Introduction
The world’s population is growing and for many, the question of how we ensure an adequate food supply for all while sustaining our planet and natural resources is a crucial one. Fundamental to addressing the current global nutrition crisis is to deliver food that can guarantee delivery of adequate nutrients to people affected by all forms of malnutrition and the population as a whole.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), sustainable diets have a low environmental impact while contributing to food and nutrition security for our present and future generations. In other words, sustainable diets should respect and protect ecosystems and biodiversity next to being culturally acceptable, affordable, accessible, safe and healthy. (FAO, 2010)
These days consumers are shifting towards alternative protein sources, due to both health and environmental concerns, making it one of the most prominent food technology trends. Alternative proteins, such as plant-based meat substitutes and edible insects provide a substantial amount of protein, but require less natural inputs to produce the most common protein sources, being meat and fish. Cultured meat, lab-grown food, plant-based nutrition, edible insects and mycoprotein are the primary alternative protein sources. Not only are they nutrient-rich, but also minimize resource use from farm to fork, unlike protein from livestock. They reduce the overall costs, as alternative protein sources demand only marginal dietary requirements and health monitoring.
According to scientific literature, three factors have led to the increase of alternative protein consumption: animal welfare, environmental friendliness and taste preferences. Generally, the consumption of alternative proteins is found to be higher among well-educated and the women population, (Michel et al., 2020). Advancements in 3D printing, fermentation and molecular biology enable startups to develop sustainable alternative protein production solutions. This aids food companies to offset the ethical concerns and carbon footprint of industrial meat production.
Different Types of Alternative Proteins
1) Plant-based Proteins
A wide range of alternative, plant-based proteins and alternatives are explored by various researchers and food processors, ranging from soy to oat, potato or peas, over to examples such as lupine and grass, (Aschemann-Witzel and Odile Peschel, 2019). The early use of plant-based ingredients, such as fermented soybean cake (i.e., tofu and tempeh) or wheat (i.e., seitan), as meat analogues could be traced back to the Asian communities in the 10th century. However, these products are not able to emulate the sensorial properties of animal-based meat. Instead, texturized vegetable proteins can be used as a potential replacement for conventional meat and are commonly derived from soy proteins or to a lesser extent, from wheat glutens and legume proteins (for example, pea and chickpea). (Hadi and Brightwell, 2021)
In association with the Institute of Food Technologists, Egbert and Borders proposed a composition of plant-based meat, which is consistent with the recipes used by several existing animal-free meat companies, such as Impossible Food, Beyond Meat and Gardein. Currently, plant-based meats are mainly produced through thermoplastic extrusion, (Geistlinger, 2015). This process can be categorized based upon the amount of water added, i.e., low moisture (20–35%) or high moisture (50–70%). Essential nutrients that are often missing from a vegetarian diet, such as vitamins B-12 and D, calcium, zinc, iron and long-chained n-3 (omega-3) fatty acids could also be added post-extrusion to increase the nutritional value of plant-based meat. (Anderson et al., 2016)
2) Insect-based Proteins
Insects have been a part of the human diet for centuries, particularly in Asia and Africa. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), there are over 1900 insect species consumed around the world, (Van Huis et al., 2013). This practice of eating insects, also known as entomophagy, is sustainable due to the high amounts of protein and polyunsaturated fatty acid contained in edible insects, although there are variations across species. (Pieterse et al., 2014)
Most edible insects are harvested from the wild, but they can also be semi-domesticated through habitat manipulation or reared in farms for mass-scale production. Malaysian startup Ento farms crickets in a controlled environment to develop nutritious cricket-based food products. The startup’s insect-based alternative protein offers more proteins per gram than beef and contains all nine essential amino acids. Also, Ento’s cricket farming solution requires less land, water and food than traditional livestock production, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This enables food producers to save on production costs.
Post-harvest processing of edible insects traditionally involves degutting and thermal processes, such as boiling, frying, toasting, smoking, roasting and drying, which are particularly important for eliminating microbial contaminants and increasing the shelf-life of the final products. (Mutungi et al., 2019)
More recently, other technologies have been used for the extraction of substances from edible insects, including ultrasound, enzymatic hydrolysis, supercritical carbon dioxide, sonication, soxhlet extraction and folch extraction. (Wade and Hoelle, 2019)
3) Fungi-based Proteins
Fungi who remain independently in their own kingdom while enjoying the same rank with that of plants and animals include the fruiting bodies of edible mushrooms as well as a huge variety of microfungi species, such as moulds and yeasts, (Schweiggert-Weisz et al., 2020). Utilization of fungi as an alternative protein source in human diets is not a new concept. Further, there are added benefits that follow, which include low land requirements, as they are usually grown in bioreactors with high metabolic rates. Production methods for commercialized mycoprotein products are mainly based on submerged fermentation of fungi in liquid culture medium. (Ahlborn et al., 2019; Stoffel et al., 2019)
Fungal protein has attractive nutritional profile in comparison to animal meat, owing to its high fibre and low saturated fat, (Derbyshire and Ayoob, 2019). Fungal proteins are attractive amongst omnivores, since texturally fungal biomass resembles animal meat due to its filamentous structure, (Kumar and Joshi, 2016). Products including tempeh and Quorn™, which are commercialized meat substitutes based on the mycelium of Fusarium venenatum contain 45% protein content. (Ahlborn et al., 2019)
4) Algae-based Proteins
Algal sources of proteins are considered to be rich in vitamins, minerals, fibre, proteins and various bioactive compounds. Therefore, its utilization for protein production has several advantages over traditional sources of proteins in terms of productivity and nutritional value. Seaweed and microalgae are the examples of algal sources having higher protein yield per unit area in comparison to terrestrial crops, such as soybean, pulse legumes and wheat, etc. (Van Krimpen et al., 2013)
Some species of red seaweeds (Rhodophyta), such as P. palmata and P. tenera have been reported to contain as much as 33% and 47% dw respectively. Similarly, some species of microalgae have been reported to contain even higher levels, as high as 63% dw in Spirulina sp., (Tokusoglu and Uunal, 2003). Algal proteins are conventionally extracted by means of aqueous, acidic and alkaline methods, followed by several rounds of centrifugation and recovery using techniques such as ultrafiltration, precipitation or chromatography. (Kadam et al., 2017)
However, the widespread use of seaweed and microalgae is limited by a number of factors that include harvesting access and rights, seasonality and geographical location of algae, as well as the availability of scalable production methods for protein isolation from algae. Current processes of algal protein isolation are time-consuming and economically unviable. (Bleakley and Hayes, 2017)
5) Lab-grown Proteins
Laboratory-grown (lab-grown), cultured or in-vitro meat is made through a process whereby agricultural products are grown from cell cultures instead of inside an animal. Studies indicated that this process is less damaging to the environment than producing meat from livestock, requiring 45% less energy and 99% less land and producing 96% fewer greenhouse gas emissions (Circus and Robison, 2018). Lab-grown meat as a source of protein is produced in the laboratory by utilizing stem cells from the muscle tissues of animals, (chicken, cow or pig). These cells are then further fed and nurtured until they get multiplied to create muscle tissue. These muscle tissues are the meat which we generally eat. Ideally, it is exactly the same meat obtained from the animal sources (Van Loo, Caputo, & Lusk, 2020). Lab-grown meat products are developed to mimic the sensory, (i.e., appearance, flavour, texture, and odour) and nutritional properties of conventional meat. (de Oliveira Padilha, Lenka and Umberger, 2022)
Recently, the Dutch startup named “The Protein Brewery” has developed FERMOTEIN, a proprietary animal-free lab-grown food. FERMOTEIN production involves brewing non-allergenic crops and fungi with essential amino acids and fibre. The startup’s alternative protein has 10% fat and water binding properties, contributing to a meat-like taste. FERMOTEIN is a pure ingredient with only brewed fibrous protein. The startup’s solution enables sustainable food developers to mitigate additional protein processing and make food products faster.
References:
1) Ahlborn, J., Stephan, A., Meckel, T., Maheshwari, G., Rühl, M., & Zorn, H. (2019). Upcycling of food industry side streams by basidiomycetes for production of a vegan protein source. International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture, 8(1), 447-455.
2) Anderson, D.; Fuller, J.; Geistlinger, T. Nutrient Dense Meat Structured Protein Products. US 9526267 B2, 27 December 2016.
3) Aschemann-Witzel, J., & Peschel, A. O. (2019). Consumer perception of plant-based proteins: The value of source transparency for alternative protein ingredients. Food Hydrocolloids, 96, 20-28.
4) Bleakley, S., & Hayes, M. (2017). Algal proteins: extraction, application, and challenges concerning production. Foods, 6(5), 33.
5) Circus, V. E., & Robison, R. (2018). Exploring perceptions of sustainable proteins and meat attachment. British Food Journal.
6) de Oliveira Padilha, L. G., Malek, L., & Umberger, W. J. (2022). Consumers’ attitudes towards lab-grown meat, conventionally raised meat and plant-based protein alternatives. Food Quality and Preference, 99, 104573.
7) Derbyshire, E., & Ayoob, K. T. (2019). Mycoprotein: Nutritional and health properties. Nutrition today, 54(1), 7-15.
8) FAO Burlingame B, Dernini S. Sustainable diets and biodiversity. 2010.
9) Geistlinger, T. (2015). Plant based meat structured protein products. US, 296834, A1.
10) Hadi, J., & Brightwell, G. (2021). Safety of Alternative Proteins: Technological, environmental and regulatory aspects of cultured meat, plant-based meat, insect protein and single-cell protein. Foods, 10(6), 1226.
11) Kadam, S. U., Álvarez, C., Tiwari, B. K., & O’Donnell, C. P. (2017). Extraction and characterization of protein from Irish brown seaweed Ascophyllum nodosum. Food Research International, 99, 1021-1027.
12) Kumar, V., & Joshi, V. K. (2016). Kombucha: Technology, microbiology, production, composition and therapeutic value. International journal of food and fermentation technology, 6(1), 13-24.
13) Michel F, Hartmann C, Siegrist M. Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives. Food Quality and Preference. 2020 Aug 20:104063.
14) Mutungi, C.; Irungu, F.G.; Nduko, J.; Mutua, F.; Affognon, H.; Nakimbugwe, D.; Ekesi, S.; Fiaboe, K.K.M. Postharvest Processes of Edible Insects in Africa: A Review of Processing Methods, and the Implications for Nutrition, Safety and New Products Development. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 276–298.
15) Pieterse, C. M., Zamioudis, C., Does der, D. V., & Van Wees, S. C. (2014). Signalling networks involved in induced resistance. Induced resistance for plant defense, 58-80.
16) Schweiggert-Weisz, U., Eisner, P., Bader-Mittermaier, S., & Osen, R. (2020). Food proteins from plants and fungi. Current Opinion in Food Science, 32, 156-162.
17) Souza Filho, P. F., Andersson, D., Ferreira, J. A., & Taherzadeh, M. J. (2019). Mycoprotein: environmental impact and health aspects. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 35(10), 1-8.
18) Stoffel, F., de Oliveira Santana, W., Gregolon, J. G. N., Kist, T. B. L., Fontana, R. C., & Camassola, M. (2019). Production of edible mycoprotein using agroindustrial wastes: Influence on nutritional, chemical and biological properties. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 58, 102227.
19) Tokuşoglu, Ö., & Üunal, M. K. (2003). Biomass nutrient profiles of three microalgae: Spirulina platensis, Chlorella vulgaris, and Isochrisis galbana. Journal of food science, 68(4), 1144-1148.
20) Van Huis, A., Van Itterbeeck, J., Klunder, H., Mertens, E., Halloran, A., Muir, G., & Vantomme, P. (2013). Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security (No. 171). Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations.
21) Van Krimpen, M.; Bikker, P.; Van der Meer, I.; Van der Peet-Schwering, C.; Vereijken, J. Cultivation, Processing and Nutritional Aspects for Pigs and Poultry of European Protein Sources as Alternatives for Imported Soybean Products; Wageningen UR Livestock Research: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2013; p. 48.
22) Van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V., & Lusk, J. L. (2020). Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter?. Food Policy, 95, 101931.
23) Wade, M.; Hoelle, J. A Review of Edible Insect Industrialization: Scales of Production and Implications for Sustainability. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 15, 123013.
