Projected environmental benefits of replacing beef with microbial protein.
Journal
Nature
ISSN: 1476-4687
Titre abrégé: Nature
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0410462
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2022
05 2022
Historique:
received:
03
05
2021
accepted:
10
03
2022
entrez:
4
5
2022
pubmed:
5
5
2022
medline:
7
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Ruminant meat provides valuable protein to humans, but livestock production has many negative environmental impacts, especially in terms of deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, water use and eutrophication
Identifiants
pubmed: 35508780
doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04629-w
pii: 10.1038/s41586-022-04629-w
doi:
Substances chimiques
Greenhouse Gases
0
Carbon Dioxide
142M471B3J
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
90-96Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 221362/Z/20/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).
pubmed: 29853680
doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0216
Soergel, B. et al. A sustainable development pathway for climate action within the UN 2030 Agenda. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 656–664 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01098-3
Hashempour-Baltork, F., Khosravi-Darani, K., Hosseini, H., Farshi, P. & Reihani, S. F. S. Mycoproteins as safe meat substitutes. J. Clean. Prod. 253, 119958 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.119958
Finnigan, T. J. A. et al. Mycoprotein: the future of nutritious nonmeat protein, a symposium review. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 3, nzz021 (2019).
pubmed: 31187084
pmcid: 6554455
doi: 10.1093/cdn/nzz021
Stephens, N. et al. Bringing cultured meat to market: technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 78, 155–166 (2018).
pubmed: 30100674
pmcid: 6078906
doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2018.04.010
Linder, T. Making the case for edible microorganisms as an integral part of a more sustainable and resilient food production system. Food Secur. 11, 265–278 (2019).
doi: 10.1007/s12571-019-00912-3
Rubio, N. R., Xiang, N. & Kaplan, D. L. Plant-based and cell-based approaches to meat production. Nat. Commun. 11, 6276 (2020).
pubmed: 33293564
pmcid: 7722853
doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-20061-y
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food and agricultural data. FAOSTAT https://www.fao.org/faostat (accessed 26 March 2021).
Herrero, M. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 452–461 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/nclimate2925
Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2, 198–209 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9
Steinfeld, H. & Gerber, P. Livestock production and the global environment: consume less or produce better? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18237–18238 (2010).
pubmed: 20935253
pmcid: 2972985
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1012541107
Weindl, I. et al. Livestock and human use of land: productivity trends and dietary choices as drivers of future land and carbon dynamics. Glob. Planet. Change 159, 1–10 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.10.002
Heinke, J. et al. Water use in global livestock production—opportunities and constraints for increasing water productivity. Water Resour. Res. 56, e2019WR026995 (2020).
doi: 10.1029/2019WR026995
Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818 (2010).
pubmed: 20110467
doi: 10.1126/science.1185383
Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.002
Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).
pubmed: 30660336
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
Sun, Z. et al. Dietary change in high-income nations alone can lead to substantial double climate dividend. Nat. Food 3, 29–37 (2022).
doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00431-5
Fehér, A., Gazdecki, M., Véha, M., Szakály, M. & Szakály, Z. A comprehensive review of the benefits of and the barriers to the switch to a plant-based diet. Sustainability 12, 4136 (2020).
doi: 10.3390/su12104136
Herrero, M. et al. Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nat. Food 1, 266–272 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s43016-020-0074-1
Stephens, N. & Ellis, M. Cellular agriculture in the UK: a review. Wellcome Open Res. 5, 12 (2020).
pubmed: 32090174
pmcid: 7014924
doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15685.1
Ciani, M. et al. Microbes: food for the future. Foods 10, 971 (2021).
pubmed: 33925123
pmcid: 8145633
doi: 10.3390/foods10050971
Sillman, J. et al. A life cycle environmental sustainability analysis of microbial protein production via power-to-food approaches. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25, 2190–2203 (2020).
doi: 10.1007/s11367-020-01771-3
Järviö, N., Maljanen, N.-L., Kobayashi, Y., Ryynänen, T. & Tuomisto, H. L. An attributional life cycle assessment of microbial protein production: a case study on using hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria. Sci. Total Environ. 776, 145764 (2021).
pubmed: 33639472
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145764
Edwards, D. G. & Cummings, J. H. The protein quality of mycoprotein. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 69, E331 (2010).
doi: 10.1017/S0029665110001400
Souza Filho, P. F., Andersson, D., Ferreira, J. A. & Taherzadeh, M. J. Mycoprotein: environmental impact and health aspects. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 35, 147 (2019).
pubmed: 31549247
pmcid: 6757021
doi: 10.1007/s11274-019-2723-9
Smetana, S., Mathys, A., Knoch, A. & Heinz, V. Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 1254–1267 (2015).
doi: 10.1007/s11367-015-0931-6
Alexander, P. et al. Could consumption of insects, cultured meat or imitation meat reduce global agricultural land use? Glob. Food Sec. 15, 22–32 (2017).
Pikaar, I. et al. Decoupling livestock from land use through industrial feed production pathways. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 7351–7359 (2018).
pubmed: 29923399
doi: 10.1021/acs.est.8b00216
Lapeña, D. et al. Production and characterization of yeasts grown on media composed of spruce-derived sugars and protein hydrolysates from chicken by-products. Microb. Cell Fact. 19, 19 (2020).
pubmed: 32013957
pmcid: 6998301
doi: 10.1186/s12934-020-1287-6
Dietrich, J. P. et al. MAgPIE 4 - a modular open-source framework for modeling global land systems. Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 1299–1317 (2019).
doi: 10.5194/gmd-12-1299-2019
Dietrich, J. P. et al. MAgPIE - An Open Source Land-Use Modeling Framework, v.4.3.4. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4730378 (2021).
Jägermeyr, J., Pastor, A., Biemans, H. & Gerten, D. Reconciling irrigated food production with environmental flows for sustainable development goals implementation. Nat. Commun. 8, 15900 (2017).
pubmed: 28722026
pmcid: 5524928
doi: 10.1038/ncomms15900
Riahi, K. et al. The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009
Humpenöder, F. et al. Large-scale bioenergy production: how to resolve sustainability trade-offs? Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 024011 (2018).
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa9e3b
Mattick, C. S., Landis, A. E., Allenby, B. R. & Genovese, N. J. Anticipatory life cycle analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 11941–11949 (2015).
pubmed: 26383898
doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01614
Tuomisto, H. L. & Teixeira de Mattos, M. J. Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 6117–6123 (2011).
pubmed: 21682287
doi: 10.1021/es200130u
Lynch, J. & Pierrehumbert, R. Climate impacts of cultured meat and beef cattle. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 3, 5 (2019).
pubmed: 31535087
pmcid: 6751088
doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2019.00005
Mendly-Zambo, Z., Powell, L. J. & Newman, L. L. Dairy 3.0: cellular agriculture and the future of milk. Food Cult. Soc. 24, 675–693 (2021).
doi: 10.1080/15528014.2021.1888411
Järviö, N. et al. Ovalbumin production using Trichoderma reesei culture and low-carbon energy could mitigate the environmental impacts of chicken-egg-derived ovalbumin. Nat. Food 2, 1005–1013 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00418-2
Luderer, G. et al. Impact of declining renewable energy costs on electrification in low-emission scenarios. Nat. Energy 7, 32–42 (2022).
doi: 10.1038/s41560-021-00937-z
Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Gerber, P. & Reid, R. S. Livestock, livelihoods and the environment: understanding the trade-offs. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 1, 111–120 (2009).
doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2009.10.003
Jones, M., Gandia, A., John, S. & Bismarck, A. Leather-like material biofabrication using fungi. Nat. Sustain. 4, 9–16 (2021).
doi: 10.1038/s41893-020-00606-1
Rogelj, J. et al. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (IPCC, WMO, 2018).
Smith, P. et al. in Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems (IPCC, 2019).
Lotze-Campen, H. et al. Global food demand, productivity growth, and the scarcity of land and water resources: a spatially explicit mathematical programming approach. Agric. Econ. 39, 325–338 (2008).
Bondeau, A. et al. Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 679–706 (2007).
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01305.x
Müller, C. & Robertson, R. D. Projecting future crop productivity for global economic modeling. Agric. Econ. 45, 37–50 (2014).
doi: 10.1111/agec.12088
Dietrich, J. P., Popp, A. & Lotze-Campen, H. Reducing the loss of information and gaining accuracy with clustering methods in a global land-use model. Ecol. Modell. 263, 233–243 (2013).
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.05.009
Stevanović, M. et al. Mitigation strategies for greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and land-use change: consequences for food prices. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 365–374 (2017).
pubmed: 27981847
doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b04291
Popp, A., Lotze-Campen, H. & Bodirsky, B. Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.02.001
Bodirsky, B. L. et al. Reactive nitrogen requirements to feed the world in 2050 and potential to mitigate nitrogen pollution. Nat. Commun. 5, 3858 (2014).
pubmed: 24819889
doi: 10.1038/ncomms4858
Bonsch, M. et al. Trade-offs between land and water requirements for large-scale bioenergy production. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 8, 11–24 (2014).
doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12226
Smil, V. Worldwide transformation of diets, burdens of meat production and opportunities for novel food proteins. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 30, 305–311 (2002).
doi: 10.1016/S0141-0229(01)00504-X
Shepon, A., Eshel, G., Noor, E. & Milo, R. Energy and protein feed-to-food conversion efficiencies in the US and potential food security gains from dietary changes. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 105002 (2016).
doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/105002
Kc, S. & Lutz, W. The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 181–192 (2017).
pubmed: 28239237
pmcid: 5310112
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.004
Dellink, R., Chateau, J., Lanzi, E. & Magné, B. Long-term economic growth projections in the shared socioeconomic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 200–214 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.06.004
The World Bank. World Development Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (accessed 19 March 2019).
James, S. L., Gubbins, P., Murray, C. J. & Gakidou, E. Developing a comprehensive time series of GDP per capita for 210 countries from 1950 to 2015. Popul. Health Metr. 10, 12 (2012).
pubmed: 22846561
pmcid: 3487911
doi: 10.1186/1478-7954-10-12
Bodirsky, B. L. et al. mrvalidation: madrat data preparation for validation purposes. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4317827 (2020).
Bodirsky, B. L. et al. Global food demand scenarios for the 21st century. PLoS ONE 10, e0139201 (2015).
pubmed: 26536124
pmcid: 4633131
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139201
Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).
pubmed: 21993620
doi: 10.1038/nature10452
Wada, Y. et al. Global monthly water stress: 2. Water demand and severity of water stress. Water Resour. Res. 47, W07518 (2011).
doi: 10.1029/2010WR009792
Wisser, D. et al. Global irrigation water demand: variability and uncertainties arising from agricultural and climate data sets. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L24408 (2008).
doi: 10.1029/2008GL035296
Gasser, T. et al. Historical CO
doi: 10.5194/bg-17-4075-2020
European Commission, Joint Research Centre/Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. EDGAR - Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research. https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu (2011).