Nutritional Evaluation of Alternative Proteins vs. Animal Proteins: From Composition and Bioavailability to Consumer Perception and Enhancement Methods
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61173/yjn9q720Keywords:
Alternative proteins, Nutritional evaluation, Bioavailability, Consumer perception, Enhancement methodsAbstract
In recent years, due to the continuous growth of the global population, especially in developing regions where dietary habits are changing, and the general shift towards higher protein intake, the demand for meat products has been steadily increasing. However, traditional animal husbandry remains the main source of global meat supply and has led to increasingly prominent environmental issues. These issues include significant greenhouse gas emissions, which are the main cause of global climate change. In the urgent context, alternative proteins such as plant-based proteins from soybeans, peas, and other crops, fungal proteins, and insect proteins from crickets and whiteflies have gradually become important ways to alleviate resource pressure. Due to their favorable environmental characteristics, including a smaller carbon footprint and lower resource consumption compared to traditional animal husbandry, these alternative proteins have attracted increasing attention from academia and industry in recent years, and have shown enormous market growth potential. This article provides a systematic review of key literature on alternative proteins published both domestically and internationally over the past decade. It focuses on comparing the essential differences between alternative and traditional animal proteins in three aspects: nutritional composition (such as amino acid profile and micronutrient content), bioavailability (i.e. the efficiency of nutrient absorption by the human body), and consumer perception (such as acceptance levels and existing misunderstandings). In addition, this article also analyzes relevant strategies for improving alternative proteins in the future, such as gene editing technology, amino acid complementarity, and biotechnology.
References
precise solution to the nutritional deficiency problem of [1] Sakadevan, K., & Nguyen, M. L. (2017). Livestock protein substitution for animal proteins. Gene editing production and its impact on nutrient pollution and greenhouse technology targets genes involved in nutrient synthesis or gas emissions. Advances in agronomy, 141, 147-184.
absorption through targeted modification. For example, [2] Baste, N. (2011). Whey protein. Scholars’ Research Journal, in most plant and microbial proteins, the naturally scarce 1(2). nutrient B12 is upregulated through CRISPR mediated [3] Christias, C., Couvaraki, C., Georgopoulos, S. G., Macris,
genetic engineering to specifically upregulate the expres- B., & Vomvoyanni, V. (1975). Protein content and amino acid sion of genes related to vitamin B12 biosynthesis in yeast composition of certain fungi evaluated for microbial protein proteins, thereby significantly increasing their vitamin production. Applied microbiology, 29(2), 250-254.Gangurde, H., B12 content. Similarly, in plant-based alternative proteins, Chordiya, M., Patil, P., & ,
scientists can introduce or overexpress genes encoding [4] Medic, J., Atkinson, C., & Hurburgh Jr, C. R. (2014). Current iron transporters (such as ferritin related genes) in crops knowledge in soybean composition. Journal of the American oil such as soybeans or peas; This modification not only ef- chemists’ society, 91(3), 363-384.
fectively increases the total iron content of plant proteins [5] World Health Organization. (1991). Protein Quality themselves, but also enhances the bioavailability of iron, Evaluation: Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation, solving the problem of low absorption and utilization of Bethesda, Md., USA 4-8 December 1989 (Vol. 51). Food & iron in plant proteins by the human body [17]. These ap- Agriculture Org.. plications greatly bridge the nutritional gap between alter- [6] van den Berg, L. A., Mes, J. J., Mensink, M., & Wanders, A.
native proteins and animal proteins. J. (2022). Protein quality of soy and the effect of processing: A quantitative review. Frontiers in Nutrition, 9, 1004754. Pizarro, F., Olivares, M., Valenzuela, C., Brito, A., Wein- 6. Conclusion born, V., Flores, S., & Arredondo, M. (2016). The effect of This study systematically compares alternative proteins proteins from animal source foods on heme iron bioavailand animal proteins across three dimensions: nutritional ability in humans. Food chemistry, 196, 733-738. composition, bioavailability, and consumer cognition, [7] Pizarro, F., Olivares, M., Valenzuela, C., Brito, A., Weinborn,
revealing that while alternative proteins still lag signifi- V., Flores, S., & Arredondo, M. (2016). The effect of proteins cantly behind animal proteins in nutritional content and from animal source foods on heme iron bioavailability in bioavailability, they hold unique advantages in advancing humans. Food chemistry, 196, 733-738. environmental sustainability—with technologies like ge- [8] Hisayasu, S., Orimo, H., Migita, S., Ikeda, Y., Satoh, K.,
netic engineering poised to narrow this gap in the future; Shinjo, S., ... & Yoshino, Y. (1992). Soybean protein isolate and regarding consumer attitudes, cultural differences lead soybean lectin inhibit iron absorption in rats. The Journal of to varied perceptions, such as East Asians showing nota- nutrition, 122(5), 1190-1196.
bly higher acceptance of insects as a protein source than [9] Gibson, R. S., Raboy, V., & King, J. C. (2018). Implications Europeans. However, the research has limitations due to of phytate in plant-based foods for iron and zinc bioavailability, current constraints in alternative protein studies: although setting dietary requirements, and formulating programs and literature confirms the feasibility of using alternative pro- policies. Nutrition reviews, 76(11), 793-804. Dean&Francis ISSN 2959-409X [10] Brigode, C., Hobbi, P., Jafari, H., Verwilghen, F., Baeten, E., of recession and income strata on consumer demand for protein & Shavandi, A. (2020). Isolation and physicochemical properties sources. Applied Economics, 51(42), 4615-4628.
of chitin polymer from insect farm side stream as a new source [15] Dimina, L., Rémond, D., Huneau, J. F., & Mariotti, F. (2022). of renewable biopolymer. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275, Combining plant proteins to achieve amino acid profiles adapted 122924. to various nutritional objectives—an exploratory analysis using [11] Mancini, S., Moruzzo, R., Riccioli, F., & Paci, G. (2019). linear programming. Frontiers in nutrition, 8, 809685. European consumers’ readiness to adopt insects as food. A [16] Duque-Estrada, P., Hardiman, K., Dam, A. B., Dodge, N.,
review. Food Research International, 122, 661-678. Aaslyng, M. D., & Petersen, I. L. (2023). Protein blends and [12] Castro, M., & Chambers IV, E. (2019). Willingness to eat extrusion processing to improve the nutritional quality of plant an insect based product and impact on brand equity: A global proteins. Food & Function, 14(16), 7361-7374.
perspective. Journal of Sensory Studies, 34(2), e12486. [17] Sun, S. S., & Liu, Q. (2004). Transgenic approaches to [13] Bogueva, D., & Marinova, D. (2020). Cultured meat and improve the nutritional quality of plant proteins. In Vitro Cellular Australia’s generation Z. Frontiers in Nutrition, 7, 148. & Developmental Biology-Plant, 40(2), 155-162. [14] Yang, R., Raper, K. C., & Pruitt, J. R. (2019). The influence
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 by the authors.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
