The study relied on the results of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) according to
ISO standards (ISO 14040-14044) [29, 30] present in literature (Part 1 of the study)
and own assessments (Part 1 and 2).
The first part of the research included literature search on Google Scholar online
platform with key words “environmental impact”, “LCA” and “Life Cycle
Assessment”, “substitutes”, “food products” for the period of 10 years (2007–2017)
and returned with 580 publications identified. Further search was refined with
additional key words: “meat substitutes” (64 results), “meat analogs” (7 results),
“cultured meat” (21 results), “milk substitutes” (12 results), “dairy substitutes”
(10 results), “alternative protein sources” (21 result). The resulted literature
(135 references) was analyzed in detail to identify the environmental impacts of
food substitutes. It was identified that 41 study presented results on various aspects
of food substitutes LCA. We relied on the data from the literature with adaptation to
the requirements of current study (attributional LCA with four impact categories of
global warming potential, non-renewable energy use, land use and water footprint
based on IMPACT 2002+ and ReCiPe methodologies) [31, 32]. It was aimed to
answer the research question on identification of more sustainable food substitutes
presented in literature. Environmental impact of food substitutes was compared in
between and with conventional products.
The second part of the research addressed the potential of environmental impact
improvement with the use of agri-food waste streams. The estimation of the
potential required the assessment of current uses of agri-food wastes for food
biomass production and further technological potential assessment for food design.
The second part in a great degree relied on own data of industrial processing trials
(DIL, Quakenbrueck) and background data available in literature and relevant
databases (Agri-footprint and ecoinvent 3) [33, 34] with modelling in SimaPro 8
software. The results on Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and potential of
agri-food waste use (includes all the types of food waste generated along the supply
chain) was included into matrix (Table 1), which allowed overview of conventional
foods substitution with potentially more sustainable alternatives. Furthermore, the
analysis of agri-food waste potential included the comparison of nutritional profile
of resulting products with benchmark food.
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Environmental Impact of Food Substitutes
The analysis of environmental performance of meat substitutes included production
and processing of protein sources based on plant proteins (soya, lupine, peas,
gluten, etc.), dairy products, insect biomass, cultured meat, microalgae biomass,
fungi, yeast and bacteria (Fig. 1). The analysis demonstrated that at despite certain
comparability of the impacts for different sources of protein biomass, in many
Agri-Food Waste Streams Utilization for Development …
147
ISO standards (ISO 14040-14044) [29, 30] present in literature (Part 1 of the study)
and own assessments (Part 1 and 2).
The first part of the research included literature search on Google Scholar online
platform with key words “environmental impact”, “LCA” and “Life Cycle
Assessment”, “substitutes”, “food products” for the period of 10 years (2007–2017)
and returned with 580 publications identified. Further search was refined with
additional key words: “meat substitutes” (64 results), “meat analogs” (7 results),
“cultured meat” (21 results), “milk substitutes” (12 results), “dairy substitutes”
(10 results), “alternative protein sources” (21 result). The resulted literature
(135 references) was analyzed in detail to identify the environmental impacts of
food substitutes. It was identified that 41 study presented results on various aspects
of food substitutes LCA. We relied on the data from the literature with adaptation to
the requirements of current study (attributional LCA with four impact categories of
global warming potential, non-renewable energy use, land use and water footprint
based on IMPACT 2002+ and ReCiPe methodologies) [31, 32]. It was aimed to
answer the research question on identification of more sustainable food substitutes
presented in literature. Environmental impact of food substitutes was compared in
between and with conventional products.
The second part of the research addressed the potential of environmental impact
improvement with the use of agri-food waste streams. The estimation of the
potential required the assessment of current uses of agri-food wastes for food
biomass production and further technological potential assessment for food design.
The second part in a great degree relied on own data of industrial processing trials
(DIL, Quakenbrueck) and background data available in literature and relevant
databases (Agri-footprint and ecoinvent 3) [33, 34] with modelling in SimaPro 8
software. The results on Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and potential of
agri-food waste use (includes all the types of food waste generated along the supply
chain) was included into matrix (Table 1), which allowed overview of conventional
foods substitution with potentially more sustainable alternatives. Furthermore, the
analysis of agri-food waste potential included the comparison of nutritional profile
of resulting products with benchmark food.
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Environmental Impact of Food Substitutes
The analysis of environmental performance of meat substitutes included production
and processing of protein sources based on plant proteins (soya, lupine, peas,
gluten, etc.), dairy products, insect biomass, cultured meat, microalgae biomass,
fungi, yeast and bacteria (Fig. 1). The analysis demonstrated that at despite certain
comparability of the impacts for different sources of protein biomass, in many
Agri-Food Waste Streams Utilization for Development …
147