» Articles » PMID: 31395893

Environmentally Optimal, Nutritionally Sound, Protein and Energy Conserving Plant Based Alternatives to U.S. Meat

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2019 Aug 10
PMID 31395893
Citations 18
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Because meat is more resource intensive than vegetal protein sources, replacing it with efficient plant alternatives is potentially desirable, provided these alternatives prove nutritionally sound. We show that protein conserving plant alternatives to meat that rigorously satisfy key nutritional constraints while minimizing cropland, nitrogen fertilizer (Nr) and water use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions exist, and could improve public health. We develop a new methodology for identifying nutritional constraints whose satisfaction by plant eaters is challenging, disproportionately shaping the optimal diets, singling out energy, mass, monounsaturated fatty acids, vitamins B and D, choline, zinc, and selenium. By replacing meat with the devised plant alternatives-dominated by soy, green pepper, squash, buckwheat, and asparagus-Americans can collectively eliminate pastureland use while saving 35-50% of their diet related needs for cropland, Nr, and GHG emission, but increase their diet related irrigation needs by 15%. While widely replacing meat with plants is logistically and culturally challenging, few competing options offer comparable multidimensional resource use reduction.

Citing Articles

Identifying segment-specific barriers to ordering environmentally sustainable plant-based meat dishes in restaurants.

Fechner D, Grun B, Dolnicar S J Sustain Tour. 2025; 33(2):333-356.

PMID: 39877925 PMC: 11774254. DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2024.2342982.


A review of the toxicological effects and allergenic potential of emerging alternative protein sources.

Milana M, van Asselt E, van der Fels-Klerx I Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2025; 24(1):e70123.

PMID: 39865634 PMC: 11771606. DOI: 10.1111/1541-4337.70123.


Environmental Impact of Meat Protein Substitutes: A Mini-Review.

Lee D, Mariano Jr E, Choi Y, Park J, Han D, Kim J Food Sci Anim Resour. 2025; 45(1):62-80.

PMID: 39840250 PMC: 11743834. DOI: 10.5851/kosfa.2024.e109.


Changes in and prediction of land carrying capacity in Fujian Province from a dietary nutrition perspective.

Shi Q, Wang W, Zhang L, Li J Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):31346.

PMID: 39732877 PMC: 11682277. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-82762-4.


Estimates of optimal supplies of animal-sourced foods differ by food system goal and socioeconomic context.

White R, Hall M Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024; 121(50):e2319011121.

PMID: 39621920 PMC: 11648630. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2319011121.


References
1.
Shepon A, Eshel G, Noor E, Milo R . The opportunity cost of animal based diets exceeds all food losses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018; 115(15):3804-3809. PMC: 5899434. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1713820115. View

2.
Appleby P, Key T . The long-term health of vegetarians and vegans. Proc Nutr Soc. 2015; 75(3):287-93. DOI: 10.1017/S0029665115004334. View

3.
Eshel G, Shepon A, Makov T, Milo R . Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111(33):11996-2001. PMC: 4143028. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1402183111. View

4.
Katz D, Doughty K, Geagan K, Jenkins D, Gardner C . Perspective: The Public Health Case for Modernizing the Definition of Protein Quality. Adv Nutr. 2019; 10(5):755-764. PMC: 6743844. DOI: 10.1093/advances/nmz023. View

5.
Melina V, Craig W, Levin S . Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016; 116(12):1970-1980. DOI: 10.1016/j.jand.2016.09.025. View