foods

Review
Meat Analogues in the Perspective of Recent Scientific
Research: A Review
Klaudia Kołodziejczak , Anna Onopiuk *, Arkadiusz Szpicer and Andrzej Poltorak

Department of Technique and Food Development, Institute of Human Nutrition Sciences, Warsaw University of
Life Sciences, Nowoursynowska 159c Street, 32, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland; [email protected] (K.K.);
[email protected] (A.S.); [email protected] (A.P.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: There are many reasons why consumers and food producers are looking for alternatives
to meat and meat products, which includes the following: health, environmental or ethical aspects.
This study reviews recent scientific reports on meat analogues. The scope of the review includes the
following: formulation and nutritional value; health safety and legal regulations; manufacturing
and processing technologies including the latest developments in this area; product availability on
the food market; and consumer attitudes towards meat analogues. The analysis of the literature
data identified technological challenges, particularly in improving consumer acceptability of meat
analogues. Among the risks and limitations associated with the production of meat analogues, the
following were identified: contamination from raw materials and the risk of harmful by-products
due to intensive processing; legal issues of product nomenclature; and consumer attitudes towards
substituting meat with plant-based alternatives. The need for further research in this area, particularly
on the nutritional value and food safety of meat analogues, was demonstrated.



Keywords: meat alternatives; plant-based meat; consumption; consumer acceptance


Citation: Kołodziejczak, K.; Onopiuk,
A.; Szpicer, A.; Poltorak, A. Meat
Analogues in the Perspective of 1. Introduction
Recent Scientific Research: A Review.
The world is constantly changing. These relate to the environment human population
Foods 2022, 11, 105. https://doi.org/
structure, the state of natural resources and biodiversity. Importantly, consumer awareness
10.3390/foods11010105
is also changing, resulting in a shift in dietary choices. Many different factors have been
Academic Editors: Verica identified as contributing to the need to reduce meat consumption, both individually and
Dragović-Uzelac and Maja Repajić globally. However, despite growing consumer environmental and health awareness [1–3],
Received: 3 December 2021
the proportion of the population that chooses switch to a meat-free diet is a minority (ap-
Accepted: 30 December 2021
proximately 5% vegetarian diet and 3% vegan diet) [3]. This percentage is growing intensely,
Published: 31 December 2021
as is the number of people on a flexitarian diet limiting their dietary meat intake [2–4]. One
strategy to support consumers in their decision to reduce meat consumption is to offer
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
them products that replace meat. Among these products are meat analogues.
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
One of the most important reasons for limiting meat consumption is the growing hu-
published maps and institutional affil-
man population. In 2017, the number of people in the world was 7.5 billion, but estimates
iations.
by the United Nations [5] show the population growing to 8.5 billion in 2030 and even
10 billion in 2050. Currently, population growth has resulted in intensified food production,
and this has resulted in unsustainability in the current food system. The observed rapid
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
population growth coupled with the inefficiency of current dietary patterns generates an
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. extremely important problem, namely, feeding such a large number of people [6]. Malnutri-
This article is an open access article tion is largely caused by a protein deficit rather than insufficient calorie intake. Conversion
distributed under the terms and of plant protein to animal protein is characterized by low efficiency and high losses of
conditions of the Creative Commons protein and energy [6,7]. For example, 6 kg of plant protein is needed to produce 1 kg of
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// meat protein [8]. Animal production is, thus, insufficiently efficient, and it becomes crucial
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ for food security to look for alternative protein sources: plant protein, protein from insects
4.0/). or protein from unicellular organisms [9,10]. No less important motivation for change is the

Foods 2022, 11, 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11010105 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/foods

Foods 2022, 11, 105 2 of 16

environmental impact of animal production. Among other things, the intensive livestock
production system results in a significant loss of biodiversity, which is caused by the huge
demand for land for feed crops [11,12]. Ammonia emissions; progressive deforestation;
and disruption of phosphorus, nitrogen and carbon cycles also have a negative impact on
the environment [12]. Although the alarming state of the environment and availability of
key resources (i.e., drinking water), as well as food security, undoubtedly justifies the need
to reduce meat consumption, many consumers are unaware of the scale of these problems.
Health concerns are also among the arguments for reducing meat consumption. There
is a known link between the consumption of processed meat products and an increased
likelihood of certain diet-related diseases: obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases,
colorectal cancer or strokes [13–15]. We should also not forget the risks of zoonotic diseases,
i.e., avian influenza and human CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease) associated with bovine
BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or mad cow disease), Q fever, SARS (Severe Acute
Respiratory Syndrome) and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) [7,9,13]. Another
health risk associated with livestock production is the increasing antibiotic resistance of
pathogenic microorganisms (including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) [7]. This
is largely due to the massive use of antibiotics in animal husbandry [2]. It is estimated
that there will be a further intensive increase in antimicrobial use, with 2/3 of this increase
occurring in the livestock sector [16]. This is of great concern as it could result in the
emergence of highly dangerous strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria threatening the health
of the population [17,18]. A large proportion of consumers choose to exclude meat from
their diet for ethical reasons and due to concerns about the welfare of farmed animals [1,19].
Some consumers are driven to switch to a plant-based diet by fashion or the desire to adapt
to their environment.
The total or partial abandonment of meat in the diet, regardless of the reason, requires
the supply of an adequate amount of protein from other sources. So-called meat analogues
can be particularly helpful, especially at the initial stage of dietary changes. These products
aim to replace meat and meat products in their functionality while being similar in terms
of sensory properties, particularly taste, aroma and texture and nutritional value [8,20,21].
The growing interest in meat analogues is not only observed among consumers and food
producers but also in the scientific community. In recent years, many new scientific studies
have emerged on topics such as the following: the formulation and technology of meat
analogues, the market situation and consumer attitudes towards plant-based diets and
meat replacement products. This study analyses these reports and identifies challenges,
risks and limitations associated with the production of meat analogues.

2. The Essence of Meat Analogues

2.1. Composition of Meat Analogues
The most important nutrient in meat is highly digestible protein containing all essential
amino acids. Therefore, the essence of meat analogues is a well-chosen source of protein.
Almost all plant proteins can serve as raw material for meat analogues, but there are several
important issues that determine their suitability for this purpose. The most important
issues to consider are the availability and cost of the raw material and its technological
properties. The most widely used building proteins for meat analogues include soybean,
pea and wheat proteins [13,22]. These are relatively cheap and available raw materials,
but in the case of soy and pea proteins, a significant challenge is to achieve the fibrous
structure that is a characteristic of meat. The key in this case is the fact that they consist
mainly of globular proteins, which are not conducive to forming the desired structure [22].
For this reason, plant proteins often require intensive processing and the use of additives to
provide a satisfactory product structure. A second important characteristic of plant proteins
that affects the composition of meat analogues is the profile of essential amino acids. In
contrast to meat, plant proteins contain a so-called limiting amino acid (e.g., lysine in cereal
proteins) [23]. In order to achieve a balanced amino acid profile in the analogue recipe, the
addition of suitable proteins, e.g., rice or mung bean, is used. Moreover, sources of building
Foods 2022, 11, 105 3 of 16

proteins for meat analogues other than plants should not be overlooked. Over the years, the
possibility of using proteins from fungal fermentation (mycoproteins), insects, microalgae
and even non-pathogenic bacterial strains, among others, has been investigated [9].
Fat plays an important role in the nutritional value and sensory properties of meat and
its analogues. It is responsible for the texture and mouthfeel and is also a carrier of flavour
and fat-soluble vitamins. In meat analogues, solid fats extracted from coconut and cocoa
and vegetable oils, most commonly rapeseed and sunflower, are used [23,24]. In order to
improve the fatty acid profile and taste of the product, oils of different origins are used,
i.e., sesame oil and avocado oil [25,26]. New technological developments even make it
possible to mimic in burger and sausage analogues the characteristic marbled appearance,
e.g., by whipping a mixture of oils into small globules of fat [22,27]. The disadvantage of
vegetable fats is that they lack the meat-specific volatile substances embedded in animal
fat [22,28]. However, from a nutritional point of view, vegetable fats are more beneficial,
mainly due to their fatty acid profile (higher content of unsaturated fatty acids) and lack of
cholesterol [13,22].
Meat and meat products are very complex structures that give them their characteristic
texture, organoleptic values and nutritional value. In order to impart similar properties
to meat analogues, it is necessary to use many different functional components in the
formulation of these products. For example, the function of myofibrillar proteins is to
build texture and to immobilise water in meat [22]. Their function in meat analogues is
performed by carbohydrate polymers. These include ingredients belonging to three groups:
plant fibres, starches and polysaccharides and their derivatives. These ingredients are
responsible for improving texture, binding water in the product and reducing syneresis.
The most commonly used are pectins and polysaccharide gums of various origins, e.g.,
xanthan [24,25].
When making purchase choices, colour is an important characteristic of the product
that determines purchase intention. Soy or gluten proteins are naturally yellow or beige
in colour, making them unattractive to consumers [17,24]. The characteristic colour of red
meat in analogues is achieved by using extracts from beets containing betaine; carrots and
peppers containing beta-carotenes; tomatoes containing lycopene; or berries containing
anthocyanins [24,29]. However, the pigments they contain during thermal processing may
become discoloured. An ingredient that allows for the brown colour of cooked meat is apple
extract [22]. Its polyphenols and ascorbic acid are oxidised during processing, resulting
in a change in the appearance of the product [22]. Innovative dyes of biotechnological
origin are also used. One example is leghaemoglobin, for which its properties are similar to
haeme present in meat. It gives meat analogues a so-called “bloody” appearance [29,30].
Colour is a feature that is very important, but it is the taste that determines the success
of the product. In order to replicate the aroma of meat products, a variety of herbs and
spices are added to meat analogues, which include black pepper, oregano, sage, paprika,
rosemary, cloves and many others [22,24]. Yeast extract, nucleotides and reducing sugars
are also used to intensify and improve flavour [24,26]. Much higher amounts of flavour
additives are used for meat analogues than in meat products, as they are intended not only
to mimic the complex aroma of the products they replace but also to mask the undesirable
aftertaste of certain raw materials (e.g., beans) [31]. Various techniques are also used to
remove the taste of legumes [32].
From the point of view of the nutritional value of meat, vitamins and minerals are
important ingredients in the formulation of a meat analogue. Particularly important are
vitamin B12 and iron and zinc, and deficiencies may occur in plant-based diets. For this rea-
son, plant-based alternatives are fortified to achieve a quantity and proportion of nutrients
similar to meat [4]. The range of additive ingredients used in meat analogues is very diverse
and growing. Examples include enzymes such as the following: transglutaminase, which
ensures strong protein binding in textured plant protein products [24,33]. Plant analogues
and, thus, the proteins and fats they contain undergo intensive processing. For this reason,
antioxidants are added for which its function is to prevent rancidity of the fat and oxidation
Foods 2022, 11, 105 4 of 16

of the protein. Substances such as sodium nitrite used, e.g., in conventional meat products,
are a source of controversy because of their influence on human organism. Therefore,
alternatives are being studied for use in meat and meat analogues. Plant extracts are an
alternative to synthetic antioxidants that can be used by food manufacturers. Antioxidant
compounds of plant origin are chemically heterogeneous group. The most widely used in
the meat industry are polyphenols (flavonols and anthocyanins) and essential oils (mainly
terpenoids), which are used as a product ingredient or packaging element [34,35]. Bioactive
compounds are extracted from different parts of plants (leaves and seeds) such as pepper
(Piper nigrum L.), oregano (Origanum vulgare L.) or juniper (Juniperus communis L.) [34,35].
There are many studies on the use of natural antioxidants to extend the shelf life of meat
products. Thus, there is a need for research on the use of these compounds and also in meat
analogues [34]. Organic acids, phosphate compounds and plant extracts are used to ensure
the microbiological stability of meat analogues [22].
A product analogous to conventional meat and meat products can also be cultured
meat produced using “in vitro” technology. This is a slightly different example of a meat
analogue in that it consists of replicated animal cells that have been painlessly taken by
biopsy from a living animal. Stem cells are collected and then differentiated into desired
tissues under strictly controlled conditions and in the presence of an appropriate medium.
Animal serum-based medium is most commonly used to produce cultured meat, but
research is underway to develop serum-free medium for safety and ethical reasons [2,9].
Recent research in meat analogues along with their formulations are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Composition of meat analogues in scientific research.

Product Type Composition Tested Parameters Reference

soy protein concentrate, wheat protein content, moisture, pH, colour,
meat analogue gluten, vegetable oil, pumpkin textural properties, sensory properties, Chiang et al. 2019 [36]
powder, wheat starch, salt microscopy, protein solubility
protein content, moisture, pH, textural
wheat gluten, soy protein isolate, properties analysis, scanning electron
chicken analogue Chiang et al. 2021 [37]
water, soybean oil, wheat starch microscopy, total amino acids,
protein solubility
soy protein isolate, wheat gluten, pH, maximum swelling, water holding
meat analogue Cornet et al. 2021 [33]
water, salt capacity, ionic strength
protein content, texture profile analysis,
pea protein isolates, defatted soy
meat analogue water absorption, oil absorption, De Angelis et al. 2020 [11]
protein isolates, oat protein
sensory analysis
specific mechanical energy (SME),
differential scanning calorimetry (DSC),
protein concentrate from
meat analogue colour, cooking yield, water binding do Carmo et al. 2021 [38]
faba beans
capacity, oil binding capacity, textural
properties, sensory evaluation
volatile compounds profile, scanning
electron microscopy, low-field nuclear
soy protein isolate, wheat gluten,
meat analogue magnetic resonance (NMR), fourier Guo et al. 2020 [14]
and natural flavor powder
transform-infrared
(FT-IR) spectroscopy
macrostructure, color, tensile strength,
rapeseed protein concentrate, soy
scanning electron microscopy, confocal
meat analogue protein concentrate, wheat gluten, Jia et al. 2021 [39]
laser scanning microscopy,
water, salt
X-ray microtomography
high moisture texture, cryo-imaging, micro-CT,
soy protein isolate, whey
extruted (HME) rheological measurements, scanning Wittek et al. 2021 [40]
protein concentrate
protein electron microscopy
Foods 2022, 11, 105 5 of 16

2.2. Technologies for Producing Meat Analogues

Despite many technological advances in the production of meat analogues, the most
widely used texturing method for amorphous plant materials to date is extrusion [8–10].
The principle of the method is to subject a food mixture containing proteins to hydration and
high temperature, high pressure and mechanical interactions [8,41]. The extrusion process
consists of three main steps: mixing proteins with water in a twin-screw extruder; cooking
in a chamber under high temperature and pressure; and cooling in a cooling matrix [9,13].
Many parameters affect the extrusion process and the product texture obtained, including
the following: water content, screw speed, processing temperature, matrix geometry,
presence of polysaccharides and type of raw material [13,41]. There are two types of
extrusion that result in products with different properties. Low-moisture extrusion (water
content up to about 30%) is primarily used to produce textured vegetable protein (TVP).
The product of such processing is characterised by a porous, spongy structure, high water
binding capacity and low water and fat content [9,26]. TVP produced using low-moisture
extrusion requires hydration prior to further processing, e.g., to produce a meat analogue in
the form of chunks, nuggets or crumbles [41]. The second type of extrusion is high-moisture
extrusion (above about 40%) [9,26,42]. This method is used to produce meat analogues
with a fibrous structure resembling whole muscle or restructured meat products [41,42].
High-moisture extrusion allows for more complex formulations, and it is not necessary
to use ingredients with high solubility, making it a more cost-effective technology [26,42].
Whether a material can be extruded is primarily determined by the ratio of soluble to
insoluble components, which affects the crosslinking process of proteins [8]. Soy proteins,
wheat gluten and pea proteins are most commonly extruded, but the extrusion of other
plant materials such as cottonseed, rapeseed, peanuts and sesame seeds has also been
investigated. It is, therefore, possible to further extend the usefulness of extrusion to
produce meat analogues [13].
Plant protein texturing techniques also include wetspinning and electrospinning.
These techniques are used to create fibres from protein solutions. In the case of wetspinning,
the protein solution is pressed through a spinneret and then dipped into a protein non-
solvent. The extruded protein phase is precipitated and solidified. Wetspinning results in
fibres of approximately 20 µm thickness [8,43]. Due to the use of many chemical reagents,
this technique generates large amounts of waste, which in turn limits its use [26]. In terms
of sustainability of food production, electrospinning is a more attractive technique. This
method involves pumping a protein solution through a hollow needle or spinneret at an
electrical potential relative to a grounding electrode. An electrical charge accumulates on
the surface of the droplets, which results in instability of their surface. The result is the
transformation of the protein solution into very thin fibres that are attracted to the ground
electrode. The electrospinning technique has been used in the production of nanofibres
but is a promising tool in the production of meat analogues from whole muscle [8,43].
Three-dimensional printing, otherwise known as fused deposition modelling (FDM), is also
an innovative technique for producing meat analogues [44]. This is a method of so-called
additive manufacturing, for which its potential applications include creating meat-like
structures from whole muscle. The basic components of a food 3D printer include the
following: a platform attached to a stage and a head (most commonly an extruder type)
driven by a motor [44,45]. There are different 3D printing techniques: extrusion, inkjet
printing, binder jetting and bioprinting. The production of meat analogues most often uses
extrusion-based 3D printing, which involves extruding a material, consisting of a mixture
of, e.g., plant protein and water through a nozzle and forming the product layer by layer in
a manner that mimics muscle fibres [22,41]. The process is influenced by the printability of
the material used, which ensures the flow out of the nozzle and the ability to maintain and
stiffen the 3D structure after extrusion [41,45]. Various components (e.g., transglutaminase)
are added to the extruded material, for which its function is to produce the desired firmness
and improve its rheological properties. Among others, soybeans, wheat, peas, mushrooms
and insects are used as materials for 3D printed meat analogues [44]. The use of extruder-
Foods 2022, 11, 105 6 of 16

type 3D printers to produce meat products with modified properties, e.g., adapted for the
needs of the elderly has also been investigated. This provides an opportunity to extend the
use of 3D printing technology to the production of cultured meat analogues [45]. However,
for in vitro produced meat, bioprinting is a more promising 3D printing method [44]. Three-
dimensional printing is a novel technique that requires further research with a view with
respect to sustainable meat analogue production and process optimisation [9]. Among the
techniques for the production and texturing of meat analogues, the shear cell technique is
also noteworthy. It is based on the concept of flow-induced structuring in which intensive
shearing of the plant material takes place. The texturing process takes place in cone-in-cone
or Couette cell devices, with the use of a Couette cell being particularly promising in terms
of yield and the possibility of increasing the scale of production [42,43].

3. Market Development for Meat Analogues

Consumption of plant-based protein products has a documented history dating back
to antiquity. The oldest known alternatives to meat are tofu and tempeh [17,43]. These are
soy products originating from Asian countries that became widely available in Western
countries in the 1960s [10,31]. Traditional tofu production involved coagulating soy “milk”
with salt or acid. The curd thus formed was pressed into blocks with a light colour and
a characteristic aroma. Over the years, the production method has been improved and
different flavour and texture variants of this product have appeared on the market [17,46].
Tempeh, which originates from Indonesia, is also produced from soybeans. Tempeh is
made from soaked, partially cooked soybeans, which are then fermented by Rhizopus fungi.
During fermentation, oxygen is restricted, and the developing fungi cause beans to solidify
into a uniform block. In addition to soy products, seitan (wheat gluten) has a long history
of use as a meat analogue. It is a product made from wheat flour by leaching starch out
of it until an elastic mass consisting only of gluten is obtained. Seitan, similarly to tofu,
originates from Asia. Its main advantages are its structural similarity to meat and its ability
to be shaped to resemble a given meat product (e.g., chicken wings) [17].
All three products described are readily used by vegans and vegetarians in meals as
meat analogues, but they differ from meat in terms of texture, taste and aroma. The low
sensory appeal of these products, understood as a low similarity to meat, is the main reason
for their low popularity among flexitarians and omnivores [31]. The increased interest
in plant-based diets and the growing demand for protein products as an alternative to
meat contributed to the development of textured plant protein in the second half of the
20th century. Textured vegetable protein is obtained by extruding defatted soybean meal,
soy protein concentrates or wheat gluten [43,46]. The name textured vegetable protein
originally protected by a trademark has over time become a term for an entire product
category. They are used as an ingredient in meatless versions of dishes in the role of burger,
bacon or minced meat [17]. Textured vegetable protein gave rise to the concept of meat
analogues, which was intensively developed in the following years.
Similarly to tofu, tempeh and seitan, textured vegetable proteins are usually accepted
by people who exclude meat from their diet (vegans or vegetarians). Their sensory prop-
erties may not be satisfactory, particularly for carnivores and flexitarians who value the
properties of meat and expect them to be reproduced as closely as possible by plant-based
alternatives [9,17,31]. With technological development and increasing consumer demands,
a dynamic development of the category of products alternative to meat is observed. The
latest generation of meat analogues is characterised by very similar aroma and texture to the
products they are supposed to replace [47]. Innovative solutions are being used, making it
increasingly difficult to distinguish a plant-based product from a conventional one [10,46].
The current range of meat analogues is very wide. There is great diversity in terms
of product types but also in terms of recipes and characteristics. The media have declared
2019 the year of the plant-based burger, which is the most recognisable and constantly
improving analogue product. However, analogues of sausages, frankfurters, cold cuts,
pates, bacon, chicken wings, various types of meat chops and cuts and even seafood are
Foods 2022, 11, 105 7 of 16

also available for sale [17,41,46]. Although these products constitute a distinct category, it
should also not be forgotten that in recent years a technique to produce “meat” by using
in vitro cultivation has been developed, which in the future could be a promising option
for welfare-sensitive consumers of slaughter animals who do not want to exclude meat
from their diet [9,47].
It is estimated that the number of products in the meat analogue category has in-
creased fivefold in just four years and includes more than 4400 different products [4]. The
best-selling meat analogue categories are burgers, sausages and patties [6]. Examples of
commercially available meat analogues are shown in Figure 1. The meat analogues market
is projected to grow at an expected annual growth rate of 7.9% from 2019 to 2024, making
it estimated to be worth USD 21.23 billion in 2025 [10,25,48]. Compared to projections for
the meat industry, which could be worth up to $7.3 trillion by then, these figures are small.
Meat analogues, thus, represent a promising and rapidly growing, but it is still niche food
category [25,49,50]. It is interesting to note that the largest number of companies producing
meat analogues are based in North America, slightly fewer are located in Europe and only
a few are located in Asia, Australia or Africa. However, data show that the fastest growing
market for meat analogues is precisely the Asian region, while Europe is the largest [25].
Most of these companies started within the last 10 years [6].

Figure 1. Types of meat analogues available on the market.

Some of the best-known examples of brands that have been successful in the ana-
logue market include the following: Beyond Meat™, Impossible Food™, Light Life™ and
Gardein™ [17,22,46]. A big influence on the dynamics of these companies and the overall
meat analogue market is the funding of plant-based start-ups by investors such as Bill
Gates, huge companies (e.g., Cargill) and various incubators. Moreover, these companies
have both B2B (business-to-business) and B2C (business-to-consumer) activities. The B2B
model is particularly influential in the popularisation of meat analogues, as it makes it
possible to attract consumer attention to the products offered. An example of the use of
the B2B model is the launch of the Impossible Whoppers burger developed in partnership
Foods 2022, 11, 105 8 of 16

between Burger King and Impossible Foods. The success of this burger resulted in the
expansion of the restaurant menu to include Impossible Pork and Impossible Sausage.
Moreover, the Beyond Meat brand was successful in the B2B model when the KFC chain
offered a plant-based chicken wing analogue developed by them to customers [6,22,43].
Companies previously involved in meat production have also had their share of the meat
analogue market and have expanded their product range to include plant-based analogue
products. The interest of food manufacturers in meat analogues is also indicated by the
fact that many grocery shop chains (e.g., Kroger) are introducing private label plant-based
meat analogues [22].

4. Consumer Attitudes towards Meat Analogues

It is extremely difficult to describe consumer preferences or attitudes towards meat
analogues. The limitation of the majority of conducted scientific research is, above all,
the possibility to examine only small sections of the population, most often narrowed
down to a specific region or social group. It should, therefore, be taken into account that
inference involves generalisation, which may be subject to certain error. This research
is, however, very important for understanding consumer preferences and motivations in
making purchase decisions. The results obtained influence the possibility of developing
appropriate marketing or information strategies, which aim, among others, to encourage
consumers to reduce meat consumption, which is desirable for the reasons cited in the
introduction to this review. This section presents the results of studies published in the last
3 years, as older studies are included in other reviews, e.g., Hartmann and Siegrist [51] and
He et al. [17]. A summary of recent scientific research is presented in Table 2.
At the outset of considering consumer attitudes towards meat analogues, it is worth
looking at who the consumers on vegetarian, vegan and flexitarian diets, who consume
meat analogues, actually are. It is worth citing at this point the results of a study conducted
by Milfont et al. [52] on a large sample of New Zealanders. The aim of the study was to
identify predictors of eating behaviour. Results showed that meat eaters were the largest
group (94.1%). It was observed that higher levels of conservative ideology and lower
subjective health status were associated with adherence to an omnivorous diet. The analyses
also showed that political conservatism and gender (male) correlated with a low likelihood
of switching from a meat to a meat-free diet. Thus, those following a meat-free diet were
more likely to be female, have more liberal political views, be prone to disgust, display a pro-
social attitude and be open to new experiences. Meat loathing was examined by Becker and
Lawrence [19]. This study measured declared meat consumption, level of self-control, liking
for meat, disgust sensitivity and overt and covert meat loathing. In the study group, 57%
of the respondents were omnivores, 28% flexitarians and 15% people on a plant-based diet.
The study showed that there was a negative correlation between loathing of meat and meat
consumption; moreover, this relationship was most pronounced in flexitarians. Importantly,
not all vegetarians were classified as showing meat loathing. The researchers also analysed
changes in perceived meat loathing and meat consumption over time. It was shown that
developing a stronger disgust for meat correlated with a reduction in meat consumption
but only in relation to overt disgust. Again, this relationship was strongest in the flexitarian
group. These results indicate not only that people on a plant-based diet and flexitarians
are two distinct population groups and should be analysed as such but also that strategies
to encourage a reduction in meat intake based on disgust are most likely to be successful
in flexitarians. An interesting study was conducted by Davitt et al. [53]. They examined,
among other things, the differences between attitudes towards spirituality, vegetarianism,
environmental sustainability, environmental awareness and nutrition among eaters and
non-eaters of plant-based meat analogues. The results showed that people who did not
consume meat analogues were more likely to consider themselves religious. They were
also more likely to agree with the statement that dinner without meat is not a proper meal
and that vegetarians are “a bit different”. Those who consumed meat analogues were more
Foods 2022, 11, 105 9 of 16

likely to agree with the statement that these products were less harmful to the environment
and that they provided an adequate amount of protein.
Many studies have focused on determining consumer preferences for different types of
products as meat alternatives. In the vast majority of studies, plant-based meat analogues
are more acceptable than products based on lesser-known protein sources such as insects
or in vitro cultured “meat” [43,49]. Very low acceptance towards insect proteins is largely
related to dietary neophobia [54]. A study by Slade [55] showed that when given a choice
between equally tasting beef, plant-based and in vitro cultured meat burgers, consumers
were most likely to choose the beef burger. Only 21% would buy a plant-based burger and
11% would choose a burger made from “cultured meat”. In a study by Bryant and Sancto-
rum [2] involving Belgian consumers, it was shown that there were differences between
consumers who declared positive attitudes towards plant-based meat analogues and those
who would choose in vitro cultured meat. Plant-based analogues were significantly more
attractive to women and those on a meat-free diet, while in vitro cultured meat was a more
attractive option for men and meat eaters. Over 40% of respondents are positive about
alternatives to meat, but this group includes two disconnected subgroups: consumers
who prefer plant-based alternatives and those who choose cultured meat. This indicates a
legitimate need for a variety of alternatives to meat in the market. The same study found
a significant increase in Belgian consumers’ satisfaction in having their expectations met
by plant-based meat analogues in 2019 (44%) and 2020 (51%). Higher satisfaction with
available meat analogues was positively correlated with belonging to a younger age group,
gender (female) and following a meat-free diet.
A positive attitude and enjoyment of meat analogues is not enough. It is worth consid-
ering the amount of consumption of these products and the reasons for their consumption.
In a study by Davitt et al. [53], as many as 55% of Midwest University students aged
18–30 consumed meat analogues. When asked about the reasons that led them to consume
these products, respondents most often indicated the following: liking to try new foods
(66.4%), curiosity (54.1%) and encouragement from loved ones (40.3%). Nearly a third of
respondents indicated that they try to eat less meat and that plant-based alternatives are
better for the environment. Only 20–25% cited health, animal welfare or cost as reasons.
This is a surprising result, as the Bryant and Sanctorum [2] study showed a statistically
significant increase in concern about animal welfare issues. Health (82%), sustainability
(58.4%), animal welfare (54.3%) and the environment (54.1%) were most frequently cited
by consumers among the most important factors influencing their purchasing decisions.
Consumers’ food choices are extremely difficult to predict due to the very large number
of factors influencing them. Studies indicate that attitudes towards meat analogues can
be influenced by determinants such as age, gender, education level, origin, product type,
situational context, perceived norms, choices of those around the consumer, religious and
political beliefs, economic situation, health status, availability of information, lifestyle,
traditions followed and many others [2,19,29,49,54,56–58]. Given the need to reduce meat
consumption argued by environmental issues, sustainability and population health, it is
worth considering what factors limit a reduction in meat consumption and an increase in
the consumption of meat analogues among consumers. According to the research, the most
relevant barriers were scepticism about the quality of meat analogues, a feeling of lack of
skills in preparing meat-free meals, positive associations with meat, health concerns and
the need to feel in control of food choices. Consumer uncertainty about the environmental
impact of animal production was also demonstrated. The information gathered indicates
actions that need to be taken to raise awareness and reduce concerns in consumers [20].
Foods 2022, 11, 105 10 of 16

Table 2. Research on consumer attitudes towards meat analogues, meat and plant-based diet.

Study Subject Participants: Main Parameters: Reference

age, gender, disgust sensitivity,
self-control, meat intake, hunger level, Becker and Lawrence
meat disgust 711 participants from UK
english level, meat disgust dummy (% 2021 [19]
meat disgusted), diet
age, gender, diet, region, education,
rural/urban, satisfaction with existing
meat analogues, concern for: animal
plant-based and 2019: 1001 and 2020: 1000 Bryant and Sanctorum
welfare, impact on the environment,
cultured meat participants from Belgium 2021 [2]
sustainability of choices, health, purchase
intent for cultured meat, cultured meat
meets their needs
age, gender, race, residency, fruit and
vegetable servings per day, diet,
environmental values, beliefs,
plant-based meat 1434 Midwest University
knowledge, spirituality, views about Davitt et al. 2021 [53]
analogues Students (USA)
vegetarianism, factors influencing food
purchase, trusted sources of nutrition
knowledge, meat analogues consumption
food neophobia, food tech neophobia,
healthiness influence, environmental
impact, influence, meat nutritional
insect-based and 3091 participants from 9 importance, meat taste, texture, smell De Koning et al.
plant-based protein countries importance, plant-based and insect-based 2020 [54]
protein suitability/benefits, plant-based
and insect-based protein willingness to
try, buy and pay more
self-reported dietary behaviour,
protection of native species, subjective
data from the NZAVS 1
health, perceived environmental efficacy,
2017: 17,072 participants
plant-based diet gender, political conservatism, Milfont et al. 2021 [52]
2018: 47,951 participants from
right-wing ideology, disgust, religious
New Zealand
(spiritual), beliefs, pro-social orientation,
openness orientation
frequency of purchase (meat, burgers and
meat substitutes), importance od factors
in purchase decision, support for food
technology, attitudes towards:
plant-based and
533 participants agriculture, naturalness of food, lab food, Slade 2018 [55]
cultured meat burgers
environmental impact of meat, food
choices, political views, science,
emotional decision making, age, gender,
education, income, diet
1 New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study.

5. Challenges and Perspectives

Meat analogues are a product of both hope and concern. It represents an opportunity
but also a major challenge for food entrepreneurs. The first major issue regarding meat
analogues that is controversial is their labelling. The expanding range of meat alternatives
has drawn the attention of consumers, businesses and regulators to the issue of naming
meat analogues. Some stakeholders have requested a ban on labelling meat analogues
as “meat” and on the use of terms associated with meat, i.e., “burger” or “ham”. The
argumentation for such a ban mainly included the risk of misleading consumers [4]. In
2018, in the US, the first state—Missouri—banned the use of meat-related terms for plant
or insect protein products. In the following years, this ban took effect in another 25 US
Foods 2022, 11, 105 11 of 16

states [29,47]. In 2017, the terms “yoghurt”, “cheese” and similar terms were banned
in the European Union for products not made from milk. Two years later, a discussion
started regarding the labelling of meat-free products with meat-related words. However, in
2020, there was a vote in the European Parliament which decided that producers of plant-
based alternatives to meat could use meat-related terms in the marketing and labelling
of their products. This indicates a slightly more liberal approach by policy makers in the
EU regarding alternative protein sources [2]. This is in line with the “EU Protein Plan”
introduced in 2018, which aims to encourage the production and exploration of plant-based
alternatives to animal protein [29].
The marketing of new products is also regulated by legislation. In the case of meat
analogues based on plant proteins, there are usually no difficulties in placing the product
on the market. The ingredients in these products are often pre-authorised for human con-
sumption and widely used. The procedure changes when ingredients not previously used
in food production are included in the recipe of the analogue. In the US, the introduction of
new ingredients to the market requires approval and designation as “Generally Recognised
as Safe (GRAS)”. An example of such an ingredient is soy leghaemoglobin, for which its
production process involves genetic engineering. This ingredient had to be assessed and
recognised as GRAS by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) before being marketed
in plant-based burgers [6,9,29]. In the EU, such innovative ingredients are subject to novel
food legislation [59]. These regulations also cover in vitro cultured meat, insect protein and
protein from single-cell organisms. In 2021, the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority)
Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens issued a positive opinion on the safety
of T. molitor for human consumption [9].
According to the principles of Regulation 2015/2283, new foods approved for human
consumption must be safe for consumers; appropriately labelled; and not be different from
the food they are intended to replace in such a manner that their consumption would be
nutritionally disadvantageous for the consumer [59]. These principles highlight two fur-
ther extremely important issues for meat analogues: nutritional value and safety. Meat
analogues are seen as a healthier alternative to meat, and labelling with terms associated
with meat further suggests that their nutritional value is similar to it. However, opinions in
this regard are highly divided [4,6]. The essential amino acid profile of plant proteins seems
to be the most relevant. Meat contains all nine essential amino acids, whereas only soy and
quinoa among plant ingredients contain all of them but in lower amounts. For this reason,
it is necessary to optimise the amino acid content of recipes, e.g., by mixing different plant
proteins in the right proportions. An additional issue of concern is the digestibility of plant
proteins, which is significantly lower than animal proteins. The exception is soy proteins [6].
In order to ensure similar nutritional value of analogues to meat, attention should also
be paid to the content of ingredients of which meat is an important source. Vitamin B12,
zinc and iron appear to be particularly important [4]. There are many fortified products
available on the market, but there are also products that have not been enriched in these
ingredients. A high intake of products that are not enriched, for example, in vitamin B12 in
a plant-based diet, can result in deficiencies of this vitamin. One should also not forget the
differences in bioavailability of vitamins and minerals. An example of this is non-haem iron,
the bioavailability of which is low compared to haem iron. All these factors should be taken
into account by meat analogue manufacturers when developing new products [22,30,60].
There is no doubt that the taste and texture of modern meat analogues has improved
considerably compared to the first of such products. Further development of meat ana-
logues in this respect is anticipated. The structure and flavour of meat are very complex,
which poses a great technological challenge. Food manufacturers use many modern tex-
turing techniques and functional ingredients that impart meat-like sensory properties to
analogues to enhance consumer satisfaction [6,22]. However, the focus on creating the
closest possible imitation of meat has taken its toll on other aspects of meat analogue quality.
The often very long list of additives in product formulation can be a cause for concern [50].
The number of ingredients and additives, as well as salt content, varies depending on the
Foods 2022, 11, 105 12 of 16

product analysed. Significant differences are also observed in the fatty acid profile. In gen-
eral, meat analogs are perceived to be lower in saturated fatty acids, which are undesirable
due to their association with diet-related diseases [13,31]. In the study by Harnack et al. [60],
most of the plant-based ground meat analogs tested contained significantly lower levels
of saturated fatty acids compared to ground beef. However, some products may contain
similar or higher levels of saturated fatty acids, e.g., some plant-based burgers [25,30]. A
key ingredient that results in higher saturated fatty acids in meat analogues is coconut fat
and cocoa fat [10,30]. Meat analogues also have strengths: no cholesterol, lower energy
value and high fibre content. It is, therefore, difficult to unequivocally confirm or deny the
superiority of meat analogues in terms of nutritional value, as there is enormous variation
in the composition of products in this food category. However, it is believed that meat
analogues will be improved in the coming years in this respect as well [22,25].
Both producers and the scientific community focus primarily on the texture and
flavour of meat analogues. However, there is little research that evaluates the safety of
these products. Although plant-based ingredients are generally considered safer than meat,
especially in terms of biohazards, there are some issues that are controversial [13]. The
first aspect to consider is the impact of intensive processing on product quality. Meat
analogues tend to contain large amounts of protein; thus, as in meat, there is a risk of the
formation of toxic substances, such as heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAAs), N-nitrosamines
or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) [9,17,22]. There is also a risk that valuable
nutrients and health-promoting components in plant-based products may be lost during
processing [6]. Factors that affect the safety of meat analogues also include pathogenic
bacteria from raw materials, the presence of anti-nutritional components (e.g., protease
inhibitors, phytic acid and oxalates), pesticide residues, heavy metal contamination and
the allergenic potential of certain plant proteins [9,17].
It is also necessary to develop effective techniques for extending shelf life and en-
suring the health safety of meat analogs. One method of preserving the quality of meat
analogues is the use of antioxidants, especially of natural origin, mentioned earlier. How-
ever, the microbiological stability of the product is an equally important aspect affecting
the safety of meat analogues. Various food additives are used to ensure this, but they
are undesirable as consumers are increasingly looking for “clean label” products. For
this reason, modern methods of preserving food products, especially meat, may become
an interesting alternative to preservatives used so far. The effect of high temperatures
creates the risk of unfavorable byproducts forming in meat analogs. For this reason, special
attention should be paid to thermal methods using low temperature and non-thermal
methods. Low-temperature methods that were applied in meat preservation are as follows:
super-chilling, ultrarapid freezing, immersion vacuum cooling, hydrofluidization freezing,
impingement freezing, electrostatic-assisted freezing and pressure-shift freezing. While
non-thermal methods are acidic electrolyzed water coupled with high hydrostatic pressure
and nonthermal plasma technique [61]. However, there is a need to verify the applicability
of these methods for preservation of meat analogues. Attention should also be paid to
consumer attitudes towards such product preservation techniques and the possible need
for consumer education in this regard. Innovative packaging, e.g., containing active clay,
may also be a promising tool to ensure shelf life and safety of meat analogues [61].
The success of meat analogues depends on consumers’ purchasing decisions; thus,
changes may be necessary in such an important parameter as price. The basic raw material
of meat analogues, such as plant protein, is significantly cheaper than meat. Nevertheless,
the high costs of processing and other ingredients contribute to the high price of the
final product. The inclusion of meat analogues in the diet, thus, poses an economic
challenge for many consumers [22,29]. In order to encourage consumers to purchase
meat analogues, it is also worth improving product marketing. Clarity and consistency of
messages to consumers is an important issue, including the sustainability of production
and the “naturalness” of the products offered [3,50].
Foods 2022, 11, 105 13 of 16

The meat analogue sector has undergone dynamic development in recent times. Some
researchers indicate that as a result of technological barriers, the development of meat
analogues may be slower than expected [22]. However, there are still many issues to be
regulated and improved. Future efforts by producers should focus not only on overcoming
technological difficulties in terms of product texture and flavour but also on improving
nutritional value, optimising the process to reduce costs and balancing environmental im-
pacts. The safety aspect of analogue products should become a priority in both production
and research. A summary of the strengths and weaknesses of meat analogues and the
identified technology challenges and research gaps is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Advantages, risks, technological challenges, and research gaps associated with meat
analogues (PAH- polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; HCA- heterocyclic aromatic amines).

6. Conclusions
Currently, meat analogues have mainly targeted people following a vegetarian or
vegan diet. With increasing consumer awareness of the environmental impact of animal
production, the unsustainability of the current food system and the health consequences of
high meat consumption, the target group for analogue products has expanded to include
flexitarians and meat eaters. The increased demand for meat alternatives on the market has
contributed to the development of a number of texturing methods and formulations that
have resulted in the latest generation of meat analogues possessing properties very similar
to conventional meat products. Despite this, meat production and consumption are still at
very high levels and are projected to increase further. This literature review has identified
factors that act as barriers to increasing consumer consumption of meat analogues. A
key aspect determining the low acceptance of analogue products is the unsatisfactory
texture and sensory properties and the lack of confidence in the nutritional value and
safety of these products. Thus, there is a great need to continue the search for innovative
technological solutions and to focus attention on aspects of concern to consumers such
as the following: sodium content and lack of “clean label”. In the research area, there
is a shortage of comprehensive research on meat analogues covering, apart from their
technological properties, also their safety related to, inter alia: possible contamination with
Foods 2022, 11, 105 14 of 16

heavy metals and toxic substances, microbiological stability, residues of plant protection
products and content of anti-nutritional components.

Author Contributions: K.K.: Conceptualization and writing—original draft. A.O.: Conceptualiza-

tion, writing—original draft and investigation. A.S.: Conceptualization. A.P.: Conceptualization and
supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The research reported in this manuscript has been financed by Polish Ministry of Science
and Higher Education within funds of Institute of Human Nutrition Sciences, Warsaw University of
Life Sciences (WULS), for scientific research.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Blanco-Gutiérrez, I.; Varela-Ortega, C.; Manners, R. Evaluating animal-based foods and plant-based alternatives using multi-
criteria and SWOT analyses. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7969. [CrossRef]
2. Bryant, C.; Sanctorum, H. Alternative proteins, evolving attitudes: Comparing consumer attitudes to plant-based and cultured
meat in Belgium in two consecutive years. Appetite 2021, 161, 105161. [CrossRef]
3. Curtain, F.; Grafenauer, S. Plant-based meat substitutes in the flexitarian age: An audit of products on supermarket shelves.
Nutrients 2019, 11, 2603. [CrossRef]
4. Sucapane, D.; Roux, C.; Sobol, K. Exploring how product descriptors and packaging colors impact consumers’ perceptions of
plant-based meat alternative products. Appetite 2021, 167, 105590. [CrossRef]
5. UN. World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables; Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP/248;
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: New York, NY, USA, 2017. Available online:
https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf (accessed on 4 November 2021).
6. Choudhury, D.; Singh, S.; Seah, J.S.H.; Yeo, D.C.L.; Tan, L.P. Commercialization of plant-based meat alternatives. Trends Plant Sci.
2020, 25, 1055–1058. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Aiking, H.; de Boer, J. The next protein transition. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 105, 515–522. [CrossRef]
8. Dekkers, B.L.; Boom, R.M.; van der Goot, A.J. Structuring processes for meat analogues. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 81, 25–36.
[CrossRef]
9. Hadi, J.; Brightwell, G. Safety of Alternative Proteins: Technological, Environmental and Regulatory Aspects of Cultured Meat,
Plant-Based Meat, Insect Protein and Single-Cell Protein. Foods 2021, 10, 1226. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. 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. 2020, 33, 1533. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. De Angelis, D.; Kaleda, A.; Pasqualone, A.; Vaikma, H.; Tamm, M.; Tammik, M.L.; Summo, C. Physicochemical and sensorial
evaluation of meat analogues produced from dry-fractionated pea and oat proteins. Foods 2020, 9, 1754. [CrossRef]
12. Fresán, U.; Sabaté, J. Vegetarian diets: Planetary health and its alignment with human health. Adv. Nutr. 2019, 10 (Suppl. 4),
S380–S388. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Fu, Y.; Chen, T.; Chen, S.H.Y.; Liu, B.; Sun, P.; Sun, H.; Chen, F. The potentials and challenges of using microalgae as an ingredient
to produce meat analogues. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 112, 188–200. [CrossRef]
14. Guo, Z.; Teng, F.; Huang, Z.; Lv, B.; Lv, X.; Babich, O.; Jiang, L. Effects of material characteristics on the structural characteristics
and flavor substances retention of meat analogs. Food Hydrocolloids 2020, 105, 105752. [CrossRef]
15. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Murray, C.J. Food in the Anthropocene: The
EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [CrossRef]
16. FAO. The FAO Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5996e.
pdf (accessed on 2 December 2021).
17. He, J.; Evans, N.M.; Liu, H.; Shao, S. A review of research on plant-based meat alternatives: Driving forces, history, manufacturing,
and consumer attitudes. Compr. Rev. Food. Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 2639–2656. [CrossRef]
18. Jia, S.; Zhang, X.X.; Miao, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Ye, L.; Li, B. Fate of antibiotic resistance genes and their associations with bacterial
community in livestock breeding wastewater and its receiving river water. Water Res. 2017, 124, 259–268. [CrossRef]
19. Becker, E.; Lawrence, N.S. Meat disgust is negatively associated with meat intake–Evidence from a cross-sectional and longitudinal
study. Appetite 2021, 164, 105299. [CrossRef]
20. Collier, E.S.; Oberrauter, L.M.; Normann, A.; Norman, C.; Svensson, M.; Niimi, J.; Bergman, P. Identifying barriers to decreasing
meat consumption and increasing acceptance of meat substitutes among Swedish consumers. Appetite 2021, 167, 105643.
[CrossRef]
21. Prabha, K.; Ghosh, P.; Abdullah, S.; Joseph, R.M.; Krishnan, R.; Rana, S.S.; Pradhan, R.C. Recent Development, Challenges, and
Prospects of Extrusion Technology. Future Foods 2021, 3, 100019. [CrossRef]
Foods 2022, 11, 105 15 of 16

22. Sha, L.; Xiong, Y.L. Plant protein-based alternatives of reconstructed meat: Science, technology, and challenges. Trends Food Sci.
Technol. 2020, 102, 51–61. [CrossRef]
23. McClements, D.J.; Grossmann, L. The science of plant-based foods: Constructing next-generation meat, fish, milk, and egg
analogs. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 4049–4100. [CrossRef]
24. Kyriakopoulou, K.; Keppler, J.K.; van der Goot, A.J. Functionality of ingredients and additives in plant-based meat analogues.
Foods 2021, 10, 600. [CrossRef]
25. Bohrer, B.M. An investigation of the formulation and nutritional composition of modern meat analogue products. Food Sci.
Human Wellness 2019, 8, 320–329. [CrossRef]
26. Zhang, T.; Dou, W.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Jiang, L.; Sui, X. The development history and recent updates on soy
protein-based meat alternatives. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 109, 702–710. [CrossRef]
27. Dreher, J.; König, M.; Herrmann, K.; Terjung, N.; Gibis, M.; Weiss, J. Varying the amount of solid fat in animal fat mimetics for
plant-based salami analogues influences texture, appearance and sensory characteristics. LWT 2021, 143, 111140. [CrossRef]
28. Arshad, M.S.; Sohaib, M.; Ahmad, R.S.; Nadeem, M.T.; Imran, A.; Arshad, M.U.; Amjad, Z. Ruminant meat flavor influenced by
different factors with special reference to fatty acids. Lipids Health Dis. 2018, 17, 1–13. [CrossRef]
29. Rubio, N.R.; Xiang, N.; Kaplan, D.L. Plant-based and cell-based approaches to meat production. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1–11.
[CrossRef]
30. De Marchi, M.; Costa, A.; Pozza, M.; Goi, A.; Manuelian, C.L. Detailed characterization of plant-based burgers. Sci. Rep. 2021,
11, 1–9. [CrossRef]
31. Fiorentini, M.; Kinchla, A.J.; Nolden, A.A. Role of sensory evaluation in consumer acceptance of plant-based meat analogs and
meat extenders: A scoping review. Foods 2020, 9, 1334. [CrossRef]
32. Wang, B.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, N.; Bak, K.H.; Soladoye, O.P.; Aluko, R.E.; Zhang, Y. Insights into formation, detection and removal
of the beany flavor in soybean protein. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 112, 336–347. [CrossRef]
33. Cornet, S.H.; Snel, S.J.; Lesschen, J.; van der Goot, A.J.; van der Sman, R.G. Enhancing the water holding capacity of model meat
analogues through marinade composition. J. Food Eng. 2021, 290, 110283. [CrossRef]
34. Munekata, P.E.S.; Rocchetti, G.; Pateiro, M.; Lucini, L.; Dominguez, R.; Lorenzo, J.M. Addition of plant extracts to meat and meat
products to extend shelf-life and health-promoting attributes: An overview. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2020, 31, 81–87. [CrossRef]
35. Tomović, V.; Šojić, B.; Savanović, J.; Kocić-Tanackov, S.; Pavlić, B.; Jokanović, M.; Vujadinović, D. New formulation towards
healthier meat products: Juniperus communis L. essential oil as an alternative for sodium nitrite in dry fermented sausages. Foods
2020, 9, 1066. [CrossRef]
36. 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. 2019, 19, 100102. [CrossRef]
37. Chiang, J.H.; Tay, W.; Ong, D.S.M.; Liebl, D.; Ng, C.P.; Henry, C.J. Physicochemical, textural and structural characteristics of wheat
gluten-soy protein composited meat analogues prepared with the mechanical elongation method. Food Struct. 2021, 28, 100183.
[CrossRef]
38. Do Carmo, C.S.; Knutsen, S.H.; Malizia, G.; Dessev, T.; Geny, A.; Zobel, H.; Myhrer, K.S.; Varela, P.; Sahlstrøm, S. Meat analogues
from a faba bean concentrate can be generated by high moisture extrusion. Future Foods 2021, 3, 100014. [CrossRef]
39. 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. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2021, 72, 102758. [CrossRef]
40. Wittek, P.; Karbstein, H.P.; Emin, M.A. Blending proteins in high moisture extrusion to design meat analogues: Rheological
properties, morphology development and product properties. Foods 2021, 10, 1509. [CrossRef]
41. Kazir, M.; Livney, Y.D. Plant-Based Seafood Analogs. Molecules 2021, 26, 1559. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Sun, C.; Ge, J.; He, J.; Gan, R.; Fang, Y. Processing, quality, safety, and acceptance of meat analogue products. Engineering 2021,
7, 674–678. [CrossRef]
43. Zhang, L.; Hu, Y.; Badar, I.H.; Xia, X.; Kong, B.; Chen, Q. Prospects of artificial meat: Opportunities and challenges around
consumer acceptance. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 116, 434–444. [CrossRef]
44. Ramachandraiah, K. Potential Development of Sustainable 3D-Printed Meat Analogues: A Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 938.
[CrossRef]
45. Dick, A.; Bhandari, B.; Prakash, S. 3D printing of meat. Meat Sci. 2019, 153, 35–44. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Ismail, I.; Hwang, Y.H.; Joo, S.T. Meat analog as future food: A review. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2020, 62, 111. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Van Loo, E.J.; Caputo, V.; Lusk, J.L. Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat
alternatives: Does information or brand matter? Food Policy 2020, 95, 101931. [CrossRef]
48. Shahbazi, M.; Jäger, H.; Chen, J.; Ettelaie, R. Construction of 3D printed reduced-fat meat analogue by emulsion gels. Part II:
Printing performance, thermal, tribological, and dynamic sensory characterization of printed objects. Food Hydrocoll. 2021,
121, 107054. [CrossRef]
49. 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 2020, 159, 105058. [CrossRef]
50. Petersen, T.; Hartmann, M.; Hirsch, S. Which meat (substitute) to buy? Is Front of Package Information reliable to identify the
healthier and more natural choice? Food. Qual. Prefer. 2021, 94, 104298. [CrossRef]
Foods 2022, 11, 105 16 of 16

51. Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Consumer perception and behaviour regarding sustainable protein consumption: A systematic review.
Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 61, 11–25. [CrossRef]
52. Milfont, T.L.; Satherley, N.; Osborne, D.; Wilson, M.S.; Sibley, C.G. To meat, or not to meat: A longitudinal investigation of
transitioning to and from plant-based diets. Appetite 2021, 166, 105584. [CrossRef]
53. Davitt, E.D.; Winham, D.M.; Heer, M.M.; Shelley, M.C.; Knoblauch, S.T. Predictors of Plant-Based Alternatives to Meat Consump-
tion in Midwest University Students. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2021, 53, 564–572. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. De Koning, W.; Dean, D.; Vriesekoop, F.; Aguiar, L.K.; Anderson, M.; Mongondry, P.; Boereboom, A. Drivers and inhibitors in the
acceptance of meat alternatives: The case of plant and insect-based proteins. Foods 2020, 9, 1292. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Slade, P. If you build it, will they eat it? Consumer preferences for plant-based and cultured meat burgers. Appetite 2018,
125, 428–437. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
56. Banovic, M.; Sveinsdóttir, K. Importance of being analogue: Female attitudes towards meat analogue containing rapeseed protein.
Food Control 2021, 123, 107833. [CrossRef]
57. Michel, F.; Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat
alternatives. Food. Qual. Prefer. 2021, 87, 104063. [CrossRef]
58. Sharps, M.A.; Fallon, V.; Ryan, S.; Coulthard, H. The role of perceived descriptive and injunctive norms on the self-reported
frequency of meat and plant-based meal intake in UK-based adults. Appetite 2021, 167, 105615. [CrossRef]
59. The European Parliament. Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council on novel foods, amending
Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the
European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001 (2013/0435 (COD). Off. J. Eur. Union
2015, 327, 1–22.
60. Harnack, L.; Mork, S.; Valluri, S.; Weber, C.; Schmitz, K.; Stevenson, J.; Pettit, J. Nutrient Composition of a Selection of Plant-Based
Ground Beef Alternative Products Available in the United States. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2021, 121, 2401–2408.e12. [CrossRef]
61. Ur Rahman, U.; Sahar, A.; Ishaq, A.; Aadil, R.M.; Zahoor, T.; Ahmad, M.H. Advanced meat preservation methods: A mini review.
J. Food Saf. 2018, 38, e12467. [CrossRef]