A study conducted by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future has determined meat alternatives warrant further research in order to determine their impact on the environment, animal welfare, and public health.
The research, called Considering Plant-Based Meat Substitutes and Cell-Based Meats: A Public Health and Food Systems Perspective, compares the impacts of traditional meat and meat alternatives.
Lead researcher Raychel Santo told Food Tank that meat alternatives are often “marketed as a way to address issues” within animal agriculture, but the study found it might not be that straightforward. The study said plant-based substitutes could be more environmentally friendly because of decreased greenhouse gases (GHG) and land and water use, but cell-based meat may have a greater GHG footprint and use more water and energy outputs.
Researchers also found that plant-based substitutes aren’t necessarily healthier and can contain high amounts of sodium. The study concluded more independent research is still needed over meat alternatives, as most studies are funded by companies involved with the products.
