REVIEW

Exploring Sustainable Future Protein Sources

Yu-Na Oh1https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2751-7421, Hack-Youn Kim1,2,*https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5303-4595
Author Information & Copyright
1Department of Animal Resources Science, Kongju National University, Yesan 32439, Korea
2Resources Science Research Institute, Yesan 32439, Korea
*Corresponding author : Hack-Youn Kim, Department of Animal Resources Science, Kongju National University, Yesan 32439, Korea, Tel: +82-41-330-1241, Fax: +82-41-330-1249, E-mail: kimhy@kongju.ac.kr

© Korean Society for Food Science of Animal Resources. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Sep 09, 2024 ; Revised: Oct 16, 2024 ; Accepted: Nov 02, 2024

Published Online: Jan 01, 2025

Abstract

With the exponential growth of the world population and the decline in agricultural production due to global warming, it is predicted that there will be an inevitable shortage of food and meat resources in the future. The global meat consumption, which reached 328 million tons in 2021, is expected to increase by about 70% by 2050, and the existing livestock industry, which utilizes limited resources, is having difficulty meeting the demand. Accordingly, cultured meat produced by culturing cells in the laboratory, edible insects consumed after cooking or processing, and plant-based meat processed by extracting proteins from plants have been proposed as sustainable food alternatives. These future protein sources are gaining popularity among consumers who prefer a healthy diet due to their nutritional benefits, and they are receiving attention for their potential to reduce environmental impact. This review describes the types and characteristics of protein sources such as cultured meat, antiserum media, edible insects, soy protein, wheat protein, and other mushroom mycelia, processing processes and technologies, market status, institutional challenges and prospects, and mushroom cultured meat.

Keywords: sustainable; cultured meat; edible insect; plant-based meat analogues; mushroom mycelium

Introduction

Scarcity of food resources due to population growth and global warming

The global population is expected to reach 9.9 billion by 2050, up from 7.8 billion today (Population Reference Bureau [PRB], 2020). The British classical economist Thomas Robert Malthus predicted that a food and ecological crisis is inevitable because the population will grow exponentially, but food resources will only grow arithmetically (Prosekov and Ivanova, 2016). Many countries are focusing on how to overcome food shortages to feed their growing populations (Vignesh et al., 2024). A report by the Food and Agriculture Organization predicts that the demand for animal-derived food will reach 550 million tons by 2050 (Sim et al., 2022). As the incomes of countries increase, consumption of animal protein resources increases; for example, the World Health Organization (WHO, 2023) reported that consumption of animal products in France exceeds international requirements and recommendations (Levasseur et al., 2024). Rachmawati et al. (2024) reported that in Indonesia, the national demand for beef reached 680,000 tons in 2019, but production was only 500,000 tons, resulting in a beef supply shortage of approximately 210,000 tons in 2021. Patil (2023) reported that the population is growing at a faster rate than the number of livestock from which meat resources can be obtained, which will lead to a shortage of meat resources in the future.

Global warming and the search for solutions to the climate crisis are among the most prominent global issues in the international community (So, 2023). The 20th century experienced the strongest warming trend in the last millennium, with an average temperature increase of approximately 0.6°C, which is expected to increase in the future by 0.1°C–2°C per decade (Muluneh, 2021). Large-scale natural disasters, such as floods, heat waves, and droughts, negatively impact food production and cause direct harm, such as food shortages (Carvalho and Spataru, 2023). Rosinger et al. (2023) reported that flooding has become the most frequent event globally over the past 50 years, and as it destroys cropland, reducing food production and leading to indiscriminate hunting of wildlife to replace food sources, which will increase food insecurity. Sambo and Sule (2024) reported that in Nigeria, approximately 70% of farmers rely on rainfall for farming, the effects of climate change are expected to reduce rainfall, leading to food shortages and hunger.

Global warming has decreased food security (Lee et al., 2024a). Meat consumption in most countries has been increasing since the 1960s (González et al., 2020), and Flint et al. (2023) estimated that global meat consumption reached 328 million tons in 2021 and will increase by approximately 70% by 2050. As the demand for meat continues to grow, conventional livestock farming, which utilizes limited resources such as water and land, is struggling to maintain pace with rising meat prices and increasing consumption (Reis et al., 2020). Kombolo Ngah et al. (2023) reported that livestock farming in Africa accounts for one-third of the world’s livestock but efforts to meet the growing demand for meat are strained because of inefficient and unproductive systems and infrastructure-limited slaughterhouses. Singh et al. (2021) reported that there is a growing demand for alternative protein sources as sustainable solutions to the shortage of meat.

Emergence of future protein sources as a sustainable food alternative

Future protein sources are described using a variety of terms, including meat analogs and meat substitutes, which are foods that have a similar taste, texture, appearance, and nutritional value to conventional meat but do not contain livestock protein (Sun et al., 2021). Currently, plant-based analog meat, edible insects, and cultured meat are the most representative future protein resources, with plant-based analog meat accounting for the largest share of this market (You et al., 2020). The main ingredients of plant-based analog meats include soy and wheat proteins, peas, soybeans, sesame seeds, peanuts, cottonseed, and rice (Kurek et al., 2022). However, most plant-based analog meats do not resemble the organoleptic properties of meat, such as its flavor and texture, and therefore require improvement (Godschalk-Broers et al., 2022).

Consumers tend to prefer analog meats that can be cooked and mimic the organoleptic properties of conventional meat (Kim et al., 2024a). Therefore, an important aspect of developing future protein resources is selecting suitable protein raw materials (Mishal et al., 2022). Various studies are being conducted to develop analog meat with improved organoleptic properties, such as burgers made from soy protein, and to evaluate consumer impressions of cultured meat (Milani and Conti, 2024; To et al., 2024). Consumers tend to choose analog meat because of their desire for a healthy diet (Arora et al., 2023). Compared with animal-based protein sources, plant-based protein sources are lower in fat and calories and contain polyphenols and other bioactive substances not found in animal products (Cho and Ryu, 2022).

Global sales of analog meats exceeded $10 billion in 2018 and are expected to increase to $21.23 billion by 2025, reaching $30 billion by 2026 (Xie et al., 2024b). Vural et al. (2023) conducted a study of analog meat acceptance among meat-eating and vegetarian consumers and reported that promoting analog meat as a healthy option could expand the consumption market. Analog meat will primarily benefit consumers who cannot eat traditional meat because of religious beliefs, particularly those with halal and kosher practices (Lee et al., 2020a).

This review describes the types and characteristics of future protein resources, raw material characteristics, current status, institutional challenges, and prospects for sustainable food that can replace conventional meat in the current situation of food shortage due to population growth and global warming.

Cultured Meat

Cultured meat is meat made from in vitro muscle cells that have been grown using stem cells harvested from animals (Bhat and Fayaz, 2011). The production process of cultured meat is shown in Fig. 1. Because regulations are less strict for cultured meat than for cell culture in medical research, developing a safe and efficient large-scale production system can reduce production costs (Zhang et al., 2020). Cultured meat must have characteristics that ensure its naturalness and nutritional value, similar to conventional meat, which can be achieved by altering the culture conditions to optimize the biochemical composition of cells comprising the cultured meat, such as replacing unhealthy saturated fats with healthy omega-3 fatty acids or increasing their content (Chen et al., 2022a; Post, 2012). In addition, the composition and quality of cultured meat can be controlled by altering flavor, fatty acid composition, fat content, or other health-promoting and functional ingredients (Arshad et al., 2017).

kosfa-45-1-81-g1
Fig. 1. Production process of cultured meat.
Download Original Figure
Cell types used in cultured meat production

Cases of producing cultured meat using various growth factors and various cell types are shown in Table 1. Muscle satellite cells are stem cells found between the myoma and the basal plate, which are normally in a dormant state. When the muscle is traumatized or damaged by external stimuli such as exercise, they divide and differentiate into myotubes, which develop into muscle fibers and play an important role in muscle regeneration (Oh et al., 2023b). However, because muscle satellite cells undergo cellular senescence with a limited number of in vitro divisions, large-scale cultured meat production requires a continuous supply and consistent quality of muscle satellite cells (Skrivergaard et al., 2023). Kim et al. (2023b) reported that to collect satellite cells of consistent quality in sufficient yield, it is necessary to consider several factors such as the donor sex, age, breed, and disease status. Oh et al. (2022) reported that when chicken muscle satellite cells were cultured in lineage culture for 6 days, the cells stopped differentiating because of the limited number of divisions; among the chicken muscle cells, breast satellite cells were less capable of differentiating than were leg satellite cells, suggesting that differentiation capabilities vary by site even within the same breed.

Table 1. Cases of producing cultured meat using various growth factors and various cell types
Growth factors Cells Topics References
rAlbumin Small satellite cells Establishing an effective protocol for establishing bovine satellite cells by adding recombinant albumin instead of serum Stout et al. (2022)
Insulin-like growth factor, fibroblast growth factor, transforming growth factors, platelet-derived growth factor Fish embryonic stem cells Development of serum-free media reduces global warming potential, production costs, and optimizes cell growth rates Nikkhah et al. (2023)
Chlorella vulgaris extract Bovine myoblasts Establish a sustainable culture system free of animal serum and grain-derived nutrients Yamanaka et al. (2023)
C. vulgaris extract Bovine myoblasts Identifying the potential of C. vulgaris to establish an environmentally friendly cultured meat production process Okamoto et al. (2022)
Fermented soybean meal, edible insect hydrolysate Porcine muscle stem cells Determine proliferation and differentiation capacity and potential as a fetal human serum substitute Kim et al. (2023a)
Rapeseed protein isolate Small satellite cells Produce media with rapeseed protein isolate to replace albumin, serum to reduce media costs Stout et al. (2023)
Insect hydrolysate, marine invertebrate, hydrolysates Fish embryonic stem cells Evaluating the potential of black soldier flies, crickets, oysters, mussels, and midges as serum substitutes for aquaculture fish production Batish et al. (2022)
C-Phycocyanin C2C12 Evaluate the efficiency of mass production with C-phycocyanin to optimize production processes and costs Park et al. (2021b)
Egg whites, eggshell membrane, poultry residue, pea hydrolysate, porcine plasma, fibroblast growth factor Mammalian cells Environmental impact assessment of fetal bovine serum media versus serum replacement media Wali et al. (2024)
Fibroblast growth factor 2 Small satellite cells Identify signaling pathways that promote cell proliferation to develop serum-free media that stimulate satellite cell growth Yu et al. (2023)
Egg white extract Chick satellite cells Develop an efficient egg white extract preparation protocol to replace fetal human serum Lee et al. (2024b)
Lupin, peas, rapeseed, birds, yeast Fish satellite cells Validated the feasibility of supporting mackerel satellite cell growth in media with reduced production costs using agricultural waste and low-cost raw materials Lim et al. (2024)
Chlorococcum littorale C2C12 Develop a sustainable circulating cell culture system that nourishes cells and allows waste media to be recycled Haraguchi et al. (2022)
Auxenochlorella pyrenoidosa Fish muscle cells Evaluating the potential of A. pyrenoidosa to promote cell proliferation and mass production in goldfish Dong et al. (2023)
Fermented Okara C2C12 Pig immortalized myoblasts Identifying Okara’s potential as a serum substitute Teng et al. (2023)
Anabaena sp. PCC 7120 C2C12 QM7 Evaluation of the potential of Anabaena sp. PCC 7120 extract as an inhibitor of cell proliferation and growth in medium supplemented with algae extract Ghosh et al. (2023)
Download Excel Table

Embryonic stem cells, which are pluripotent stem cells, are derived from the endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm of the embryo, can be isolated from the inner cell mass of the preimplantation blastocyst, and can proliferate unrestrictedly and differentiate into various cell types (Kulus et al., 2023). Skeletal muscle, extracellular matrix, microvasculature, and intramuscular fat are required to recreate the structure of a carnivore, and given the variety of cells required, embryonic stem cells rather than satellite cells from adult animals should be used (Hadi and Brightwell, 2021). Bogliotti et al. (2018) harvested, expanded, and cultured bovine embryonic stem cells and reported that embryonic stem cells are suitable for long-term culture because they proliferate with a stable karyotype and increase in number over time. However, the short lifespan of blastocysts makes it difficult to harvest embryonic stem cells, and the lack of protocols for differentiating and culturing embryonic stem cells necessitates the development of a versatile cell source with high proliferation and yield (Reiss et al., 2021).

Growth factors used in cultured meat production

Fetal bovine serum (FBS) is a growth-promoting supplement derived from the fetuses of slaughtered pregnant cows and is rich in hormones, antibodies, growth factors, and amino acids, making it a popular choice for cell culture techniques (Lee et al., 2022c). FBS is highly effective for promoting cell attachment, growth, and maintenance (Kim et al., 2023a); however, Andreassen et al. (2020) reported that the cost of serum can account for approximately 95% of the total cost of cell culture media, which contributes to the high price of cultured meat (Celebi-Birand et al., 2023). The price of FBS has increased by approximately 300% in the past few years, but cell culture still relies on FBS (Lee et al., 2024b). To effectively achieve the industrialization of cultured meat, it is necessary to mass produce cultured meat at a low cost, so research is underway to produce sustainable serum replacement media using microalgae, egg whites, rice, and wheat, among other materials (Flaibam et al., 2024; Park et al., 2023a).

To produce serum replacement media for developing cultured meat, insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) have been used as growth-promoting supplements that effectively replace serum because they have a similar structure to serum media (Trinidad et al., 2023). Two types of IGFs, IGF-1 and IGF-2 are observed, which are important in cell proliferation, growth, and maturation and have an insulin-like structure (Venkatesan et al., 2022). IGF-1 promotes both the proliferation and differentiation of myoblasts, which is signaling mediated through two pathways, the PI3K/Akt and MAPK/ERK1/2 pathways (Yu et al., 2015). Ahmad et al. (2023) reported that IGF-1 activates the proliferation of muscle satellite cells and plays an important role in the regeneration and formation of muscle, and in a study of myoblast proliferation in chickens, the number of myoblasts increased as the dose of IGF-1 was increased, suggesting that IGF-1 is an important contributor to cell proliferation and regeneration.

C-Phycocyanin is a water-soluble photosynthetic pigment-protein derived from the blue microalga Spirulina, which is widely used as a nutritional supplement (Rahim et al., 2024). Microalgae have 5–10-fold higher biomass productivity and 15-fold higher carbon dioxide fixation capacity compared with plants; thus, using microalgae can overcome the ethical issues and unstable supply caused by FBS and realize carbon neutrality (Yamanaka et al., 2023; Yoo et al., 2020). Park et al. (2021a) reported that C-phycocyanin performs DNA repair, antiviral, and antioxidant activities in cell culture, and based on these activities, in the development of cell sheets using fish gelatin powder, cell sheets containing 5% FBS with added IGF-1 and C-phycocyanin were more effective in inhibiting cell senescence compared with cell sheets containing 10% FBS. Levi et al. (2022) suggested that reduced serum use can help industrialize the production of cultured meat by making it low-cost and sustainable.

Prospects for cultured meat

Although antibiotics are used in conventional livestock farming to improve livestock growth, cultured meat does not use antibiotics during the cell culture process, thus avoiding the presence of antibiotic residues and resistance that occurs when consuming meat (Munteanu et al., 2021). Cultured meat is free from consumer health concerns because of the lack of genetic manipulation and the ability to flexibly control the fat content (Bryant and Barnett, 2018; Rolland et al., 2020). However, consumers distrust biotechnology-enhanced foods, which can negatively affect their purchasing behavior (Hwang et al., 2020). Omnivores that consume a wide variety of plants and animals, such as humans, have food neophobia, which is a reluctance to try new foods, but if the nature of the new food is clear in terms of its benefits to society or the individual, food neophobia can be mitigated to increase acceptance (Siddiqui et al., 2022). The main remaining challenges for cultured meat are to scale up the size of cultured meat tissues to that of real meat, with large-scale industrial facilities for mass production with low production costs (Liu et al., 2022), and to scale up and sustain the cultured meat industry while reducing its environmental impact by extracting and developing new cells capable of mass multiplication and non-animal bioinks to help cells survive (Albrecht et al., 2024; Kamalapuram et al., 2021). Another important issue is that genetic modification during the cultured meat production process and food safety certification of cultured meat ingredients that have not yet been accepted are considered risk factors (Zhang et al., 2020). Verbeke et al. (2015) reported that consumers responded positively to cultured meat in terms of its global potential to solve hunger problems in developing countries with insufficient nutritional intake, but they were afraid of cultured meat due to concerns about the ‘unnaturalness’ and potential risks of genetic modification. Regulatory systems such as food safety certification should be promoted rapidly in proportion to the public benefits, even at the cost of potential risks for environmentally and socially sustainable foods (Manning, 2024). Therefore, for cultured meat to be effectively commercialized, it is considered necessary to expedite the development of regulatory systems such as food safety certification and quality control.

Edible Insect

People began consuming insects as food approximately 7,000 years ago; of the more than 2,300 reported species of edible insects, the Diptera, Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, Diptera, Termitidae, Diptera, and Lepidoptera are the most common (Liang et al., 2024; Tang et al., 2019). Approximately 30% of the world’s population consumes edible insects, mainly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America (Raheem et al., 2019). The production of edible insects is environmentally friendly, as water and land use are minimal compared with those used by conventional livestock, and insects show excellent biomass conversion rates because of their easy technology and fast growth rates, enabling a stable food supply for the growing population (Gravel and Doyen, 2020; Pal et al., 2024). In addition, insects with high feed conversion rates require less feed than cattle, pigs, and chickens to produce 1 kg of animal protein, and the carcasses account for a large proportion of the body mass, making them a promising future protein resource (Moruzzo et al., 2021). In Korea, Oxya chinensis sinuosa, Bombyx mori (larva, pupa), Bombycis corpus, Tenebrio molitor (larva), Gryllus bimaculatus, Protaetia brevitarsis (larva), Allomyrina dichotoma (larva), Zophobas atratus (larva), Apis mellifera (pupa), and Locusta migratoria are listed as edible insects that can be used as food ingredients, among which Z. atratus (larva), A. mellifera (pupa), and L. migratoria are listed as limited food ingredients (Cho, 2023). Jang et al. (2022) reported that rice cookies containing T. molitor larva, G. bimaculatus, and P. brevitarsis larva powder showed higher values of ABTS and DPPH radical scavenging activities compared to the control without insect powder; additionally, in sensory evaluation, rice cookies containing 5 g of G. bimaculatus powder showed higher values for taste, texture, and overall palatability than the control, suggesting the potential of using insects as food ingredients.

Nutritional composition and processing techniques for edible insects

The general composition of domestic edible insects is summarized in Table 2. Among the general components of dried edible insects, moisture content and protein content were the highest in O. chinensis sinuosa (8.70% and 74.28%), fat content was the highest in Z. atratus (36.30%), and ash content was the highest in P. brevitarsis (8.36%; Baek et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2019a; Wedamulla et al., 2024). T. molitor, which has a high sales volume among domestic edible insects, is suitable for replacing fish meal in feed because of its high protein and lipid content and abundant essential amino acids such as methionine (Kim et al., 2024b; Shafique et al., 2021). This species contains high-quality protein with a balanced content of essential fatty acids and amino acids and higher calcium and iron contents than in cattle, pigs, and chickens (Pan et al., 2022). Daily consumption of iron-rich insects can help prevent anemia, which is common among preschoolers and pregnant women in developing countries (Zielińska et al., 2015). Most insects are rich in unsaturated fatty acids, which have health benefits for humans in reducing the risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease and improving blood sugar (Zhou et al., 2022). In addition, it has various physiological functions such as anti-obesity, anti-inflammatory, and anti-tumor, with fewer side effects compared to drugs.They are rich in bioactive substances with various functions such as anti-obesity, anti-inflammatory, and anti-tumor effects, and have fewer side effects than drugs, there is a negative perception among consumers regarding consuming insects, and thus they must be extracted or powdered in the form of additives to reach consumers (Zhang et al., 2024).

Table 2. Proximate composition of Korean edible insects (%)
Insect species Moisture Protein Fat Ash References
Oxya chinensis sinuosa 8.70±0.10 74.28±0.61 3.03±0.15 4.40±0.06 Kim et al. (2017); Wedamulla et al. (2024)
Bombyx mori 7.92±0.98 20.79±2.22 17.57±1.15 6.34±0.84 Omotoso (2015); Wedamulla et al. (2024)
Tenebrio molitor 2.90±0.04 50.32±0.21 33.70±0.13 3.73±0.03 Baek et al. (2017)
Gryllus bimaculatus 3.86±0.23 61.05±1.06 19.08±0.16 4.41±0.60 Kim et al. (2020a)
Protaetia brevitarsis 6.66±6.40 57.86±0.01 16.57±1.81 8.36±0.10 Baek et al. (2017)
Allomyrina dichotoma 1.63±1.42 39.31±1.34 25.21±5.02 5.26±1.75 Baek et al. (2017)
Zophobas atratus 1.30±0.64 52.2±1.29 36.30±0.43 3.6±0.02 Kim et al. (2019a)
Apis mellifera 8.68±0.17 45.70±0.85 24.98±0.12 3.66±0.19 Mekuria et al. (2021)
Locusta migratoria 0.90±0.40 69.80±0.30 14.30±1.20 3.20±0.03 Kim et al. (2020b)
Download Excel Table

To effectively use edible insects as a protein source, it is important to remove indigestible material such as chitin, which makes up the exoskeleton, and extract the protein (Kim et al., 2019b). Commonly used methods for protein extraction include degreasing, sonication, and dissolution in alkali solution followed by isoelectric precipitation and enzymatic hydrolysis (Mishyna et al., 2021). Degreasing is important during the manufacturing process because it can inhibit off-flavors caused by lipid oxidation in insects that are rich in lipids (Gkinali et al., 2022). This process reduces the lipid content and increases the protein content, and is typically performed using non-polar solvents such as hexane and acetone or polar solvents such as ethanol (Jeong et al., 2021). Amarender et al. (2020) reported that ethanol was effective for extracting lipids from crickets with hexane and ethanol, suggesting that organic degreasing solvents can be used as an alternative to the environmental and health threats posed by residual hexane in food (Kim et al., 2021). Ultrasonication activates protein enzymatic degradation reactions through cavitation caused by shock waves and vibrations, which increases protein yield and improves the structure and safety of the reaction products (Mintah et al., 2019). Choi et al. (2017) reported that sonication increased the protein yield by 34% and 28% after 15 min of sonication in cricket and mealworm pupae, respectively, and by 76% after 5 min in silkworm pupae, indicating that sonication increased the protein yield. Other methods of protein extraction, such as dissolution in alkali followed by isoelectric precipitation and enzymatic hydrolysis, are time-consuming and require significant amounts of energy and water; therefore, eco-friendly and more efficient ultrasonication with a shorter process time is widely used (Pinel et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2023b).

An example of edible insects use is shown in Fig. 2. Edible insects can be used in a variety of ways, including use in traditional cooking methods (frying, baking, steaming) or processing into additive forms (powders, oils) to be added to foods to make products (bread, biscuits, pasta, tortillas; Mancini et al., 2022; Skotnicka et al., 2021). In China’s multi-ethnic Yunnan province, several species of edible insects exist, and ethnic minority residents commonly consume insects whole, fried, or cooked, including Antheraea pernyi pupae, moth cakes, cricket jam, and ant egg salad (Xie et al., 2024a). In Western countries, where there is still resistance to eating insects, insects are being added to baked goods in powdered form to increase their nutritional value, including fiber, protein, and minerals (Borges et al., 2022). In Korea, Flora Umi Tsukumi restaurant serves pizza and pasta with edible insects, and Grub Kitchen in the UK sells bolognese, burgers, and cookies made with edible insects (Han et al., 2017; Hwang and Kim, 2021). The Swiss company Essento has launched edible insect protein bars, snacks, and burger patties that focus on sustainability based on a nutritional and environmental ideology as well as the packaging and appearance of the products (Daub and Gerhard, 2022). Insects are rich in unsaturated fatty acids, which can meet essential fatty acid requirements and can be utilized in animal feeds as an alternative source of polyunsaturated fatty acids (Kolobe et al., 2023). Rumpold and Schlüter (2013) reported that feed accounts for 70% of the cost of producing livestock and replacing fish meals with larval meals in poultry diets resulted in similar gain and growth rates as fish meal-supplemented diets, suggesting that insects can replace costly fish meals as a protein source.

kosfa-45-1-81-g2
Fig. 2. Examples of edible insects being used.
Download Original Figure
Prospects for edible insects

Proteins from edible insects have a lower molecular weight than do conventional meat proteins, making them easier to digest and absorb (Lee et al., 2023a). Lee et al. (2020b) reported that the in vitro protein digestibility of P. brevitarsis larvae was 4.33% higher than that of beef tenderloin. Furthermore, Hammer et al. (2023) reported that the digestibility of Acheta domesticus and T. molitor larvae and chicken were similar, demonstrating their potential as meat substitutes. Insects have medicinal properties and have been used as entomotherapy in the form of extracts or ointments since ancient times (Devi et al., 2023). According to Zhang et al. (2023a), bee products (honey, propolis, royal jelly, and beeswax) are used as folk remedies for conditions such as colds, wounds, and sore throats, and ant and bee venom is used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, an autoimmune disease. Just like microorganisms and plants that have been used as drugs, insects are also rich in active ingredients for use as drugs and have anticancer properties, so they could be one of the drug resources with medical value that can help humans safely avoid diseases (Chen et al., 2022c).

Żuk-Gołaszewska et al. (2022) estimated that the edible insect market is worth approximately KRW 600 billion in Korea, and in the EU, 260,000 tons of edible insect food is expected to be produced by 2030, reaching a value of approximately KRW 3 trillion. The use of edible insects as a protein source, food, feed additive, and medicine is increasing globally, and to meet this demand, mass production is needed, but scaling up insect production requires significant facilities and costs to build automation systems that can reduce labor, waste treatment facilities, and other components (Siddiqui et al., 2023). Tang et al. (2019) reported that the establishment of a collaborative system between farms and industry would improve productivity by increasing cultivation efficiency, with the additional benefits of developing insects as health supplements and medicines. In addition, the insect farming industry, which is still in its early stages, could increase regional income and create employment opportunities in response to the demand for large-scale production (Tang et al., 2019). Industrialization of edible insects requires cooperation at the national level, which will enable solving the problem of future protein resource shortages and coexistence and development with local communities.

Plant-Based Meat Analogues

Plant-based analog meat is made by extracting proteins from plants to produce a meat-like taste, form, and texture (You et al., 2020). Plant proteins are suitable as a future protein source because they are inexpensive, have a high protein content, and provide a balanced amino acid profile, and wheat gluten, soy protein, and others are commonly used to make plant-based analog meats (Joshi and Kumar, 2015). Since the mid-1900s, manufacturing techniques using plant-based proteins have evolved, with tofu and tempeh prepared using wheat gluten and soybeans to create a meat-like texture, and now fungi (mushrooms, yeast, mycoproteins) and legumes (lupins, chickpeas, etc.) are currently being used to create analog meat (Bohrer, 2019; Zahari et al., 2022). Various types of plant-based analog meat are being developed such as sausages, steaks, nuggets, and patties in response to consumers preference for meat-like texture and organoleptic properties, and is being manufactured by adding soy protein, pea protein, gluten, potato protein, and other proteins with emulsifying and water-holding properties like fiber protein in meat (Kyriakopoulou et al., 2021). In addition, binders, flavor enhancers (fats, oils, etc.), and colorants are often added during the manufacturing process of plant-based analog meat to give it a meat-like texture, flavor, and color (Tang et al., 2024). The first patent for soy protein was issued in the U.S. in 1955, and the market has grown steadily since 1960, with France, Germany, Italy, and the U.K. currently leading the analog meat market, and in Spain, sales of plant-based analog meat, yogurt, and milk increased by approximately 20% between 2021 and 2022 (Costa-Catala et al., 2023). Melville et al. (2023) reported that the market for plant-based analog meat products is growing significantly as a sustainable food because of environmental concerns such as water scarcity and greenhouse gas emissions, along with health concerns such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Characteristics of plant-based proteins by source

The types of proteins and their pros and cons mainly used to produce plant-based meat analogues are shown in Table 3. With approximately 350 million tons of soy produced annually, soy shows a high potential for providing a reliable source of protein for the growing population (Messina et al., 2022). Soy has a high nutritional value based on its rich content of essential amino acids (except methionine) and isoflavones involved in bone health and blood pressure regulation and is widely consumed because of its low cost; the number of food products containing soy protein has steadily increased, currently exceeding approximately 10,000 (Cai et al., 2021; Zhu et al., 2020). Plant-based analog meat made from soybeans is low in fat and calories and is cholesterol-free, which has beneficial health effects, including cholesterol-lowering effects and preventing low blood pressure and obesity (Bakhsh et al., 2022). Caponio et al. (2020) reported that the peptide IAVPGEVA (Ile-Ala-Val-Pro-Gly-Glu-Val-Ala), which is obtained when soybeans are hydrolyzed, reduces cholesterol in the blood; in a clinical trial in which patients with hypercholesterolemia consumed a diet containing soy protein for one month, blood cholesterol levels decreased by 123 mg/mL, demonstrating the suitability of soy protein as a functional food. Kang et al. (2022) compared chicken sausage and sausage with soy protein and observed that sausage with soy protein had a more stable structure than did chicken sausage because of the improved emulsification due to water-soluble proteins in soybeans, and a softer texture because of improved water retention and heating yield due to the stable structure, suggesting that soy protein can replace meat in various products.

Table 3. Types and pros and cons of proteins mainly used in manufacturing plant-based meat analogues
Plant protein Pros Cons References
Wheat gluten - Low price
- High protein content
- Widely used as composite agent to improve fiber structure
- Not soluble in water
- When applied to meat products, chewiness is reduced due to low water retention capacity
- May cause allergic reactions
Bogueva and McClements (2023); Sun et al. (2024); Zhang et al. (2023c)
Soy protein - High water absorption and water holding capacity
- Good gelling properties
- Low price
- Rejection due to the smell of soybeans
- Side effects on masculinity when consumed excessively (infertility, erectile dysfunction)
- May cause allergic reactions
Bogueva and McClements (2023); Lee et al. (2022b); Schreuders et al. (2019); Sun et al. (2024); Zhang et al. (2021a)
Pea protein - Less associated with genetic manipulation
- Not subject to allergen labeling
- Lower gelling ability than soy protein
- May cause allergic reactions
Bogueva and McClements (2023); Schreuders et al. (2019)
Peanut protein - Low in anti-nutritional factors
- Excellent amino acid profile
- Poor gel and emulsification properties
- May cause allergic reactions
Boukid (2022); Zhang et al. (2023c)
Rice protein - No unpleasant taste
- Hypocholesterolemic
- Highly digestible compared to wheat gluten
- Requires supplementation with soy protein due to limiting amino acid (lysine) Cho and Ryu (2022); Lee et al. (2022a)
Mung bean protein - High content of functional substances (flavonoids, etc.)
- High digestibility
- Better gelling properties than soy and pea proteins
- Characteristics vary depending on protein extraction method, salt concentration, pH, etc.
- Hard and cohesive structure, resulting in lower gelation and surface properties than egg protein
Cho and Ryu (2022); Feng et al. (2024); Hwang et al. (2023); Wang et al. (2022b)
Potato protein - Good foaming and emulsifying properties
- Highly soluble
- High digestibility
- Nutritionally similar to animal protein
- Gluten-free, difficult to form gel Kumar et al. (2022); Lv et al. (2023); Okeudo-Cogan et al. (2024)
Mycoproteins - Similar to meat in nutritional value, fiber texture, flavor, and taste
- High digestibility fibrous texture
- Sustainable protein source
- Iron content is about 35% or less of meat Kumar et al. (2022); Okeudo-Cogan et al. (2024)
Mushroom protein - High protein content (23.80 g per 100 g)
- Fast yield
- High thermal and pH stability
- Contains branched chain amino acids (leucine, isoleucine, valine) like animal proteins
- Due to the high fiber content, the Maillard reaction may occur during digestion, resulting in a decrease in essential amino acids (lysine, methionine, tryptophan)
- Phenolic substances and tannins contained in mushrooms inhibit digestive enzymes
Ayimbila and Keawsompong (2023)
Download Excel Table

Wheat gluten is the protein component that is isolated by kneading wheat flour with water to remove non-protein components and starch and has high viscoelasticity. Baking, noodles, pasta, and other products have been produced using wheat gluten (Schopf et al., 2021; Shewry, 2019). Wheat gluten, which is responsible for protein storage in wheat, is composed of glutenin and gliadin, which increase viscosity and softness and are added during the production of analog meat to improve texture (Zhang et al., 2023c). However, Sun et al. (2024) showed that wheat gluten is difficult to apply to analog meat production because of its low solubility and water retention; thus, pretreatment combining pH cycling and heat treatment was used to increase the solubility and water retention of wheat gluten to improve the texture of analog meat. Hou et al. (2023) examined the production of analog meat using white pollock fillets with high gel strength, wheat gluten, and soy protein and reported that increasing the content of wheat gluten made the fiber structure of the analog meat clearer and increased its elasticity, whereas excessive addition decreased the elasticity, chewability, and fiber structure, determined the appropriate ratio of wheat gluten and soy protein required to produce analog meat.

Edible fungi, also known as mushrooms, are human-edible macrofungi with highly palatable textures, tastes, and flavors that can be used as food and medicine (Wei et al., 2022). More than 2,000 species of mushrooms worldwide can be consumed by humans. Agaricus spp., Pleurotus spp., Lentinula edodes, and Ganoderma spp. are cultivated commercially as edible mushrooms in their raw form or as products (Mahari et al., 2020). Mushrooms are mainly harvested following cultivation or from the wild, have high yields because of their fast growth rate, and can grow in small spaces, making them a sustainable food (Pérez-Montes et al., 2021). Mushrooms are rich in bioactive substances such as proteins, peptides, vitamins, polysaccharides, polyphenols, flavonoids, saponins, and terpenoids, and are considered a health food based on their antioxidant, antibacterial, and antiviral properties (Sun et al., 2020). Yan et al. (2023) reported that mushrooms can be used as food preservatives to maintain freshness, liquid fermentation products with unique flavors and tastes that can be added to food and beverages as flavor enhancers, or as analog meat using monosodium glutamate, which is similar in taste to the amino acids in mycelium and meat. The mycelium, the lower part of the mushroom, is mainly composed of protein, cellulose, and chitin and has a rich protein content, and thus can be used as livestock feed or as a substitute for drugs, flour, and meat (Zhang et al., 2021b). Mycoprotein, a protein and fungal mycelium made from a fibrous fungus, the mushroom fungus, is a food-grade fungus and high-protein source, and the British company Marlow Foods introduced mushroom-based foods under the brand Quorn in 1895 and now sells products such as mycoprotein-based steaks, nuggets, and patties (Park et al., 2023b). Shahbazpour et al. (2021) reported that mycoprotein-added sausages were nutritionally superior to beef sausages because of their higher essential amino acid and unsaturated fatty acid contents, lower carbohydrate and fat contents, and lack of microbial growth after cooking; however, they exhibited lower hardness, springiness, gumminess, and cohesiveness, indicating that further research on additives is needed to achieve an optimal texture.

Processing technology of plant-based analog meat

Vegetable proteins can be made to mimic the fibrous structure of meat using techniques such as extrusion, shear cell technology, and ohmic heating (Jung et al., 2022). A schematic diagram of the extrusion and shear cell technology and ohmic heating system is shown in Fig. 3. Extrusion is a rapid process in which vegetable proteins are subjected to shear forces and pressure at high temperatures to produce a meat-like fibrous structure, with two types of extrusion processes are observed: low-moisture extrusion processing (LMEP), which uses a single-screw extruder to form at moisture contents below 30%, and high-moisture extrusion processing (HMEP), which uses a long cooling die to form at moisture contents above 50%, with HMEP as the most commonly used technology (Cho et al., 2023; De Angelis et al., 2024). Choi and Ryu (2022) compared the physicochemical properties of LMEP and HMEP vegetable analog meats and observed that low-moisture analog meats exhibited a spongy structure because of their large number of internal air layers, whereas high-moisture analog meats exhibited a delicate structure because of swelling-prevented by a long cooling die and the high-moisture analog meats exhibited superior values of chewability, cohesion, elasticity, and tissue residual modulus, supporting the greater utilization of high-moisture extrusion.

kosfa-45-1-81-g3
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of low moisture extrusion (A), high moisture extrusion (B), conical shear cell (C), cylindrical couette cell (D), ohmic heating (E).
Download Original Figure

Shear cell technology produces fibrous structures by modifying the flow of shear based on the concept of flow-induced structuring and can produce a variety of product structures by controlling the shear temperature and speed (Nowacka et al., 2023). Two types of shear cells are observed, nested cone-shaped and nested cylindrical couette cells, and when water and vegetable protein raw materials are added to the shearing zone, which exists in the middle between the fixed top cone and outer cylinder and the heated and rotating bottom cone and inner cylinder, the fiber structure is layered by heat and shear force and has a meat-like structure (Nowacka et al., 2023; Su et al., 2024). Krintiras et al. (2015) examined the production of analog meat using soy protein and wheat gluten in a couette cell and showed that the analog meat was produced over a process time of 15 min, a rotation speed of 30 RPM, and a process temperature of 95°C exhibited repeatable and consistent fiber formation throughout, and the anisotropy index was similar to that of meat, the potential of couette cell technology for producing plant-based analog meat.

Ohmic heating, also known as electro-conductive heating, electrical resistance heating, and joule heating, is an electromagnetic-based technology in which an electric current is passed through food to achieve uniform heating (Varghese et al., 2014). Ohmic heating was first used in the United States to pasteurize milk at low temperatures and has since been used to blanch and sterilize foods such as meat, fruits, and vegetables, and has the advantage of avoiding increases in heating time and overheating depending on the characteristics of the food (Jaeger et al., 2016). In addition, Jung et al. (2022) reported that adding pressure to ohmic heating technology, which has a simple temperature control and fast temperature increase rate, can be used to improve the adhesion of vegetable analog meat and realize the appropriate texture of meat. Chen et al. (2023) reported that when ohmic heating was applied in the production of analog meat using peanut protein, a uniform and high-density structure was formed; chewability, cohesion, elasticity, and hardness were improved; texture was enhanced; and volatile substances that produce fatty flavors were increased, indicating that ohmic heating is suitable for enhancing the structure and flavor of vegetable analog meat. Examples of the production of plant-based meat analogs using advanced processing technologies are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Cases of producing plant-based meat analogues using advanced processing technologies
Technology Pros and cons of technology Plant protein Subject References
High-moisture extrusion processing (HMEP) - Pros: Dense fibrous structure
- Cons: Short shelf life due to high moisture content (Choi and Ryu, 2022)
Pea protein, amylose, amylopectin Analyzing the effect of protein interactions with amylose and amylopectin on fiber structure Chen et al. (2022b)
Soy protein Compare morphological development of analog mittens as temperature changes Wittek et al. (2021)
Pea protein, peanut protein, soy protein, wheat gluten, rice protein Comparing the water-binding capacity of protein sources to improve the juiciness of analog meats Hu et al. (2024)
Pea protein isolate (PPI), pea protein concentrate (PPC) Compare the quality and organoleptic characteristics of PPI and PPC when mixed with ground beef. Pöri et al. (2023)
Soy protein, pea protein, wheat gluten Improve the texture of analog meat and provide quality control techniques Flory et al. (2023)
Low-moisture extrusion processing (LMEP), HMEP LMEP
- Pros: Easy handling, long shelf life
- Cons: Expanded structure with porous layers
Soy protein, wheat gluten Comparison of analog mitt chemistry by LMEP and HMEP Choi and Ryu (2022)
Shear cell - Pros: Formation of fibrous structure
- Cons: Testing is limited to laboratory scale (Krintiras et al., 2015)
Soy protein, pea protein, wheat gluten Comparison of mixing and hydration effects of different protein sources and analysis of how mixing time affects the structure of analog meat Köllmann et al. (2024)
Soy protein, pea protein, wheat gluten Analyze the texture of analog meats made with shear cells with different strengths of vibration. Giménez-Ribes et al. (2024)
Soy protein Analyzing how the addition of salt affects the texture and structure of analog meat Dinani et al. (2023)
Ohmic heating - Pros: High efficiency in converting electrical energy into heat
- Cons: Insufficient research on producing meat analogues (Jung et al., 2022)
Soy protein, wheat gluten Analyzing the effect of cooking time and temperature on the texture and physicochemical properties of analog meat during ohmic heating Jung et al. (2022)
Peanut protein Confirming the effectiveness of ohmic heating as a technique to improve the structure and flavor of analog meat Chen et al. (2023)
Freeze structuring - Pros: Unique fibrous structure
- Cons: High production costs due to high energy consumption (Du et al., 2023)
Pea protein, wheat gluten Developing vegetable protein composites with improved nutritional and textural properties using cryostructuring technology Yuliarti et al. (2021)
Fiber-spinning - Pros: Micron-level protein fiber formation
- Cons: High requirements for protein solutions, heavy contamination (Wang et al., 2023)
Soy protein Developing soy protein-based analog meat with improved nutritional, physicochemical, and structural properties Joshi et al. (2023)
3D Printing - Pros: Control of fiber structure arrangement and distribution of adipose tissue
- Cons: Plant-based meat analog inks are difficult to extrude, making it difficult to mimic the texture of animal meat
Pea protein Rheology and extrusion testing to develop printable, print process-optimized formulations Wang et al. (2022a)
Mung bean protein, wheat gluten Improving the functionality of mung bean protein, wheat gluten mixtures, and adding L-cysteine to improve the quality and sensory characteristics of analog meat Chao et al. (2024); Wen et al. (2023)
Download Excel Table
Prospects for plant-based analogs of meat

Currently, plant-based analog meat lacks fat and flavor, and sometimes has off-flavors and soy flavor, but plant-based oils such as coconut oil and medium chain triglycerides (MCT) oil can be used to express fatty flavors similar to meat; plant-based spices such as pepper, basil, and turmeric can be used to produce analog meat with specific flavors, and enzymatic treatments can be used to suppress soy flavors, and it is necessary to improve the quality of analog meat using these various approaches to gain an advantage in the alternative food market is necessary (Jung et al., 2024; Su et al., 2024). Overseas brands selling plant-based analog meat products include Impossible Food and Beyond Meat, which are popular among consumers because their products reproduce the appearance, flavor, and blood similar to meat, and Impossible Food, which has demonstrated the sustainability and scalability of the plant-based analog meat market with its burger patties containing leghemoglobin extracted from soybean root hairs to create the blood taste of meat (Arora et al., 2023; Muhlhauser et al., 2021). Oh et al. (2023a) reported that Eat Just in the U.S. created powdered artificial eggs to provide a new option for people with egg allergies, and in Korea, Nongshim’s Veggie Garden, CJ CheilJedang’s Plant table, and Shinsegae Food’s Berry Meat brands were launched, expanding the diversity of the domestic plant-based analog meat market by launching tteokgalbi, dumplings, and canned ham using plant-based analog meat. According to Blue Horizon Corporation and Boston Consulting Group, the alternative food market will reach $290 billion before 2040, and the key to growing the alternative food market is to produce analog meat with similar price and organoleptic properties as meat (Maningat et al., 2022). Currently, various plant-based meat analogues are succeeding as future protein resources, and they are expected to expand the market even to consumers who do not consume meat due to ethical or religious beliefs, leading to an anticipated increase in demand for future protein resources (Lee et al., 2020a). Mushrooms are a nutrient-rich source of protein, including essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals, and analog meat utilizing mycelium, which can produce protein more rapidly than the fruiting body, is gaining traction in the food industry as an alternative to the raw materials used in traditional plant-based analog meat or as a plant-based protein that can be mass-produced (Strong et al., 2022). If plant-based analog meat is developed using mycelium, which enables rapid protein production, it is believed that future food security issues can be addressed through the production of future protein resources that have a taste and texture similar to meat.

Future Protein Resource Challenges

In the U.S., new, previously unused ingredients must be evaluated and approved as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they can be used in food production, and the soy rhizobium leghemoglobin used in our plant-based burger patties was evaluated and approved as GRAS before launch, whereas for cultured meat, food safety is regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture-Food Safety and Inspection Service for labeling and processing monitoring, and by the FDA for harvesting cells or tissues (Kołodziejczak et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2023b). Previously in Korea, even if a product did not contain meat, it could be labeled as plant-based alternative meat if it was labeled as “plant-based” or “vegan” thus, the Hanwoo Board issued a statement calling for a ban on the use of the word “meat” and in response, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) established guidelines for the labeling of alternative foods to prohibit the use of the word “meat” in 2023 (MFDS, 2023; Park et al., 2023b). To commercialize analog meat, it is necessary to reach an amicable agreement with the existing livestock industry to prohibit the use of the term “meat” for cultured meat and plant-based analog meat products, as in 2018, the use of expressions such as “steak” and “sausage” was banned in the U.S. and Europe to prevent misleading consumers by indicating that meat is added to plant-based analog meat products (Lee et al., 2023b).

The choice of protein source to be added to produce analog meat is an important consideration because it affects the organoleptic properties of the finished product, which in turn is directly related to consumer acceptance of the meat-like appearance, texture, and flavor (Fiorentini et al., 2020). However, products containing soy and gluten, which are predominantly used in plant-based products, may be less desirable to consumers because soy and wheat cause allergic reactions, and wheat gluten poses a health risk to people with gluten intolerance (Szpicer et al., 2022). In addition, glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase, arginine kinase, and tropomyosin cause allergic reactions when insects are encountered or consumed, with tropomyosin acting as the allergen that causes cross-reactivity in edible insects and shellfish, and consumers with shellfish allergies should be wary of consuming edible insects (Aguilar-Toalá et al., 2022). Processing techniques to reduce these allergic reactions include heat treatment such as blanching and frying, extrusion, and enzymatic hydrolysis (Hall et al., 2018), and Mejrhit et al. (2017) reported that heating and enzymatic treatment reduced allergic reactions because when tropomyosin from patients with shellfish allergy was collected, heated, and treated with an enzyme (pepsin), the structure of the antigenic determinant was modified, resulting in the inhibition of the binding reaction between tropomyosin and IgE. However, because of the small number of studies on allergens in edible insects, there may be toxic and allergenic substances that have not been identified, further research is needed to ensure the safe consumption and use of edible insects (Kim et al., 2019c). In addition, as global warming has prompted the production of eco-friendly materials that can reduce carbon, mushroom mycelium is increasing in value as an eco-friendly material that can replace various industrial materials such as analog meat, leather, and plastic, but the production process is complex and production costs are high, so further research on processing technology is needed before these methods can be applied for industrial use (Im et al., 2023).

Conclusion

As the world’s population continues to grow, the demand for animal food increases, but livestock resources are limited compared to the growing number of people. With global warming creating a climate crisis, future food shortages are thought to be inevitable. Therefore, cultured meat, edible insects, and plant-based analog meat have gained attention as future protein resources that can overcome the shortage of meat as a sustainable food. The choice of raw materials and processing technology is important for ensuring that future protein sources can mimic the sensory characteristics (texture, flavor, appearance, etc.) of conventional meat. Industrialization of future protein sources will be possible and sustainable if the raw materials are affordable, in good supply and demand, and can be mass-produced. However, as the sensory characteristics and safety concerns of analog meat do not yet satisfy consumers’ needs, research on processing methods and the safety of raw materials, such as toxic substances and allergens, are needed to improve analog meat. Consumer resistance to new technologies and foods and concerns about potential risks can be mitigated by promoting the environmental and health benefits and sustainability of analog meat to increase consumer acceptance. Particular attention should be paid to developing new forms of future protein sources, such as combining plant-based mushroom mycelium with cultured meat.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (Project No. RS-2024-00403612), Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Korea.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Oh YN, Kim HY. Data curation: Oh YN, Kim HY. Formal analysis: Oh YN, Kim HY. Methodology: Oh YN, Kim HY. Validation: Oh YN, Kim HY. Writing - original draft: Oh YN, Kim HY. Writing - review & editing: Oh YN, Kim HY.

Ethics Approval

This article does not require IRB/IACUC approval because there are no human and animal participants.

References

1.

Aguilar-Toalá JE, Cruz-Monterrosa RG, Liceaga AM. 2022; Beyond human nutrition of edible insects: Health benefits and safety aspects. Insects. 13:1007

2.

Ahmad SS, Chun HJ, Ahmad K, Shaikh S, Lim JH, Ali S, Han SS, Hur SJ, Sohn JH, Lee EJ, Choi I. 2023; The roles of growth factors and hormones in the regulation of muscle satellite cells for cultured meat production. J Anim Sci Technol. 65:16-31

3.

Albrecht FB, Ahlfeld T, Klatt A, Heine S, Gelinsky M, Kluger PJ. 2024; Biofabrication’s contribution to the evolution of cultured meat. Adv Healthc Mater. 13:2304058

4.

Amarender RV, Bhargava K, Dossey AT, Gamagedara S. 2020; Lipid and protein extraction from edible insects: Crickets (Gryllidae). LWT-Food Sci Technol. 125:109222

5.

Andreassen RC, Pedersen ME, Kristoffersen KA, Rønning SB. 2020; Screening of by-products from the food industry as growth promoting agents in serum-free media for skeletal muscle cell culture. Food Funct. 11:2477-2488

6.

Arora S, Kataria P, Nautiyal M, Tuteja I, Sharma V, Ahmad F, Haque S, Shahwan M, Capanoglu E, Vashishth R, Gupta AK. 2023; Comprehensive review on the role of plant protein as a possible meat analogue: Framing the future of meat. ACS Omega. 8:23305-23319

7.

Arshad MS, Javed M, Sohaib M, Saeed F, Imran A, Amjad Z. 2017; Tissue engineering approaches to develop cultured meat from cells: A mini review. Cogent Food Agric. 3:1320814

8.

Ayimbila F, Keawsompong S. 2023; Nutritional quality and biological application of mushroom protein as a novel protein alternative. Curr Nutr Rep. 12:290-307

9.

Baek M, Hwang JS, Kim MA, Kim SH, Goo TW, Yun EY. 2017; Comparative analysis of nutritional components of edible insects registered as novel foods. J Life Sci. 27:334-338

10.

Bakhsh A, Lee EY, Ncho CM, Kim CJ, Son YM, Hwang YH, Joo ST. 2022; Quality characteristics of meat analogs through the incorporation of textured vegetable protein: A systematic review. Foods. 11:1242

11.

Batish I, Zarei M, Nitin N, Ovissipour R. 2022; Evaluating the potential of marine invertebrate and insect protein hydrolysates to reduce fetal bovine serum in cell culture media for cultivated fish production. Biomolecules. 12:1697

12.

Bhat ZF, Fayaz H. 2011; Prospectus of cultured meat—advancing meat alternatives. J Food Sci Technol. 48:125-140

13.

Bogliotti YS, Wu J, Vilarino M, Okamura D, Soto DA, Zhong C, Sakurai M, Sampaio RV, Suzuki K, Belmonte JCI, Ross PJ. 2018; Efficient derivation of stable primed pluripotent embryonic stem cells from bovine blastocysts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 115:2090-2095

14.

Bogueva D, McClements DJ. 2023; Safety and nutritional risks associated with plant-based meat alternatives. Sustainability. 15:14336

15.

Bohrer BM. 2019; An investigation of the formulation and nutritional composition of modern meat analogue products. Food Sci Hum Wellness. 8:320-329

16.

Borges MM, da Costa DV, Trombete FM, Câmara AKFI. 2022; Edible insects as a sustainable alternative to food products: An insight into quality aspects of reformulated bakery and meat products. Curr Opin Food Sci. 46:100864

17.

Boukid F. 2022; Peanut protein: An underutilised by‐product with great potential: A review. Int J Food Sci Technol. 57:5585-5591

18.

Bryant C, Barnett J. 2018; Consumer acceptance of cultured meat: A systematic review. Meat Sci. 143:8-17

19.

Cai JS, Feng JY, Ni ZJ, Ma RH, Thakur K, Wang S, Hu F, Zhang JG, Wei ZJ. 2021; An update on the nutritional, functional, sensory characteristics of soy products, and applications of new processing strategies. Trends Food Sci Technol. 112:676-689

20.

Caponio GR, Wang DQH, Di Ciaula A, De Angelis M, Portincasa P. 2020; Regulation of cholesterol metabolism by bioactive components of soy proteins: Novel translational evidence. Int J Mol Sci. 22:227

21.

Carvalho P, Spataru C. 2023; Gaps in the governance of floods, droughts, and heatwaves in the United Kingdom. Front Earth Sci. 11:1124166

22.

Celebi-Birand D, Genc K, Agun I, Erikci E, Akcali KC, Kiran F. 2023; Microbiota-derived postbiotics enhance the proliferative effects of growth factors on satellite cells in cultivated meat applications. Sustainability. 15:16164

23.

Chao C, Park HJ, Kim HW. 2024; Effect of l-cysteine on functional properties and fibrous structure formation of 3D-printed meat analogs from plant-based proteins. Food Chem. 439:137972

24.

Chen L, Guttieres D, Koenigsberg A, Barone PW, Sinskey AJ, Springs SL. 2022a; Large-scale cultured meat production: Trends, challenges and promising biomanufacturing technologies. Biomaterials. 280:121274

25.

Chen Q, Zhang J, Zhang Y, Kaplan DL, Wang Q. 2022b; Protein-amylose/amylopectin molecular interactions during high-moisture extruded texturization toward plant-based meat substitutes applications. Food Hydrocoll. 127:107559

26.

Chen X, Chen H, Zhao M, Yang Z, Feng Y. 2022c; Insect industrialization and prospect in commerce: A case of China. Entomol Res. 52:178-194

27.

Chen Y, Ye S, Liu L, Ren Y, Li Q, Zhang C, Qian JY. 2023; Influence of ohmic heating on structure, texture and flavor of peanut protein isolate. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol. 90:103512

28.

Cho SJ. 2023; Materials and technologies for manufacturing alternative protein foods. Food Sci Ind. 56:175-185

29.

Cho SY, Kwon HT, Park Y, Joo B, Cho M, Gu BJ, Ryu GH. 2023; Comparison of the quality characteristics of plant-based burger patties prepared using low- and high-moisture meat analogs. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr. 52:1153-1159

30.

Cho SY, Ryu GH. 2022; Quality characteristics of plant-based proteins used in meat analogs. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr. 51:375-380

31.

Choi BD, Wong NAK, Auh JH. 2017; Defatting and sonication enhances protein extraction from edible insects. Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour. 37:955-961.

32.

Choi HW, Ryu GH. 2022; Comparison of the physicochemical properties of low and high-moisture extruded meat analog with varying moisture content. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr. 51:162-169

33.

Costa-Catala J, Toro-Funes N, Comas-Basté O, Hernández-Macias S, Sánchez-Pérez S, Latorre-Moratalla ML, Veciana-Nogués MT, Castell-Garralda V, Vidal-Carou MC. 2023; Comparative assessment of the nutritional profile of meat products and their plant-based analogues. Nutrients. 15:2807

34.

Daub CH, Gerhard C. 2022; Essento insect food AG: How edible insects evolved from an infringement into a sustainable business model. Int J Entrep Innov. 23:280-290

35.

De Angelis D, van der Goot AJ, Pasqualone A, Summo C. 2024; Advancements in texturization processes for the development of plant-based meat analogs: A review. Curr Opin Food Sci. :101192

36.

Devi WD, Bonysana R, Kapesa K, Mukherjee PK, Rajashekar Y. 2023; Edible insects: As traditional medicine for human wellness. Future Foods. 7:100219

37.

Dinani ST, Zhang Y, Vardhanabhuti B, van der Goot AJ. 2023; Enhancing textural properties in plant-based meat alternatives: The impact of hydrocolloids and salts on soy protein-based products. Curr Res Food Sci. 7:100571

38.

Dong N, Xue C, Yang Y, Chang Y, Wang Y, Guo H, Liu Y, Wang Y. 2023; Auxenochlorella pyrenoidosa extract supplementation replacing fetal bovine serum for Carassius auratus muscle cell culture under low-serum conditions. Food Res Int. 164:112438

39.

Du Q, Tu M, Liu J, Ding Y, Zeng X, Pan D. 2023; Plant-based meat analogs and fat substitutes, structuring technology and protein digestion: A review. Food Res Int. 170:112959

40.

Feng Q, Niu Z, Zhang S, Wang L, Qun S, Yan Z, Hou D, Zhou S. 2024; Mung bean protein as an emerging source of plant protein: A review on production methods, functional properties, modifications and its potential applications. J Sci Food Agric. 104:2561-2573

41.

Fiorentini M, Kinchla AJ, Nolden AA. 2020; Role of sensory evaluation in consumer acceptance of plant-based meat analogs and meat extenders: A scoping review. Foods. 9:1334

42.

Flaibam B, da Silva MF, de Mélo AHF, Carvalho PH, Galland F, Pacheco MTB, Goldbeck R. 2024; Non-animal protein hydrolysates from agro-industrial wastes: A prospect of alternative inputs for cultured meat. Food Chem. 443:138515

43.

Flint M, Bowles S, Lynn A, Paxman JR. 2023; Novel plant-based meat alternatives: Future opportunities and health considerations. Proc Nutr Soc. 82:370-385

44.

Flory J, Xiao R, Li Y, Dogan H, Talavera MJ, Alavi S. 2023; Understanding protein functionality and its impact on quality of plant-based meat analogues. Foods. 12:3232

45.

Ghosh J, Haraguchi Y, Asahi T, Nakao Y, Shimizu T. 2023; Muscle cell proliferation using water-soluble extract from nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria Anabaena sp. PCC 7120 for sustainable cultured meat production. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 682:316-324

46.

Giménez-Ribes G, Oostendorp M, van der Goot AJ, van der Linden E, Habibi M. 2024; Effect of fiber properties and orientation on the shear rheology and Poynting effect in meat and meat analogues. Food Hydrocoll. 149:109509

47.

Gkinali AA, Matsakidou A, Paraskevopoulou A. 2022; Characterization of Tenebrio molitor larvae protein preparations obtained by different extraction approaches. Foods. 11:3852

48.

Godschalk-Broers L, Sala G, Scholten E. 2022; Meat analogues: Relating structure to texture and sensory perception. Foods. 11:2227

49.

González N, Marquès M, Nadal M, Domingo JL. 2020; Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010–2020) evidences. Food Res Int. 137:109341

50.

Gravel A, Doyen A. 2020; The use of edible insect proteins in food: Challenges and issues related to their functional properties. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol. 59:102272

51.

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. 10:1226

52.

Hall F, Johnson PE, Liceaga A. 2018; Effect of enzymatic hydrolysis on bioactive properties and allergenicity of cricket (Gryllodes sigillatus) protein. Food Chem. 262:39-47

53.

Hammer L, Moretti D, Abbühl-Eng L, Kandiah P, Hilaj N, Portmann R, Egger L. 2023; Mealworm larvae (Tenebrio molitor) and crickets (Acheta domesticus) show high total protein in vitro digestibility and can provide good-to-excellent protein quality as determined by in vitro DIAAS. Front Nutr. 10:1150581

54.

Han R, Shin JT, Kim J, Choi YS, Kim YW. 2017; An overview of the South Korean edible insect food industry: Challenges and future pricing/promotion strategies. Entomol Res. 47:141-151

55.

Haraguchi Y, Okamoto Y, Shimizu T. 2022; A circular cell culture system using microalgae and mammalian myoblasts for the production of sustainable cultured meat. Arch Microbiol. 204:615

56.

Hou Y, Xia S, Ma C, Xue C, Jiang X. 2023; Effects of the soy protein to wheat gluten ratio on the physicochemical and structural properties of Alaska pollock surimi-based meat analogs by high moisture extrusion. Food Res Int. 173:113469

57.

Hu A, Li T, Zhou H, Guo F, Wang Q, Zhang J. 2024; Water binding ability changes of different proteins during high-moisture extrusion. Food Hydrocoll. 152:109935

58.

Hwang J, Kim JJ. 2021; Edible insects: How to increase the sustainable consumption behavior among restaurant consumers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 18:6520

59.

Hwang JH, You J, Moon J, Jeong J. 2020; Factors affecting consumers’ alternative meats buying intentions: Plant-based meat alternative and cultured meat. Sustainability. 12:5662

60.

Hwang N, Gu BJ, Ryu GH. 2023; Physicochemical properties of low-moisture extruded meat analog by replacing isolated soy with mung bean protein. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr. 52:836-843

61.

Im HS, You GS, Jung YH, Shin HJ. 2023; Recent research trends in mushroom mycelium-based materials. Korean Soc Biotechnol Bioeng J. 38:153-161

62.

Jaeger H, Roth A, Toepfl S, Holzhauser T, Engel KH, Knorr D, Vogel RF, Bandick N, Kulling S, Heinz V, Steinberg P. 2016; Opinion on the use of ohmic heating for the treatment of foods. Trends Food Sci Technol. 55:84-97

63.

Jang HB, Baek J, Choi YS, Jang HW. 2022; Quality characteristics and antioxidant activities of rice cookies prepared with Tenebrio molitor, Protaetia brevitarsis, and Gryllus bimaculatus powder. Korean J Food Sci Technol. 54:171-178.

64.

Jeong MS, Lee SD, Cho SJ. 2021; Effect of three defatting solvents on the techno-functional properties of an edible insect (Gryllus bimaculatus) protein concentrate. Molecules. 26:5307

65.

Joshi K, Shabani E, Kabir SMF, Zhou H, McClements DJ, Park JH. 2023; Optimizing protein fiber spinning to develop plant-based meat analogs via rheological and physicochemical analyses. Foods. 12:3161

66.

Joshi VK, Kumar S. 2015; Meat analogues: Plant based alternatives to meat products: A review. Int J Food Ferment Technol. 5:107-119

67.

Jung AH, Hwang JH, Jun S, Park SH. 2022; Application of ohmic cooking to produce a soy protein-based meat analogue. LWT-Food Sci Technol. 160:113271

68.

Jung M, Lee Y, Han SO, Hyeon JE. 2024; Advancements in sustainable plant-based alternatives: Exploring proteins, fats, and manufacturing challenges in alternative meat production. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 34:994-1002

69.

Kamalapuram SK, Handral H, Choudhury D. 2021; Cultured meat prospects for a billion! Foods. 10:2922

70.

Kang KM, Lee SH, Kim HY. 2022; Effects of using soybean protein emulsion as a meat substitute for chicken breast on physicochemical properties of Vienna sausage. Food Sci Anim Resour. 42:73-83

71.

Kim A, Öström Å, Mihnea M, Niimi J. 2024a; Consumers’ attachment to meat: Association between sensory properties and preferences for plant-based meat alternatives. Food Qual Prefer. 116:105134

72.

Kim CH, Lee HJ, Jung DY, Kim M, Jung HY, Hong H, Choi YS, Yong HI, Jo C. 2023a; Evaluation of fermented soybean meal and edible insect hydrolysates as potential serum replacement in pig muscle stem cell culture. Food Biosci. 54:102923

73.

Kim SH, Kim Y, Han JS. 2020a; Antioxidant activities and nutritional components of cricket (Gryllus bimaculatus) powder and protein extract. Asian J Beauty Cosmetol. 18:163-172

74.

Kim SK, Weaver CM, Choi MK. 2017; Proximate composition and mineral content of five edible insects consumed in Korea. CyTA - J Food. 15:143-146

75.

Kim SY, Kim HG, Ko HJ, Kim MA, Kim IW, Seo M, Lee JH, Lee HJ, Baek M, Hwang JS, Yoon HJ. 2019a; Comparative analysis of nutrients and hazardous substances in Zophobas atratus larvae. J Life Sci. 29:1378-1385.

76.

Kim SY, Kwak KW, Kim E, Park K, Kim NH, Song MH, Kim YS, Yoon HJ. 2020b; Comparative analysis of nutrients and hazardous substances in Locusta migratoria from host plants. Korean J Environ Agric. 39:253-262

77.

Kim SY, Park MJ, Song JH, Ji SM, Chang GD, Kim SY. 2024b; Improving the nutritional value of Tenebrio molitor larvae by feeding ThemaSoymilk residue-added food source. J Life Sci. 34:191-198.

78.

Kim TK, Yong HI, Jeong CH, Han SG, Kim YB, Paik HD, Choi YS. 2019b; Technical functional properties of water-and salt-soluble proteins extracted from edible insects. Food Sci Anim Resour. 39:643

79.

Kim TK, Yong HI, Kim YB, Jung S, Kim HW, Choi YS. 2021; Effects of organic solvent on functional properties of defatted proteins extracted from Protaetia brevitarsis larvae. Food Chem. 336:127679

80.

Kim TK, Yong HI, Kim YB, Kim HW, Choi YS. 2019c; Edible insects as a protein source: A review of public perception, processing technology, and research trends. Food Sci Anim Resour. 39:521-540

81.

Kim Y, Oh S, Park G, Park S, Park Y, Choi H, Kim M, Choi J. 2023b Characteristics of bovine muscle satellite cell from different breeds for efficient production of cultured meat. J Anim Sci Technol (in press). doi:

82.

Köllmann N, Sivakul K, Zhang L, van der Goot AJ. 2024; Effect of mixing and hydrating time on the structural properties of high-temperature shear cell products from multiple plant-based ingredients. J Food Eng. 369:111911

83.

Kolobe SD, Manyelo TG, Malematja E, Sebola NA, Mabelebele M. 2023; Fats and major fatty acids present in edible insects utilised as food and livestock feed. Vet Anim Sci. 22:100312

84.

Kołodziejczak K, Onopiuk A, Szpicer A, Poltorak A. 2021; Meat analogues in the perspective of recent scientific research: A review. Foods. 11:105

85.

Kombolo Ngah M, Chriki S, Ellies-Oury MP, Liu J, Hocquette JF. 2023; Consumer perception of “artificial meat” in the educated young and urban population of Africa. Front Nutr. 10:1127655

86.

Krintiras GA, Göbel J, van der Goot AJ, Stefanidis GD. 2015; Production of structured soy-based meat analogues using simple shear and heat in a Couette Cell. J Food Eng. 160:34-41

87.

Kulus M, Jankowski M, Kranc W, Golkar Narenji A, Farzaneh M, Dzięgiel P, Zabel M, Antosik P, Bukowska D, Mozdziak P, Kempisty B. 2023; Bioreactors, scaffolds and microcarriers and in vitro meat production: Current obstacles and potential solutions. Front Nutr. 10:1225233

88.

Kumar P, Sharma N, Ahmed MA, Verma AK, Umaraw P, Mehta N, Abubakar AA, Hayat MN, Kaka U, Lee SJ, Sazili AQ. 2022; Technological interventions in improving the functionality of proteins during processing of meat analogs. Front Nutr. 9:1044024

89.

Kurek MA, Onopiuk A, Pogorzelska-Nowicka E, Szpicer A, Zalewska M, Półtorak A. 2022; Novel protein sources for applications in meat-alternative products: Insight and challenges. Foods. 11:957

90.

Kyriakopoulou K, Keppler JK, van Der Goot AJ. 2021; Functionality of ingredients and additives in plant-based meat analogues. Foods. 10:600

91.

Lee CC, Zeng M, Luo K. 2024a; How does climate change affect food security? Evidence from China. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 104:107324

92.

Lee DY, Han DH, Lee SY, Yun SH, Lee J, Mariano E, Choi YW, Kim JS, Park J, Hur SJ. 2024b; Preliminary study on comparison of egg extraction methods for development of fetal bovine serum substitutes in cultured meat. Food Chem X. 21:101202

93.

Lee DY, Lee SY, Yun SH, Jeong JW, Kim JH, Kim HW, Choi JS, Kim GD, Joo ST, Choi I, Hur SJ. 2022c; Review of the current research on fetal bovine serum and the development of cultured meat. Food Sci Anim Resour. 42:775-779

94.

Lee HJ, Yong HI, Kim M, Choi YS, Jo C. 2020a; Status of meat alternatives and their potential role in the future meat market: A review. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 33:1533-1543

95.

Lee JH, Kim TK, Park SY, Kang MC, Cha JY, Lim MC, Choi YS. 2023a; Effects of blanching methods on nutritional properties and physicochemical characteristics of hot-air dried edible insect larvae. Food Sci Anim Resour. 43:428-440

96.

Lee JS, Choi I, Han J. 2022a; Construction of rice protein-based meat analogues by extruding process: Effect of substitution of soy protein with rice protein on dynamic energy, appearance, physicochemical, and textural properties of meat analogues. Food Res Int. 161:111840

97.

Lee JS, Oh H, Choi I, Yoon CS, Han J. 2022b; Physico-chemical characteristics of rice protein-based novel textured vegetable proteins as meat analogues produced by low-moisture extrusion cooking technology. LWT-Food Sci Technol. 157:113056

98.

Lee S, Choi YS, Jo K, Kim TK, Yong HI, Jung S. 2020b; Quality characteristics and protein digestibility of Protaetia brevitarsis larvae. J Anim Sci Technol. 62:741-752

99.

Lee SY, Lee DY, Jeong JW, Kim JH, Yun SH, Mariano E, Lee J, Park S, Jo C, Hur SJ. 2023b; Current technologies, regulation, and future perspective of animal product analogs: A review. Anim Biosci. 36:1465-1487

100.

Levasseur P, Mariotti F, Denis I, Davidenko O. 2024; Potential unexpected effects of meat reduction in diet: Could educational attainment influence meat substitution strategies?. Agric Food Econ. 12:4

101.

Levi S, Yen FC, Baruch L, Machluf M. 2022; Scaffolding technologies for the engineering of cultured meat: Towards a safe, sustainable, and scalable production. Trends Food Sci Technol. 126:13-25

102.

Liang Z, Zhu Y, Leonard W, Fang Z. 2024; Recent advances in edible insect processing technologies. Food Res Int. 182:114137

103.

Lim T, Chang H, Saad MK, Joyce CM, Park B, O’Beirne SX, Cohen MA, Kaplan DL. 2024; Development of serum-reduced medium for Mackerel muscle cell line cultivation. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 12:11683-11691

104.

Liu Y, Wang R, Ding S, Deng L, Zhang Y, Li J, Shi Z, Wu Z, Liang K, Yan X, Liu W, Du Y. 2022; Engineered meatballs via scalable skeletal muscle cell expansion and modular micro-tissue assembly using porous gelatin micro-carriers. Biomaterials. 287:121615

105.

Lv Y, Xu L, Tang T, Li J, Gu L, Chang C, Zhang M, Yang Y, Su Y. 2023; Gel properties of soy protein isolate-potato protein-egg white composite gel: Study on rheological properties, microstructure, and digestibility. Food Hydrocoll. 135:108223

106.

Mahari WAW, Peng W, Nam WL, Yang H, Lee XY, Lee YK, Liew RK, Ma NL, Mohammad A, Sonne C, Le QV, Show PL, Chen WH, Lam SS. 2020; A review on valorization of oyster mushroom and waste generated in the mushroom cultivation industry. J Hazard Mater. 400:123156

107.

Mancini S, Sogari G, Espinosa Diaz S, Menozzi D, Paci G, Moruzzo R. 2022; Exploring the future of edible insects in Europe. Foods. 11:455

108.

Maningat CC, Jeradechachai T, Buttshaw MR. 2022; Textured wheat and pea proteins for meat alternative applications. Cereal Chem. 99:37-66

109.

Manning L. 2024; Responsible innovation: Mitigating the food safety aspects of cultured meat production. J Food Sci. 89:4638-4659

110.

Mejrhit N, Azdad O, Chda A, El Kabbaoui M, Bousfiha A, Bencheikh R, Tazi A, Aarab L. 2017; Evaluation of the sensitivity of Moroccans to shrimp tropomyosin and effect of heating and enzymatic treatments. Food Agric Immunol. 28:969-980

111.

Mekuria SA, Kinyuru JN, Mokua BK, Tenagashaw MW. 2021; Nutritional quality and safety of complementary foods developed from blends of staple grains and honey bee larvae (Apis mellifera). Int J Food Sci. 2021:5581585

112.

Melville H, Shahid M, Gaines A, McKenzie BL, Alessandrini R, Trieu K, Wu JHY, Rosewarne E, Coyle DH. 2023; The nutritional profile of plant-based meat analogues available for sale in Australia. Nutr Diet. 80:211-222

113.

Messina M, Sievenpiper JL, Williamson P, Kiel J, Erdman JW. 2022; Perspective: Soy-based meat and dairy alternatives, despite classification as ultra-processed foods, deliver high-quality nutrition on par with unprocessed or minimally processed animal-based counterparts. Adv Nutr. 13:726-738

114.

Milani TMG, Conti AC. 2024; Textured soy protein with meat odor as an ingredient for improving the sensory quality of meat analog and soy burger. J Food Sci Technol. 61:743-752

115.

Ministry of Food and Drug Safety [MFDS]. 2023. Alternative foods labeling guidelines (complainant manual) (manual-1319-01). Available from: https://www.mfds.go.kr/brd/m_1060/view.do?seq=15387&srchFr=&srchTo=&srchWord=&srchTp=&itm_seq_1=0&itm_seq_2=0&multi_itm_seq=0&company_cd=&company_nm=&page=1Accessed at May 24, 2024.

116.

Mintah BK, He R, Dabbour M, Agyekum AA, Xing Z, Golly MK, Ma H. 2019; Sonochemical action and reaction of edible insect protein: Influence on enzymolysis reaction-kinetics, free-Gibbs, structure, and antioxidant capacity. J Food Biochem. 43e12982

117.

Mishal S, Kanchan S, Bhushette P, Sonawane SK. 2022; Development of plant based meat analogue. Food Sci Appl Biotechnol. 5:45-53

118.

Mishyna M, Keppler JK, Chen J. 2021; Techno-functional properties of edible insect proteins and effects of processing. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci. 56:101508

119.

Moruzzo R, Mancini S, Guidi A. 2021; Edible insects and sustainable development goals. Insects. 12:557

120.

Muhlhauser P, Drews M, Reitz R. 2021; Grilling Meataphors: Impossible™ foods and posthumanism in the meat aisle. Humanities. 10:49

121.

Muluneh MG. 2021; Impact of climate change on biodiversity and food security: A global perspective: A review article. Agric Food Secur. 10:36

122.

Munteanu C, Mireşan V, Răducu C, Ihuţ A, Uiuiu P, Pop D, Neacşu A, Cenariu M, Groza I. 2021; Can cultured meat be an alternative to farm animal production for a sustainable and healthier lifestyle?. Front Nutr. 8:749298

123.

Nikkhah A, Rohani A, Zarei M, Kulkarni A, Batarseh FA, Blackstone NT, Ovissipour R. 2023; Toward sustainable culture media: Using artificial intelligence to optimize reduced-serum formulations for cultivated meat. Sci Total Environ. 894:164988

124.

Nowacka M, Trusinska M, Chraniuk P, Drudi F, Lukasiewicz J, Nguyen NP, Przybyszewska A, Pobiega K, Tappi S, Tylewicz U, Rybak K, Wiktor A. 2023; Developments in plant proteins production for meat and fish analogues. Molecules. 28:2966

125.

Oh J, Park C, Ahn D, Byun J, Jung SP. 2023a; Veganomics: Current status and challenges. J Korean Soc Environ Eng. 45:296-310

126.

Oh S, Kim Y, Choi N, Kim H, Choi J. 2022; Effect of chicken serum and horse serum on proliferation and differentiation of chicken muscle satellite cells. Resour Sci Res. 4:96-104

127.

Oh S, Park S, Park Y, Kim Y, Park G, Cui X, Kim K, Joo S, Hur S, Kim G, Choi J. 2023b; Culturing characteristics of Hanwoo myosatellite cells and C2C12 cells incubated at 37°C and 39°C for cultured meat. J Anim Sci Technol. 65:664-678

128.

Okamoto Y, Haraguchi Y, Yoshida A, Takahashi H, Yamanaka K, Sawamura N, Asahi T, Shimizu T. 2022; Proliferation and differentiation of primary bovine myoblasts using Chlorella vulgaris extract for sustainable production of cultured meat. Biotechnol Prog. 38e3239

129.

Okeudo-Cogan MC, Yang S, Murray BS, Ettelaie R, Connell SD, Radford S, Micklethwaite S, Benitez-Alfonso Y, Yeshvekar R, Sarkar A. 2024; Multivalent cations modulating microstructure and interactions of potato protein and fungal hyphae in a functional meat analogue. Food Hydrocoll. 149:109569

130.

Omotoso OT. 2015; An evaluation of the nutrients and some anti-nutrients in silkworm, Bombyx mori L. (Bombycidae: Lepidoptera). Jordan J Biol Sci. 8:45-50

131.

Pal A, Mann A, den Bakker HC. 2024; Analysis of microbial composition of edible insect products available for human consumption within the United States using traditional microbiological methods and whole genome sequencings. J Food Prot. 87:100277

132.

Pan J, Xu H, Cheng Y, Mintah BK, Dabbour M, Yang F, Chen W, Zhang Z, Dai C, He R, Ma H. 2022; Recent insight on edible insect protein: Extraction, functional properties, allergenicity, bioactivity, and applications. Foods. 11:2931

133.

Park S, Jung S, Choi M, Lee M, Choi B, Koh W, Lee S, Hong J. 2021a; Gelatin MAGIC powder as nutrient-delivering 3D spacer for growing cell sheets into cost-effective cultured meat. Biomaterials. 278:121155

134.

Park S, Jung S, Heo J, Koh WG, Lee S, Hong J. 2021b; Chitosan/cellulose-based porous nanofilm delivering C-phycocyanin: A novel platform for the production of cost-effective cultured meat. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 13:32193-32204

135.

Park S, Lee H, Jung S, Choi B, Lee M, Jung SY, Lee ST, Lee S, Hong J. 2023a; Cost-effective culture medium for cell-based future foods. ACS Sustain Chem Eng. 11:13868-13876

136.

Park S, Sim H, Yu S, Han H, Jung SP. 2023b; Alternative meat as future food, seeking a sustainable future. J Korean Soc Environ Eng. 45:491-505

137.

Patil HN. 2023; Awareness and acceptance of cultured meat. ATITHYA J Hosp. 9:12-17.

138.

Pérez-Montes A, Rangel-Vargas E, Lorenzo JM, Romero L, Santos EM. 2021; Edible mushrooms as a novel trend in the development of healthier meat products. Curr Opin Food Sci. 37:118-124

139.

Pinel G, Berthelot U, Queiroz LS, Santiago LDA, Silva NFN, Petersen HO, Sloth JJ, Altay I, Marie R, Feyissa AH, Casanova F, Doyen A. 2024; Influence of the processing on composition, protein structure and techno-functional properties of mealworm protein concentrates produced by isoelectric precipitation and ultrafiltration/diafiltration. Food Chem. 449:139177

140.

Population Reference Bureau [PRB]. 2020. 2020 World population data sheet. Available from: https://www.prb.org/2020-world-population-data-sheet/Accessed at May 24, 2024.

141.

Pöri P, Aisala H, Liu J, Lille M, Sozer N. 2023; Structure, texture, and sensory properties of plant-meat hybrids produced by high-moisture extrusion. LWT-Food Sci Technol. 173:114345

142.

Post MJ. 2012; Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects. Meat Sci. 92:297-301

143.

Prosekov AY, Ivanova SA. 2016; Providing food security in the existing tendencies of population growth and political and economic instability in the world. Foods Raw Mater. 4:201-211

144.

Rachmawati RR, Agustian A, Purba HJ, Rachman B, Susilowati SH, Ariningsih E, Ariani M, Muslim C, Nurjati E, Inayah I. 2024; Study on the potential and development policy of beef cattle in Cianjur district, West Java province. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 1292:012033

145.

Raheem D, Carrascosa C, Oluwole OB, Nieuwland M, Saraiva A, Millán R, Raposo A. 2019; Traditional consumption of and rearing edible insects in Africa, Asia and Europe. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 59:2169-2188

146.

Rahim A, Salhi S, El Khelfaoui N, Badaoui B, Essamadi A, El Amiri B. 2024; Effect of C-phycocyanin purified from Spirulina platensis on cooled ram semen quality and in vivo fertility. Theriogenology. 215:234-240

147.

Reis GG, Heidemann MS, Borini FM, Molento CFM. 2020; Livestock value chain in transition: Cultivated (cell-based) meat and the need for breakthrough capabilities. Technol Soc. 62:101286

148.

Reiss J, Robertson S, Suzuki M. 2021; Cell sources for cultivated meat: Applications and considerations throughout the production workflow. Int J Mol Sci. 22:7513

149.

Rolland NCM, Markus CR, Post MJ. 2020; The effect of information content on acceptance of cultured meat in a tasting context. PLOS ONE. 15e0231176

150.

Rosinger AY, Rosinger K, Barnhart K, Todd M, Hamilton T, Arias Cuellar K, Nate D. 2023; When the flood passes, does health return? A short panel examining water and food insecurity, nutrition, and disease after an extreme flood in lowland Bolivia. Am J Hum Biol. 35e23806

151.

Rumpold BA, Schlüter OK. 2013; Potential and challenges of insects as an innovative source for food and feed production. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol. 17:1-11

152.

Sambo U, Sule B. 2024; Impact of climate change on food security in Northern Nigeria. Green Low-Carbon Econ. 2:49-61

153.

Schopf M, Wehrli MC, Becker T, Jekle M, Scherf KA. 2021; Fundamental characterization of wheat gluten. Eur Food Res Technol. 247:985-997

154.

Schreuders FKG, Dekkers BL, Bodnár I, Erni P, Boom RM, van der Goot AJ. 2019; Comparing structuring potential of pea and soy protein with gluten for meat analogue preparation. J Food Eng. 261:32-39

155.

Shafique L, Abdel-Latif HMR, Hassan F, Alagawany M, Naiel MAE, Dawood MAO, Yilmaz S, Liu Q. 2021; The feasibility of using yellow mealworms (Tenebrio molitor): Towards a sustainable aquafeed industry. Animals. 11:811

156.

Shahbazpour N, Khosravi-Darani K, Sharifan A, Hosseini H. 2021; Replacement of meat by mycoproteins in cooked sausages: Effects on oxidative stability, texture, and color. Ital J Food Sci. 33:163-169

157.

Shewry P. 2019; What is gluten: Why is it special?. Front Nutr. 6:101

158.

Siddiqui SA, Osei-Owusu J, Yunusa BM, Rahayu T, Fernando I, Shah MA, Centoducati G. 2023; Prospects of edible insects as sustainable protein for food and feed: A review. J Insects Food Feed. 1:191-217

159.

Siddiqui SA, Zannou O, Karim I, Kasmiati , Awad NMH, Gołaszewski J, Heinz V, Smetana S. 2022; Avoiding food neophobia and increasing consumer acceptance of new food trends: A decade of research. Sustainability. 14:10391

160.

Sim EM, Park KH, Lee DG, Shin SH. 2022; Effect of the consumption value of vegetable meat on positive attitudes and purchase intentions: Focusing on the effect of controlling price sensitivity. Culin Sci Hosp Res. 28:55-68.

161.

Singh M, Trivedi N, Enamala MK, Kuppam C, Parikh P, Nikolova MP, Chavali M. 2021; Plant-based meat analogue (PBMA) as a sustainable food: A concise review. Eur Food Res Technol. 247:2499-2526

162.

Skotnicka M, Karwowska K, Kłobukowski F, Borkowska A, Pieszko M. 2021; Possibilities of the development of edible insect-based foods in Europe. Foods. 10:766

163.

Skrivergaard S, Rasmussen MK, Sahebekhtiari N, Young JF, Therkildsen M. 2023; Satellite cells sourced from bull calves and dairy cows differs in proliferative and myogenic capacity: Implications for cultivated meat. Food Res Int. 173:113217

164.

So BC. 2023; Practical legal alternative for the climate crisis. Korean J Int Comp Law. 68:99-134

165.

Stout AJ, Mirliani AB, Rittenberg ML, Shub M, White EC, Yuen JSK, Kaplan DL. 2022; Simple and effective serum-free medium for sustained expansion of bovine satellite cells for cell cultured meat. Commun Biol. 5:466

166.

Stout AJ, Rittenberg ML, Shub M, Saad MK, Mirliani AB, Dolgin J, Kaplan DL. 2023; A Beefy-R culture medium: Replacing albumin with rapeseed protein isolates. Biomaterials. 296:122092

167.

Strong PJ, Self R, Allikian K, Szewczyk E, Speight R, O’Hara I, Harrison MD. 2022; Filamentous fungi for future functional food and feed. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 76:102729

168.

Su T, Le B, Zhang W, Bak KH, Soladoye PO, Zhao Z, Zhao Y, Fu Y, Wu W. 2024; Technological challenges and future perspectives of plant-based meat analogues: From the viewpoint of proteins. Food Res Int. 186:114351

169.

Sun C, Ge J, He J, Gan R, Fang Y. 2021; Processing, quality, safety, and acceptance of meat analogue products. Engineering. 7:674-678

170.

Sun Y, Dong M, Bai J, Liu X, Yang X, Duan X. 2024; Preparation and properties of high-soluble wheat gluten protein-based meat analogues. J Sci Food Agric. 104:42-50

171.

Sun Y, Zhang M, Fang Z. 2020; Efficient physical extraction of active constituents from edible fungi and their potential bioactivities: A review. Trends Food Sci Technol. 105:468-482

172.

Szpicer A, Onopiuk A, Barczak M, Kurek M. 2022; The optimization of a gluten-free and soy-free plant-based meat analogue recipe enriched with anthocyanins microcapsules. LWT-Food Sci Technol. 168:113849

173.

Tang C, Yang D, Liao H, Sun H, Liu C, Wei L, Li F. 2019; Edible insects as a food source: A review. Food Prod Process Nutr. 1:1-13

174.

Tang M, Miri T, Soltani F, Onyeaka H, Al-Sharify ZT. 2024; Life cycle assessment of plant-based vs. beef burgers: A case study in the UK. Sustainability. 16:4417

175.

Teng TS, Lee JJL, Chen WN. 2023; Ultrafiltrated extracts of fermented Okara as a possible serum alternative for cell culturing: Potential in cultivated meat production. ACS Food Sci Technol. 3:699-709

176.

To KV, Comer CC, O’Keefe SF, Lahne J. 2024; A taste of cell-cultured meat: A scoping review. Front Nutr. 11:1332765

177.

Trinidad KR, Ashizawa R, Nikkhah A, Semper C, Casolaro C, Kaplan DL, Savchenko A, Blackstone NT. 2023; Environmental life cycle assessment of recombinant growth factor production for cultivated meat applications. J Clean Prod. 419:138153

178.

Varghese KS, Pandey MC, Radhakrishna K, Bawa AS. 2014; Technology, applications and modelling of ohmic heating: A review. J Food Sci Technol. 51:2304-2317

179.

Venkatesan M, Semper C, Skrivergaard S, Di Leo R, Mesa N, Rasmussen MK, Young JF, Therkildsen M, Stogios PJ, Savchenko A. 2022; Recombinant production of growth factors for application in cell culture. iScience. 25:105054

180.

Verbeke W, Marcu A, Rutsaert P, Gaspar R, Seibt B, Fletcher D, Barnett J. 2015; ‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers’ reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Meat Sci. 102:49-58

181.

Vignesh K, Yadav DK, Wadikar DD, Semwal AD. 2024; Exploring sustenance: Cereal legume combinations for vegan meat development. Sustain Food Technol. 2:32-47

182.

Vural Y, Ferriday D, Rogers PJ. 2023; Consumers’ attitudes towards alternatives to conventional meat products: Expectations about taste and satisfaction, and the role of disgust. Appetite. 181:106394

183.

Wali ME, Karinen H, Rønning SB, Skrivergaard S, Dorca-Preda T, Rasmussen MK, Young JF, Therkildsen M, Mogensen L, Ryynänen T, Tuomisto HL. 2024; Life cycle assessment of culture media with alternative compositions for cultured meat production. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 29:2077-2093

184.

Wang T, Kaur L, Furuhata Y, Aoyama H, Singh J. 2022a; 3D printing of textured soft hybrid meat analogues. Foods. 11:478

185.

Wang Y, Cai W, Li L, Gao Y, Lai K. 2023; Recent advances in the processing and manufacturing of plant-based meat. J Agric Food Chem. 71:1276-1290

186.

Wang Y, Zhao J, Zhang S, Zhao X, Liu Y, Jiang J, Xiong YL. 2022b; Structural and rheological properties of mung bean protein emulsion as a liquid egg substitute: The effect of pH shifting and calcium. Food Hydrocoll. 126:107485

187.

Wedamulla NE, Zhang Q, Kim SH, Choi YJ, Bae SM, Kim EK. 2024; Korean edible insects: A promising sustainable resource of proteins and peptides for formulating future functional foods. Food Suppl Biomater Health. 4e5

188.

Wei Y, Li L, Liu Y, Xiang S, Zhang H, Yi L, Shang Y, Xu W. 2022; Identification techniques and detection methods of edible fungi species. Food Chem. 374:131803

189.

Wen Y, Chao C, Che QT, Kim HW, Park HJ. 2023; Development of plant-based meat analogs using 3D printing: Status and opportunities. Trends Food Sci Technol. 132:76-92

190.

Wittek P, Ellwanger F, Karbstein HP, Emin MA. 2021; Morphology development and flow characteristics during high moisture extrusion of a plant-based meat analogue. Foods. 10:1753

191.

World Health Organization [WHO]. 2023 Red and processed meat in the context of health and the environment: Many shades of red and green: Information brief. WHO. Geneva, Switzerland: .

192.

Xie B, Zhu Y, Chu X, Pokharel SS, Qian L, Chen F. 2024a; Research progress and production status of edible insects as food in China. Foods. 13:1986

193.

Xie Y, Cai L, Zhou G, Li C. 2024b; Comparison of nutritional profile between plant-based meat analogues and real meat: A review focusing on ingredients, nutrient contents, bioavailability, and health impacts. Food Res Int. 187:114460

194.

Yamanaka K, Haraguchi Y, Takahashi H, Kawashima I, Shimizu T. 2023; Development of serum-free and grain-derived-nutrient-free medium using microalga-derived nutrients and mammalian cell-secreted growth factors for sustainable cultured meat production. Sci Rep. 13:498

195.

Yan MQ, Feng J, Liu YF, Hu DM, Zhang JS. 2023; Functional components from the liquid fermentation of edible and medicinal fungi and their food applications in China. Foods. 12:2086

196.

Yoo YJ, Lee GW, Baek DH, Lee JW, Kim HS. 2020; Growth evaluation of lipid production microalgae Scenedesmus obliquus using Raman spectroscopy. J Korea Acad Ind Coop Soc. 21:223-229.

197.

You GY, Yong HI, Yu MH, Jeon KH. 2020; Development of meat analogues using vegetable protein: A review. Korean J Food Sci Technol. 52:167-171.

198.

Yu I, Choi J, Kim MK, Kim MJ. 2023; The comparison of commercial serum-free media for Hanwoo satellite cell proliferation and the role of fibroblast growth factor 2. Food Sci Anim Resour. 43:1017-1030

199.

Yu M, Wang H, Xu Y, Yu D, Li D, Liu X, Du W. 2015; Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) promotes myoblast proliferation and skeletal muscle growth of embryonic chickens via the PI3K/Akt signalling pathway. Cell Biol Int. 39:910-922

200.

Yuliarti O, Kovis TJK, Yi NJ. 2021; Structuring the meat analogue by using plant-based derived composites. J Food Eng. 288:110138

201.

Zahari I, Östbring K, Purhagen JK, Rayner M. 2022; Plant-based meat analogues from alternative protein: A systematic literature review. Foods. 11:2870

202.

Zhang E, Ji X, Ouyang F, Lei Y, Deng S, Rong H, Deng X, Shen H. 2023a; A minireview of the medicinal and edible insects from the traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Front Pharmacol. 14:1125600

203.

Zhang F, Yue Q, Li X, Kong B, Sun F, Cao C, Zhang H, Liu Q. 2023b; Mechanisms underlying the effects of ultrasound-assisted alkaline extraction on the structural properties and in vitro digestibility of Tenebrio molitor larvae protein. Ultrason Sonochem. 94:106335

204.

Zhang G, Zhao X, Li X, Du G, Zhou J, Chen J. 2020; Challenges and possibilities for bio-manufacturing cultured meat. Trends Food Sci Technol. 97:443-450

205.

Zhang R, Yang Y, Liu Q, Xu L, Bao H, Ren X, Jin Z, Jiao A. 2023c; Effect of wheat gluten and peanut protein ratio on the moisture distribution and textural quality of high-moisture extruded meat analogs from an extruder response perspective. Foods. 12:1696

206.

Zhang T, Dou W, Zhang X, Zhao Y, Zhang Y, Jiang L, Sui X. 2021a; The development history and recent updates on soy protein-based meat alternatives. Trends Food Sci Technol. 109:702-710

207.

Zhang Y, Wang D, Chen Y, Liu T, Zhang S, Fan H, Liu H, Li Y. 2021b; Healthy function and high valued utilization of edible fungi. Food Sci Hum Wellness. 10:408-420

208.

Zhang ZQ, Chen SC, Xiao JH, Huang DW. 2024; State-of-the-art review of edible insect: From bioactives, pretreatment to enrichment. Food Biosci. 59:103879

209.

Zhou Y, Wang D, Zhou S, Duan H, Guo J, Yan W. 2022; Nutritional composition, health benefits, and application value of edible insects: A review. Foods. 11:3961

210.

Zhu YY, Thakur K, Feng JY, Cai JS, Zhang JG, Hu F, Wei ZJ. 2020; B-vitamin enriched fermented soymilk: A novel strategy for soy-based functional foods development. Trends Food Sci Technol. 105:43-55

211.

Zielińska E, Baraniak B, Karaś M, Rybczyńska K, Jakubczyk A. 2015; Selected species of edible insects as a source of nutrient composition. Food Res Int. 77:460-466

212.

Żuk-Gołaszewska K, Gałęcki R, Obremski K, Smetana S, Figiel S, Gołaszewski J. 2022; Edible insect farming in the context of the EU regulations and marketing: An overview. Insects. 13:446