Over the past three decades, the number of vegetarians/flexitarians, those who completely or partially eliminate meat from their diet, has been increasing, and in the last 2-3 years – significantly attributable to the Covid pandemic, consumer behavior striving for a health-conscious lifestyle – has increased dramatically, a trend that seems to be becoming permanent.
The role of meat substitutes is also constantly increasing, and one of the most important aspects of their successful marketing is, in addition to economic key figures, consumer acceptance. What is still important is that meat is a basic source of protein, so meat substitutes must also meet this requirement.
Which meat substitutes someone will reach for will depend on how much they want to eliminate/reduce animal foods from their diet.
Those who abandon meat for ethical reasons are unlikely to reach for foods made from insects, for example.
Legume-based, proven meat substitutes, such as soy or lupine, contain extremely valuable ingredients from a nutritional point of view, as they are rich in unsaturated fatty acids and minerals. However, soy and lupine contain hardly any organoleptically attractive components, therefore additives that give taste and aroma must be added to them in the production of meat substitutes – however, in terms of additives, the acceptance is very low, especially in the case of conscious eating groups, and at the same time, e.g. some plant-based proteins (e.g. lupine) proteins have allergenic potential, therefore they are not suitable for all consumer groups.
Accordingly – since much has not been decided yet – many alternatives are possible in the application of meat substitutes to meet all consumer needs.
But let’s see – which are the most promising meat substitute alternatives now and at what stage of use are they?
1.) In vitro meat
The process, which has become known as in vitro meat (CM), uses bovine muscle stem cells to create muscle fibers.
The use of this technology would make it possible to produce meat without the need to keep livestock to the extent that it has been done before, thus drastically reducing the negative environmental impact of meat consumption and making meat production more sustainable. However, these aspects are currently controversial, as in vitro meat production is still in its infancy and it is not known to what extent and what resources 1 will be used to produce this type of meat, i.e. its actual ecological consequences cannot be adequately discounted.
In 2013, a hamburger made from in vitro meat was first featured on a TV cooking show, but the product caused quite a negative reaction, as consumers considered it to be an unnatural and risky food.
In addition to low consumer acceptance, the mass production of in vitro meat still faces technical obstacles. Limiting aspects include e.g. the development of suitable serum-free cell culture media or the development of alternatives to the inefficient 2D tissue culture technique. The use of fetal calf serum for the cultivation of satellite cells and the use of bovine collagen muscle cells for the cultivation of muscle fiber cells require a large amount of animal starting material. On the one hand, this is contrary to the expectations of more ethical meat production, and on the other hand, the raw materials required for mass production of CM are not available due to the parallel decline in livestock populations.
A related study examined – unfortunately, in the absence of a (still) viable product – the factors that determine whether consumers will be willing to accept in vitro meat in the future. Ethical criteria seemed to be particularly important in relation to the technology used. In addition, the acceptance of the product was influenced by the information provided about the product, the quality and safety of the product, and the price.
3.2. Single Cell Protein (SCP)
Between the 1950s and the late 1970s, the idea of using single-celled organisms as a source of protein was intensively explored. The background to this was the rapid growth of the world population and the resulting food shortages. The possible source of raw materials was algae, yeasts or bacteria, which are able to synthesize proteins from organic compounds, which then became known as single-cell proteins (single-cell proteins, SCP).
In general, certain difficulties arise in the consumption of single-cell biomass. Thus, a possible consequence is a strongly increased uric acid value in the urine due to their high nucleic acid content, which promotes the formation of kidney stones.
SCP-based products also contain a high proportion of indigestible cell wall components, which can lead to gastrointestinal intolerance, or other toxic (bacterial) components.