Comparing alternative protein sources based on key consumer criteria for food selection reveals opportunities and challenges.
Safety perception
$/kg, 100% protein
Taste
Protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score
Environmental impact
Perceived animal welfare
Novelty
Concern over estrogenic effect or GMO
2.0
Clean taste; versatile ingredient
0.96
N/A
Low
>10 years on the market
Product nature
Sold as concentrate containing around 65 percent protein or isolate containing 85 percent protein.
Functionality
It has one of the highest scores on digestibility and amino acid balance for all alternative proteins and a neutral taste profile, making it a versatile ingredient.
Competitive position
Soy is extremely well developed, with major investments across its value chain from farm to fork. It has one of the lowest levels of environmental impact as a nitrogen-fixing crop and a low price point. All of these factors make soy the highest-value alternative protein.
Challenges
Soy is generally a GMO, so perceptions may be affected by the broader consumer debate about the safety of GMOs. In addition, soy is reported to have allergenic and estrogenic effects, though a recent review of the literature shows that any negative effects are very limited.
Safety perception
Taste
Protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score
Environmental impact
Perceived animal welfare
Novelty
$/kg, 100% protein
Non-GMO, nonallergenic, and very safe
Slight beany taste must be masked
>10 years on the market
N/A
Low
5.0
0.72
Product nature
Sold either as a concentrate 65 percent prepared through dry fractionation or an isolate at 85 percent protein through wet fractionation, which could be functional or denatured protein depending on the process.
Functionality
Its minimal beany flavor makes it versatile, but it has a lower score than soy on amino acid balance and digestibility.
Competitive position
Coming from a nitrogen-fixing legume, pea protein has one of the lowest levels of environmental impact. In addition, it is one of the cheapest alternative protein sources and also gets points with consumers for safety, as it is non-GMO and nonallergenic. The industry has seen a spike in patent filing on pea protein by 15 percent CAGR since 2009, while soy declined by 2 percent over the same period, signaling growing interest.
Challenges
Peas contain approximately 24 percent protein. Processing them for protein leads to a high volume of by-product, mainly starch, therefore manufacturers must find a specialty starch market to make pea processing economics less vulnerable to pea price volatility. Current markets include vermicelli noodles, thickening agents, and batter.
Safety perception
Taste
Protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score
Environmental impact
Perceived animal welfare
Novelty
$/kg, 100% protein
Potentially allergenic
Unfamiliar taste, texture, and aroma requires extensive development
>5 years on the market
Acceptable
Low
41.0
0.73
Product nature
Sold as whole or milled as flour containing up to 25 percent protein; no protein isolate is currently available in large scale.
Functionality
The flour has a distinct texture, appearance, and aroma that creates challenges in product formulation. The protein also has a low digestibility and amino acid balance score.
Competitive position
Insect protein is the most efficient in conversion of feed into edible weight, requiring 2.3 kilograms of feed to 1.0 kilogram of live animal weight and can be raised on low-value agricultural by-products. Chicken (2.3 kilograms), pork (5.0 kilograms), and beef (8.8 kilograms) all call for significantly more feed.
Challenges
Production is currently costlier ($4 to $5 a pound) than alternatives with higher-quality protein, such as poultry, dairy, and beef. To be competitive, insect protein would need to be ~$2 a pound. Furthermore, the taste is a barrier for adoption.
Safety perception
Taste
Protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score
Environmental impact
Perceived animal welfare
Novelty
$/kg, 100% protein
FDA requires mold labeling due to lawsuit
Currently mixed with egg and frozen to mimic meat texture
>5 years on the market
Medium
13.0
1.0
Product nature
A filamentous fungus, or mold, that is processed in its whole form typically without going through protein extraction. It contains approximately 47 percent protein and has a high digestibility and amino acid balance score.
Functionality
Mycoprotein is typically mixed with eggs to achieve a meat-like texture. Its neutral aromatic and flavor profile allows it to be a versatile ingredient.
Competitive position
Mycoprotein has higher fiber and a lower fat content than meat. It has experienced relative success in Europe and is growing in the US market. The food industry is selecting new strains and using gene-editing technology to improve performance. Traditionally, mycoprotein has been produced using glucose, a relatively costly feedstock. Start-ups are working on changing the feedstock to reduce production costs.
Challenges
Consumers are unfamiliar with mycoprotein, and a recent legal settlement required labeling to explicitly include the term “mold,” which negatively affects consumer perception and could impede its growth.
N/A
Safety perception
Taste
Protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score
Environmental impact
Perceived animal welfare
Novelty
$/kg, 100% protein
Complex technology perceived cautiously
Requires texture development and fat cell inclusion to mimic animal meat
Not available
High
300.0
0.92
Product nature
An aggregation of animal cells produced through tissue culture. Current production techniques seek to mimic animal muscle architecture and fat content and subsequently meat texture and flavor.
Functionality
Cultured meat scores high on digestibility, amino acid balance, and taste. Ground beef is expected to be the initial product offered.
Competitive position
Cultured meat is currently not available for purchase, but over the next five years it is predicted to reach the high-end market through specialty restaurants. In the next ten years, it should be cost competitive with conventional animal production systems.
Challenges
The industry must overcome major technological challenges before it can hope to become price competitive with conventional animal production systems. The electric energy consumed when producing cultured meat is the main contributer to the environmental impact. The barrier to entry is high for food producers as this technology is still in the development stage and substantial investment in infrastructure and expertise is required.
Acceptable
Safety perception
Taste
Protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score
Environmental impact
Perceived animal welfare
Novelty
$/k, 100% protein
Very safe
Clean taste; excellent functionality in beverages
>10 years on the market
Medium
7.5
1.0
Product nature
A protein derived from dairy products, it has a high digestibility and amino acid balance score.
Functionality
Whey’s neutral flavor profile means that it can be included in a range of products without altering taste and functionality.
Competitive position
Whey falls in the middle of other proteins by cost, and it is well established and accepted by consumers in the market.
Challenges
Whey has faced competition from the dairy-free industry, which is typically supported by consumers who desire to be healthier and more environmentally conscious.
Consumer concerns
Soy protein
Pea protein
Insect protein; ‘crickets’
Mycoprotein
Cultured meat
Whey protein
Soy protein
Pea protein
Insect protein; ‘crickets’
Mycoprotein
Cultured meat
Whey protein
1
2
A nitrogen-fixing crop is one whose roots are populated by bacteria through the process of extracting nitrogen from the air and converting it into a form it can use to help its growth. In short, the plant and the bacteria have a symbiotic relationship.
The Nutrition Source, “Straight talk about Soy.”
4
Volker Heinz et al., “Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2015, Volume 20, Number 9, pp. 1254–67, link.springer.com.
6
Arnold van Huis et al., Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2013, fao.org.
7
Amy Zhong, Product development considerations for a nutrient rich bar using cricket (Acheta domesticus) protein, California State University Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, May 2017, search.proquest.com.
8
Dennis G. A. B. Oonincx et al., “Feed conversion, survival and development, and composition of four insect species on diets composed of food by-products,” PLoS ONE, 2015, Volume 10, Number 12, pp. 1–20, journals.plos.org.
Huis et al., Edible insects; J. Mike Wilkinson, “Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock,” International Journal of Animal Biosciences, Volume 5, Number 7, 2011, pp. 1014–22, cambridge.org.
9
Adele Peters, “Lab-grown meat is getting cheap enough for anyone to buy,” Fast Company, May 5, 2018, fastcompany.com; Elaine Watson, “Grasshoppers,”; and Huis et al., Edible insects.; Morales-Ramos, Mass Production of Beneficial Organisms, first edition, Oxford, UK: Elsevier, 2014.
Soy protein
Pea protein
Insect protein; ‘crickets’
Mycoprotein
Cultured meat
Whey protein
Note: Prices are based on industry interviews at the time of writing this article.
3
Glenna Hughes, et al., “Protein digestibility-corrected amino acid scores (PDCAAS) for soy protein isolates and concentrate: criteria for evaluation,” The Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,” 2011, Volume 59, Number 23, pp.12707–12, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
5
The protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score for pea protein is an average score based on the following two studies referenced. The score is also influenced by the type of protein fractionation process used. Shane Rutherfurd, et al., “Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Scores and Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Scores Differentially Describe Protein Quality in Growing Male Rats [1–3],” The Journal of Nutrition, November 2014, Volume 145, pp. 372–9, academic.oup.com; “Protein quality of cooked pulses,” Pulse Canada, 2016, pulsecanada.com.
10
Florence Oibiokpa, et al., “Protein quality of four indigenous edible insect species in Nigeria,” Food Science and Human Wellness, June 2018, Volume 7, Number 2, pp. 175–83, sciencedirect.com.
11
D. G. Edwards and J. H. Cummings, “The protein quality myth of mycoprotein,” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 2010, Volume 69, cambridge.org.
12
Gertjan Schaafsma, “The protein digestibility–corrected amino acid score,” The Journal of Nutrition, 2000, Volume 130, Number 7, pp. 1865S–7S, academic.oup.com.
13
Schaafsma, “The protein digestibility–corrected amino acid score,” 1865S–7S.
