Environmental Affects of Plant-Based Beef Analog Production in 12 Countries and Consumer Response to Plant-Based Meat in China, A Case Study

Xiangquan Zeng^{1, 2}, Xuzeng Wang^{1, 2} and Jian Li^{1, 2,}

¹National Market Supervision Administration Innovation Center (Animal Substituted Protein), Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing, 100048, PR China

²Beijing Technology and Business University, Key Laboratory of Geriatric Nutrition and Health, Ministry of Education, Beijing, 100048, PR China;Key Laboratory of Green and Low-carbon Processing Technology for Plant-based Food of China National Light Industry Council, School of Food and Health, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing, 100048, PR China

Cite this paper:
Xiangquan Zeng, Xuzeng Wang and Jian Li. Environmental Affects of Plant-Based Beef Analog Production in 12 Countries and Consumer Response to Plant-Based Meat in China, A Case Study. Journal of Food and Nutrition Research. 2025; 13(8):315-329. doi: 10.12691/jfnr-13-8-6

Abstract

This study employs a multi-regional life cycle assessment (LCA) across 12 countries to quantify and compare environmental impacts of plant-based beef analogue (PBBA) versus conventional beef production. Key drivers of ecological footprints were identified: PBBA reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 80–90% but exhibited critical regional bottlenecks—soybean-driven deforestation in Argentina (contributing >70% to global warming impacts) and coal-dependent processing in China (amplifying fine particulate matter formation by 69%). Significant spatial disparities emerged in resource efficiency: beef production demanded 7.8× more water and 22.9× greater land use than PBBA, with nitrogen/phosphorus runoff from feed cultivation causing freshwater eutrophication (18.8× higher in beef systems). Substitution modelling revealed that replacing 1% of China’s beef consumption annually with PBBA could reduce agricultural emissions by 0.4–0.7%, cumulatively mitigating 12.8 million tons of CO₂ by 2030. However, consumer surveys across 18 Chinese cities identified taste authenticity as the primary adoption barrier (41.5% rejection in culinary hubs; β = −0.53, *p*<0.001), mediated by cultural identity (62%), while economic vulnerability tripled price sensitivity among low-income youth versus older cohorts. The findings underscore that scaling PBBA requires region-specific interventions—addressing supply-chain bottlenecks (e.g., deforestation-free soy sourcing, renewable energy integration) and demand-side cultural adaptation (e.g., recipe reformulation with chefs)—to align planetary health goals with dietary transitions.

Keywords:
Consumer behaviour Food culture Plant-based beef Sustainable diets Life cycle assessment Dietary transition

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Figures

References:

[1]	Detzel, A., et al., (2022). Life cycle assessment of animal-based foods and plant-based protein-rich alternatives: an environmental perspective. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 102(12): p. 5098-5110.
[2]	Nations, FAOSTAT: Food Balance Sheets (2022). 2024. http://www.fao.org/faostat/.
[3]	Xu, X., et al., (2021). Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nature Food, 2(9): p. 724-732.
[4]	David, et al., (2023). Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment1,2,3. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
[5]	Mensah, G.A., et al., (2023). Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases and Risks, 1990-2022. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 82(25): p. 2350-2473.
[6]	Zeng, X., et al., (2024). Encapsulation of roast beef flavor by soy protein isolate/chitosan complex Pickering emulsions to improve its releasing properties during the processing of plant-based meat analogues. Food Chemistry, 450: p. 139313.
[7]	Liu, X., et al., (2023). Challenges, process technologies, and potential synthetic biology opportunities for plant-based meat production. LWT, 184: p. 115109.
[8]	Yu, J.L., L.Y. Wang, and Z.W. Zhang, (2023). Plant-Based Meat Proteins: Processing, Nutrition Composition, and Future Prospects. Foods, 12(22).
[9]	Deussing, G., (2023). Flavor comparison of tuna imitation. Whether a meat and fish substitute product can be successfully marketed on a plant basis depends crucially on its sensory properties. Deutsche Lebensmittel-Rundschau, 2023. 119(2): p. 74-78.
[10]	Yusuf, E.H., (2023). Comparison of life cycle assessments and nutritional contents of soy protein and wheat protein (seitan) based vegan bacon products for human and environmental health. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 103(7): p. 3315-3321.
[11]	Noguerol, A.T., V. Larrea, and M.J. Pagán, (2022). The effect of psyllium (Plantago ovata Forsk) fibres on the mechanical and physicochemical characteristics of plant-based sausages. European Food Research and Technology, 248(10): p. 2483-2496.
[12]	Saerens, W., et al., (2021). Life cycle assessment of burger patties produced with extruded meat substitutes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 306.
[13]	Abiala, O., M. Abiala, and B. Omojola, (2022). Quality attributes of chicken nuggets extended with different legume flours. Food Production Processing and Nutrition, 4(1).
[14]	Zhang, Q., et al., (2022). Mimic Pork Rinds from Plant-Based Gel: The Influence of Sweet Potato Starch and Konjac Glucomannan. Molecules, 27(10).
[15]	Harnack, L., et al., (2021). Nutrient Composition of a Selection of Plant-Based Ground Beef Alternative Products Available in the United States. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 121(12): p. 2401.
[16]	Rondoni, A., et al., (2021). Exploring consumers' perceptions of plant-based eggs using concept mapping and semantic network analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 94.
[17]	Giammona, C., (2020). Impossible Foods raises $700 million in new funding. 2020(August 14).
[18]	Kozicka, M., et al., (2023). Feeding climate and biodiversity goals with novel plant-based meat and milk alternatives. Nature Communications, 14(1): p. 5316. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-40899-2.
[19]	Kannan, N., et al., (2017). Estimation of green water footprint of animal feed for beef cattle production in Southern Great Plains. Water Resources and Industry, 17(C): p. 11-18.
[20]	Liu, Z., et al., (2017). Enteric Methane Conversion Factor for Dairy and Beef Cattle: Effects of Feed Digestibility and Intake Level. Transactions of the ASAE. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 60(2): p. 459-464.
[21]	Palhares, J.C.P., M. Morelli, and C.C. Junior, (2017). Impact of roughage-concentrate ratio on the water footprints of beef feedlots. Agricultural Systems, 155: p. 126-135.
[22]	Murphy, B., et al., (2017). An economic and greenhouse gas emissions evaluation of pasture-based dairy calf-to-beef production systems. Agricultural Systems, 154: p. 124-132.
[23]	Greenwood, P.L., (2021). Review: An overview of beef production from pasture and feedlot globally, as demand for beef and the need for sustainable practices increase. Animal, 15.
[24]	Mwangi, F.W., et al., (2019). Diet and Genetics Influence Beef Cattle Performance and Meat Quality Characteristics. Foods, 8(12).
[25]	Järviö, N., et al., (2021). Ovalbumin production using Trichoderma reesei culture and low-carbon energy could mitigate the environmental impacts of chicken-egg-derived ovalbumin. Nature Food, 2(12): p. 1005-1013.
[26]	Mark A. J. Huijbregts, et al., (2017). ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.
[27]	Giles, M.B., K. Debrabant, and A. Rossler, (2019). Analysis of multilevel Monte Carlo path simulation using the Milstein discretisation. Papers, 56(3): p. págs. 607-617.
[28]	Sánchez-Sánchez, E., et al., (2025). Attitudes and consumption habits of energy drinks among adolescents and young adults in a Spanish population. AIMS Public Health, 12(1): p. 16-32.
[29]	Rotz, C.A. and F. Mitloehner, (2025). United States dairy farms and global warming. Journal of Dairy Science, 108(3): p. 2610-2619.
[30]	Li, X.B., et al., (2025). Vertical changes in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and impacts on photochemical ozone formation. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25(4): p. 2459-2472.
[31]	Lyu, R., et al., (2025). Dynamics of water-soluble inorganic ions in Qinhuangdao: Particle size association and influences of environmental conditions. Urban Climate, 61: p. 102390.
[32]	Tang, M., et al., (2024). Life Cycle Assessment of Plant-Based vs. Beef Burgers: A Case Study in the UK. Sustainability, 16(11): p. 4417.
[33]	Saerens, W., et al., (2021). Life cycle assessment of burger patties produced with extruded meat substitutes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 306: p. 127177.
[34]	Lemken, D., (2021). The price penalty for red meat substitutes in popular dishes and the diversity in substitution. PLOS ONE, 16(6): p. e0252675.
[35]	Takacs, B., et al., (2022). Comparison of environmental impacts of individual meals - Does it really make a difference to choose plant-based meals instead of meat-based ones? Journal of Cleaner Production, 379: p. 134782.
[36]	Smetana, S., et al., (2023). Meat substitutes: Resource demands and environmental footprints. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 190: p. 106831.
[37]	Mejia, M., et al., (2020). Life Cycle Assessment of the Production of a Large Variety of Meat Analogs by Three Diverse Factories. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 15(5): p. 699-711.
[38]	Shanmugam, K., et al., (2023). Climate Impact of Plant-based Meat Analogues: A Review of Life Cycle Assessments. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 36: p. 328-337.
[39]	Heller, M.C.a.G.A.K., (2018). Beyond Meat's Beyond Burger Life Cycle Assessment: A detailed comparison between a plant-based and an animal-based protein source. University of Michigan. https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/192044.
[40]	Bragaglio, A., et al., (2018). Environmental impacts of Italian beef production: A comparison between different systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172: p. 4033-4043.
[41]	Buratti, C., et al., (2017). Carbon footprint of conventional and organic beef production systems: An Italian case study. Science of The Total Environment, 576: p. 129-137.
[42]	Tsutsumi, M., et al., (2018). Life-cycle impact assessment of organic and non-organic grass-fed beef production in Japan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172: p. 2513-2520.
[43]	Asem-Hiablie, S., et al., (2019). A life cycle assessment of the environmental impacts of a beef system in the USA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(3): p. 441-455.
[44]	Von Greyerz, K., et al., (2023). A large share of climate impacts of beef and dairy can be attributed to ecosystem services other than food production. Journal of Environmental Management, 325: p. 116400.
[45]	Samsonstuen, S., et al., (2024). Choice of metrics matters—Future scenarios on milk and beef production in Norway using an LCA approach. Livestock Science, 279: p. 105393.
[46]	Ruviaro, C.F., et al., (2015). Carbon footprint in different beef production systems on a southern Brazilian farm: a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 96: p. 435-443..
[47]	Jang, S., (2012). The Analysis of Causality in Globalized Agribusiness - In case of soybean industry in Brazil and Argentina. Journal of Lusophone Area Studies, 9(1): p. 101-129.
[48]	Yang, F., et al., (2024). Ozone oxidation of nitric oxide: Promoting effect of phosphorus and inhibitory effect of phosphoric acid. Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 102(6): p. 2097-2105.
[49]	Zhang, D., et al., (2021). A machine learning model to estimate ambient PM2.5 concentrations in industrialized highveld region of South Africa. Remote Sensing of Environment, 266: p. 112713.
[50]	Molossi, L., et al. (2023). Agricultural Support and Public Policies Improving Sustainability in Brazil’s Beef Industry. Sustainability, 15.
[51]	Sarkar, S., et al., (2024). Comparing carbon footprints of sheep farming systems in semi-arid regions of India: A life cycle assessment study. Plos One, 19(1).
[52]	Greenwood, P.L., (2021). Review: An overview of beef production from pasture and feedlot globally, as demand for beef and the need for sustainable practices increase. Animal, 15: p. 100295.
[53]	Yalçuk, A., G.K. Ongun, and F.G. Üçtuğ, (2025). Life Cycle Assessment of White Meat Supply to Final Consumer: A Case Study From Türkiye. 48(7): p. e70170.
[54]	Burke, D.T., P. Hynds, and A. Priyadarshini, (2025). Assessing the One Health (ecosystem, animal and human health) impacts of current dietary patterns based on farm-to-fork life cycle assessment in the Republic of Ireland. Science of The Total Environment, 975: p. 179313..
[55]	Yusuf, E.H., (2023). Comparison of life cycle assessments and nutritional contents of soy protein and wheat protein (seitan) based vegan bacon products for human and environmental health, 103(7): p. 3315-3321.
[56]	Shrivastava, S., et al.,(2025). Shifting units, shifting views: how product mass and protein content influence environmental impact of Icelandic lamb. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 30(3): p. 491-510.
[57]	Manthata, L.S., (2018). A Competitive Analysis of the South African Soybean Industry.
[58]	Mori, A., et al., (2020). Nitrogen loss to the environment due to various nitrogen-use efficiencies during milk and beef production in Japan. Environmental Research Letters, 15(12).
[59]	Ciani, M., et al., (2021). Microbes: Food for the Future. 10(5): p. 971.
[60]	Valverde, V., M.T. Pay, and J.M. Baldasano, (2016). A model-based analysis of SO2 and NO2 dynamics from coal-fired power plants under representative synoptic circulation types over the Iberian Peninsula. Science of The Total Environment, 541: p. 701-713.
[61]	BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2022. https://www.bp.com
[62]	Arvanitoyannis, I.S., K.V. Kotsanopoulos, and A. Veikou, (2014). Life Cycle Assessment (ISO 14040) Implementation in Foods of Animal and Plant Origin: Review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 54(10): p. 1253-1282.
[63]	Li, M.-W., et al., (2020). Impacts of genomic research on soybean improvement in East Asia. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 133(5): p. 1655-1678.
[64]	Molossi, L., et al., (2023). Agricultural Support and Public Policies Improving Sustainability in Brazil’s Beef Industry. Sustainability, 15(6): p. 4801.
[65]	Farrell, L.J., et al., (2021). Simulating Beef Cattle Herd Productivity with Varying Cow Liveweight and Fixed Feed Supply. Agriculture, 11(1): p. 35.
[66]	Zhang, W., et al., (2024). The Eutrophication-related Index of Drinking Water Sources Based on the Oxidation-Reduction Potential. BioResources, 19(3), 4941-4959.
[67]	Khan, K., S. Kar, and K. Roy, (2023). Are we ready to combat the ecotoxicity of COVID-19 pharmaceuticals? An in silico aquatic risk assessment. Aquatic Toxicology, 256: p. 106416.
[68]	Westaway, S., et al., (2024). Integrating sustainability assessment tools with life cycle analysis for agroecological systems: A UK case study. Agricultural Systems, 219: p. 104045.
[69]	Glibert, P.M. and J.A.M. Burkholder, (2011). Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: "strategies" for nutrient uptake and growth outside the Redfield comfort zone. Chinese Journal of Oceanology and Limnology, 29(004): p. 724-738.
[70]	Weaver, D., et al., (2024). Validation of critical soil-test phosphorus values from the Better Fertiliser Decisions for Pastures meta-analysis. Crop and Pasture Science, 75(2): p.
[71]	Carvalho, B.C., H.R.A. de Souza Junior, and S.R. Soares, (2024). Evaluation of LCIA characterization models for marine ecotoxicity. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 29(4): p. 706-732.
[72]	Saouter, E., et al., (2017). Improving substance information in USEtox®, part 1: Discussion on data and approaches for estimating freshwater ecotoxicity effect factors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(12): p. 3450-3462.
[73]	Ostroski, A., et al., (2022). Consumption-Based Accounting for Tracing Virtual Water Flows Associated with Beef Supply Chains in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 56(22): p. 16347-1635.
[74]	Cordeiro, M.R.C., et al., (2022). Assessing feed security for beef production within livestock-intensive regions. Agricultural Systems, 196: p. 103348.
[75]	Rubio, N.R., N. Xiang, and D.L. Kaplan,(2020). Plant-based and cell-based approaches to meat production. Nature Communications, 11(1): p. 6276.
[76]	Liu, L., et al., (2024). Understanding China's agricultural non‑carbon-dioxide greenhouse gas emissions: Subnational insights and global trade dynamics. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 106: p. 107487.
[77]	Ostroski, A., O.A. Prokopyev, and V. Khanna, (2024). Tracing Nitrogen Flows Associated with Beef Supply Chains: A Consumption-Based Assessment. Environmental Science & Technology, 58(32): p. 14214-14224.
[78]	Gilks, W.R. and C. Berzuini, (2010). Following a moving target—Monte Carlo inference for dynamic Bayesian models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 63(1): p. 127-146.
[79]	Dharma-wardana, M.W.C., (2018). Fertilizer usage and cadmium in soils, crops and food. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 40(6): p. 2739-2759.
[80]	Borenstein, S. and L.W. Davis, (2025). The Distributional Effects of US Tax Credits for Heat Pumps, Solar Panels, and Electric Vehicles. 78(1): p. 263-288.
[81]	Ma, G., et al., (2025). An equilibrium model of the Chinese carbon trading market under the uncertainty of market demand: Application to thermal power industry. Energy Policy, 198: p. 114505.
[82]	Vallim, D. and A. Leichsenring, (2025). The effect of the beef zero deforestation commitment in the Brazilian Amazon: A spatial panel data analysis. Ecological Economics, 230: p. 108503.
[83]	Carroll Ii, D.A., et al., (2025). Appeals to environmental protection and farmer adoption of sustainable natural resource management – A case study of Kaya, Burkina Faso. Journal of Environmental Management, 376: p. 124415.
[84]	Muchopa, C.L., (2025). The Tariff Liberalisation Policy Nexus with Non-Tariff Measures: Panel Model Evidence in the SA–EU Fruit Products Trade. Economies, 13(1): p. 1.
[85]	Zhan, Y., Y. Ren, and J. Xu, (2025). Willingness to pay a premium for eco-label products in China: a mediation model based on quality value. Scientific Reports, 2025. 15(1): p. 1783.
[86]	Wang, J., et al., (2025). Subsidy reduction policies in clean product promotion: Pre-announced or dynamic? Energy Economics, 142: p. 108182.
[87]	Qu, Y., (2025). Tourism Development on China’s Northwestern Border: Territorialisation, Reterritorialisation, and Geopolitics of the Great Altai Region in Inner Asia. Geopolitics: p. 1-28.
[88]	Ejelöv, E., et al., (2025). Public and political acceptability of a food tax shift – An experiment with policy framing and revenue use. Food Policy, 130: p. 102772.
[89]	Jabbar, A., et al., (2025). Contract farming as a catalyst for sustainable agriculture: the case of maize growers in Punjab, Pakistan. Environment, Development and Sustainability.
[90]	Iwano, S., et al., (2025). School Lunch and Body Size in Japanese Junior High School Students: The Japanese National Health and Nutrition Survey. Nutrients, 17(5): p. 895.
[91]	Eckert, K.F., et al., (2025). Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary impact of “Supper Heroes”, a family-based sustainable diet intervention. Appetite, 206: p. 107849.
[92]	Garnett, E.E., et al., (2020). Order of meals at the counter and distance between options affect student cafeteria vegetarian sales. Nature Food, 1(8): p. 485-488.
[93]	Kaale, L.D., M. Siddiq, and S. Hooper, (2023). Lentil (Lens culinaris Medik) as nutrient-rich and versatile food legume: A review. Legume Science, 5(2): p. e169.