lambin, E. F. Public policies and vested interests preserve the animal farming status quo at the expense of animal product analogs. One Earth 6, 276–278. (2023). https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(2300347-0 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
155
Froggatt, A. & Wellesley, L. Meat Analogues: The Regulatory Landscape in the EU. Chatham House. (2019). https://www.chathamhouse.org/2019/02/meat- analogues/4-regulatory-landscape-eu (accessed on 24.09.2025).
156
Seehafer, A. & Bartels, M. Meat 2.0 – The Regulatory Environment of Plant- Based and Cultured Meat. European Food and Feed Law Review, 14, 323-331 (2019). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26775798?seq=1 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
157
Morais-da-Silva, R. L., Villar, E. G., Reis, G. G., Sanctorum, H. & Molento, C. F. M. The expected impact of cultivated and plant-based meats on jobs: the views of experts from Brazil, the United States and Europe. Hum. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9, 297. (2022). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01316-z (accessed on 24.09.2025).
158
Rimbach, G., Nagursky, J. & Erbersdobler, H. F. Fleisch und Wurstwaren. In Lebensmittel-Warenkunde für Einsteiger (Springer Vieweg, 2025). https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-70674-9_4#Sec27 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
159
Lähteenmäki-Uutela, A., Rahikainen, M., Lonkila, A. & Yang, B. Alternative proteins and EU food law. Food Control 130, 107607 (2021). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956713521004746 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
160
Gürbüz, B. N., Pastrana, L. M., Pereira, R. N. & Cerqueira, M. A. Alternative Protein-Based Meat and Fish Analogs by Conventional and Novel Processing Technologies: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Foods 14, 498. (2025). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/14/3/498 (accessed on 24.09.2025).
161
Skotnicka, M., Karwowska, K., Kłobukowski, F., Borkowska, A. & Pieszko, M. Possibilities of the Development of Edible Insect-Based Foods in Europe. Foods 10, 766. (2021). https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/10/4/766 (accessed on 24.09.2025).

Executive summary

1 Introduction

2 Description and history

2.1 Definition and delimitation of meat substitutes

2.2 Current technology and its historical development

2.2.1 PBMAs

2.2.2 ABMAs

2.2.3 IBMAs

2.2.4 Comparison

3 Market and cost development of the technology

3.1 PBMAs

3.2 ABMAs

3.3 IBMAs

3.4 Comparison

4 Development in environmental balance

4.1 PBMAs

4.2 ABMAs

4.3 IBMAs

4.4 Comparison

5 Social impact

5.1 Effects on human health

5.1.1 PBMAs

5.1.2 ABMAs

5.1.3 IBMAs

5.2 Development of consumer acceptance and trends

5.2.1 PBMAs

5.2.2 ABMAs

5.2.3 IBMAs

5.3 Comparison

6 Policy measures that have influenced technological development

6.1 PBMA

6.2 ABMAs

6.3 IBMAs

6.4 Comparison

7 Conclusion

References

Your feedback on this article