<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<records>
<record>
<language>eng</language>
<publisher>Science and Education Publishing</publisher>
<journalTitle>Journal of Food and Nutrition Research</journalTitle>
<eissn>2333-1240</eissn>
<publicationDate>2025 #: These authors contributed equally to this paper-08-25</publicationDate>
<volume>13</volume>
<issue>8</issue>
<startPage>315</startPage>
<endPage>329</endPage>
<doi>10.12691/jfnr-13-8-6</doi>
<publisherRecordId>JFNR20251386</publisherRecordId>
<documentType>article</documentType>
<title language="eng">Environmental Affects of Plant-Based Beef Analog Production in 12 Countries and Consumer Response to Plant-Based Meat in China, A Case Study</title>
<authors>
<author>
<name>Xiangquan Zeng</name>
<affiliationId>1</affiliationId>
<affiliationId>2</affiliationId>
<affiliationId>3</affiliationId>
</author>
<author>
<name>Xuzeng Wang</name>
<affiliationId>3</affiliationId>
<affiliationId>3</affiliationId>
<affiliationId>3</affiliationId>
</author>
<author>
<name>Jian Li</name>
<email>lijian@th.btbu.edu.cn</email>
<affiliationId>3</affiliationId>
<affiliationId>3</affiliationId>
<affiliationId>3</affiliationId>
</author>

</authors>
<affiliationsList>
<affiliationName affiliationId="1">National Market Supervision Administration Innovation Center (Animal Substituted Protein), Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing, 100048, PR China</affiliationName>


</affiliationsList>
<abstract language="eng">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¨C90% but exhibited critical regional bottlenecks¡ªsoybean-driven deforestation in Argentina (contributing &gt;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&#215; more water and 22.9&#215; greater land use than PBBA, with nitrogen/phosphorus runoff from feed cultivation causing freshwater eutrophication (18.8&#215; 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¨C0.7%, cumulatively mitigating 12.8 million tons of CO? by 2030. However, consumer surveys across 18 Chinese cities identified taste authenticity as the primary adoption barrier (41.5% rejection in culinary hubs; ¦Â = ?0.53, *p*&lt;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¡ªaddressing supply-chain bottlenecks (e.g., deforestation-free soy sourcing, renewable energy integration) and demand-side cultural adaptation (e.g., recipe reformulation with chefs)¡ªto align planetary health goals with dietary transitions.</abstract>
<fullTextUrl format="pdf">https://pubs.sciepub.com/jfnr/13/8/6/jfnr-13-8-6.pdf</fullTextUrl>
<keywords language="eng"><keyword>Consumer behaviour</keyword>
<keyword>Food culture</keyword>
<keyword>Plant-based beef</keyword>
<keyword>Sustainable diets</keyword>
<keyword>Life cycle assessment</keyword>
<keyword>Dietary transition</keyword>
</keywords>
</record>
</records>
