Animal Bioscience

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Current technologies, regulation, and future perspective of animal product analogs - A review

  • Seung Yun Lee (Division of Animal Science, Division of Applied Life Science (BK21 Four), Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Da Young Lee (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Jae Won Jeong (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Jae Hyeon Kim (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Seung Hyeon Yun (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Ermie Jr. Mariano (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Juhyun Lee (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Sungkwon Park (Department of Food Science and Biotechnology, Sejong University) ;
  • Cheorun Jo (Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, Center for Food and Bioconvergence, and Research Institute of Agriculture and Life Science, Seoul National University) ;
  • Sun Jin Hur (Department of Animal Science and Technology, Chung-Ang University)
  • Received : 2023.02.01
  • Accepted : 2023.03.31
  • Published : 2023.10.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the recent development of meat analog, industrialization, and the related legal changes worldwide. Summarizing the current status of the industrialization of meat analog, studies on plant-based meat, mycoprotein, and edible insects were mainly conducted to investigate their sensory properties (texture, taste, flavor, and color resembling meat), nutritional and safety evaluations, acquisition method of meat alternatives, and commercialization. Cultured meat is mainly studied for developing muscle satellite cell acquisition and support techniques or materials for the formation of structures. However, these technologies have not reached the level for active industrialization. Even though there are differences in the food categories and labeling between countries, it is common to cause confusion or to relay false information to consumers; therefore, it is important to provide accurate information. In this study, there were some differences in the food classification and food definition (labeling) contents for each country and state depending on the product shape or form, raw materials, and ingredients. Therefore, this study can provide information about the current research available on meat alternatives, improve regulation, and clarify laws related to the meat analog industry, which can potentially grow alongside the livestock industry.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture and Forestry (IPET) through High Value-added Food Technology Development Program, funded by Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) (321028-5, 322008-5).

References

  1. Ismail I, Hwang YH, Joo ST. Meat analog as future food: a review. J Anim Sci Technol 2020;62:111-20. https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2020.62.2.111 
  2. Megido RC, Gierts C, Blecker C, et al. Consumer acceptance of insect-based alternative meat products in Western countries. Food Qual Prefer 2016;52:237-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.05.004 
  3. Post MJ. Cultured beef: medical technology to produce food. J Sci Food Agr 2014;94:1039-41. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6474 
  4. Lee DY, Lee SY, Jung JW, et al. Review of technology and materials for the development of cultured meat. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2022 Apr 22 [Epub]. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2063249 
  5. A consumer survey on plant alternatives to animal meat [Internet]. Washington, DC, USA: International Food Information Council; c2020 [cited 2022 Oct 2]. Available from: www.foodinsight.org 
  6. U.S. Plant-based retail market worth $4.5 billion, growing at 5x total food sales. San Francisco, CA, USA: Plant Based Foods Association; c2019 [cited 2022 Nov 15]. Available from: https://www.plant-basedfoods.org/2019-data-plantbased-market/ 
  7. Poinski M. Oat milk surges to second most popular in plant-based dairy. Washington, DC, USA: Industry Dive.; c2020 [cited 2022 Nov 20]. Available from: https://www.fooddive.com/news/oat-milk-surges-to-second-most-popular-in-plant-based-dairy/586010/ 
  8. Investigation based on plan-based food market in US. Naju, Korea: KATI; 2020. 
  9. FDA releases list of priority guidance topics for foods program. Silver Spring, MD, USA: FDA; 2022. 
  10. Plant Based Foods Association Launches First Certification for Plant-Based Food Claims. Ann Arbor, MI, USA: National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) International; c2018 [cited 2022 Nov 10]. Available from: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/11/13/1650844/0/en/Plant-Based-Foods-Association-Launches-First-Certification-for-Plant-Based-Food-Claims.html 
  11. FDA GRASS Notice (GRN) No. 737 for Soy Leghemoglobin for protein preparation derived from pich/a pastoris. Silver Spring, MD, USA: FDA; c2018 [cited 2022 Nov 16]. 
  12. Retail Sales Data 2018. San Francisco, CA, USA: Plant Based Foods Association; c2018 [cited 2022 Nov 10]. Available from: https://www.plantbasedfoods.org/marketplace/retail-sales-data-2018/ 
  13. Plant Based Foods Association Certified Plant Based Claim Certification Program. San Francisco, CA, USA: Plant Based Foods Association; c2020 [cited 2022 Nov 10]. Available from: https://www.plantbasedfoods.org/wp-content/uploads/CPB-Protocol.pdf 
  14. Alcorta A, Porta A, Tarrega A, Alvarez MD, Vaquero MP. Foods for Plant-Based Diets: Challenges and Innovations. Foods 2021;10:293. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020293 
  15. Watson E. FDA commissioner: 'An almond doesn't lactate...we have a standard of identity for milk and I intend to enforce that'. Chicago, IL, USA: Food navigator; c2018 [cited 2022 Nov 18]. Available from: https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2018/07/18/FDA-commissioner-An-almond-doesn-t-lactate-we-have-a-standard-of-identity-for-milk-and-I-intend-to-enforce-that?utm_source=copyright&utm_medium=OnSite&utm_campaign=copyright 
  16. Voluntary standards for the labeling of meat alternatives in the United States. San Francisco CA, USA: Plant Based Foods Association; c2019 [cited 2022 Nov 10]. Available from: https://www.plantbasedfoods.org/voluntary-standards-for-the-labeling-of-plant-based-milks-in-the-united-states/ 
  17. Daly J, Buchanan K. Food industry watches US moves to stop plant-based proteins using terms like "beef" and "meat." Sydney NSW, Australia: ABC news; c2021 [cited 2022 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2021-05-15/meat-industry-watching-texas-food-labelling-bill-closely/100137452 
  18. Sexton AE, Garnett T, Lorimer J. Framing the future of food: The contested promises of alternative proteins. Environ Plan E Nat Space 2019;2:47-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848619827009 
  19. Center for Agricultured & Food Systems. What's the beef? debates over cell-cultured meat; c2022 [cited 2022 Dec 20]. South Royalton, VT, USA: Vermont Law and Graduate School; 2022. 
  20. Meyer V, Basenko EY, Benz JP, et al. Growing a circular economy with fungal biotechnology: a white paper. Fungal Biol Biotechnol 2020;7:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40694-020-00095-z 
  21. Anderson K. Nebraska's Fischer introduces Real MEAT Act in Senate. Jefferson City, MO, USA: Brownfield Ag News; c2019 [cited 2022 Nov 5]. Available from: https://brownfieldagnews.com/news/nebraskas-fischer-introduces-real-meat-act-in-senate/ 
  22. Kyle G. The U.S. plant-based retail market grew at 27 percent over last year, almost two times greater than total retail food sales. Washington, DC, USA: Good Food Institute; 2020. 
  23. Turtle Island Foods, SPC v. Richardson, 425 F. Supp. 3d 1131 (W.D. Mo. 2019). Kansas, MO USA: United States District Court; c2019 [cited 2022 Nov 5]. Available from: https://casetext.com/case/turtle-island-foods-spc-v-richardson 
  24. FDA. Formal agreement between FDA and USDA regarding oversight of human food produced using animal cell technology derived from cell lines of USDA-amenable Species. Silver Spring, MD, USA: Domestic Interagency Agreements on Food; 2019. 
  25. Canfield S. Federal judge blocks Louisiana law regulating meat substitute labels. Pasadena, CA, USA: Courthouse News Service; c2022 [cited 2022 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-judge-blocks-louisiana-law-regulating-meat-substitute-labels/ 
  26. Watson E. 'Unconstitutional' Louisiana law restricting 'meaty'terms on plant-based products has 'chilling' effect on commercial speech, says judge. Crawley, UK: William Reed; c2022 [cited 2022 Nov 28]. Available from: https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2022/03/29/Uncon stitutional-Louisiana-law-restricting-meaty-terms-on-plant-based-products-has-chilling-effect-on-commercial-speech-says-judge 
  27. Southey F. Amendment 171 off the table: Europe allows for 'creamy' and 'buttery' plant-based dairy. Crawley, UK: William Reed; c2021 [cited 2022 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2021/05/26/Europe-drops-Amendment-171-allowing-for-creamy-and-buttery-plant-based-dairy 
  28. Andrieu E. REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products, (EU) No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, (EU) No 251/2014 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of aromatised wine products, (EU) No 228/2013 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union and (EU) No 229/2013 laying down specific measures for agriculture in favour of the smaller Aegean islands, in: E. Parliament (Ed.); 2018. 
  29. European Parliament and Council. Regulation 2015/2283/EC, On novel foods, amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001. Brussel, Belgium: European Parliament; 2015. 
  30. Processed food market status report - meat processed products. Naju, Korea: Korea Agro-Fisheries & Food Trade Corporation; 2020. 
  31. Youji H. The alternative meat market in Japan is gradually being activated. Seoul, Korea: KOTRA; c2021 [cited 2022 Nov 01]. Available from: https://dream.kotra.or.kr/kotranews/cms/news/actionKotraBoardDetail.do?MENU_ID=110&CONTENTS_NO=1&bbsSn=245&pNttSn=190170 
  32. Act on Japanese Agricultural Standards [Internet]. Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries; c2017 [cited 2022 Nov 5]. Available from: https://www.maff.go.jp/e/policies/standard/jas/law.html 
  33. Post MJ, Levenberg S, Kaplan DL, et al. Scientific, sustainability and regulatory challenges of cultured meat. Nat Food 2020;1:403-15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0112-z 
  34. Ensuring appropriate food safety controls for cultivated meat [Internet]. Washington, DC, USA: Good Food Research Institute; c2018 [cited 2022 Dec 12]. Available from: https://gfi.org/solutions/cultivated-meat-food-safety-controls/ 
  35. Liu S. Technical Entity Trends: A Better Burger. New York, NY, USA: AIChE; c2019 [cited 2022 Nov 16]. Available from: https://www.aiche.org/resources/publications/cep/2019/january/technical-entity-trends-better-burger 
  36. Jin Y, He X, Andoh-Kumi K, Fraser RZ, Lu M, Goodman RE. Evaluating potential risks of food allergy and toxicity of soy leghemoglobin expressed in Pichia pastoris. Mol Nutr Food Res 2018;62:1700297. https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.201700297 
  37. Fraser RZ, Shitut M, Agrawal P, Mendes O, Klapholz S. Safety evaluation of soy leghemoglobin protein preparation derived from Pichia pastoris, intended for use as a flavor catalyst in plant-based meat. Int J Toxicol 2018;37:241-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091581818766318 
  38. Kim JY, Hwang HJ, Shin, KO. Development of a alternative meat patty using leghemoglobin extracted from soybean root nodules. J East Asian Soc Diet Life 2021;31:258-67. https://doi.org/10.17495/easdl.2021.8.31.4.258 
  39. KR patent 10-2021-0097716. Method for Extracting Leghemoglobin from Soybean Root and Using the same into Food. Daejeon, Korea: Korean Intellectual Property Office; 2020. 
  40. KR patent 10-2020-0070921. Artificial meat food composition using vegetable protein, artificial meat and manufacturing method thereof mushroom concentrates and bovine satellite cell culture media. Daejeon, Korea: Korean Intellectual Property Office; 2019. 
  41. KR patent No 10-2020-0090170. A method for making sausage analogue using mixed bean protein concentrate. Daejeon, Korea: Korean Intellectual Property Office; 2020. 
  42. Ahmad MI, Farooq S, Alhamoud Y, Li C, Zhang H. A review on mycoprotein: History, nutritional composition, production methods, and health benefits. Trends Food Sci Technol 2022;121:14-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2022.01.027 
  43. Derbyshire EJ, Delange J. Fungal protein-what is it and what is the health evidence? A systematic review focusing on mycoprotein. Front Sustain Food Syst 2021;5:581682. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.581682 
  44. Maurya NK, Kushwaha R. Chapter-7 Novel protein foods: alternative sources of protein for human consumption. In: Research trends in food technology and nutrition Vol-4, New Delhi, India: Akinik Puplication; 2019. pp. 129-42. 
  45. Salgado CL, Munoz R, Blanco A, Lienqueo ME. Valorization and upgrading of the nutritional value of seaweed and seaweed waste using the marine fungi Paradendryphiella salina to produce mycoprotein. Algal Res 2021;53:102135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2020.102135 
  46. Souza Filho PF, Zamani A, Taherzadeh MJ. Production of edible fungi from potato protein liquor (PPL) in airlift bioreactor. Fermentation 2017;3:12. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation3010012 
  47. Landeta-Salgado C, Cicatiello P, Lienqueo ME. Mycoprotein and hydrophobin like protein produced from marine fungi Paradendryphiella salina in submerged fermentation with green seaweed Ulva spp. Algal Res 2021;56:102314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2021.102314 
  48. Gmoser R, Fristedt R, Larsson K, Undeland I, Taherzadeh MJ, Lennartsson PR. From stale bread and brewers spent grain to a new food source using edible filamentous fungi. Bioengineered 2020;11:582-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/21655979.2020.1768694 
  49. Stoffel F, de Oliveira Santana W, Gregolon JGN, Kist TBL, Fontana RC, Camassola M. Production of edible mycoprotein using agroindustrial wastes: Influence on nutritional, chemical and biological properties. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 2019;58:102227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2019.102227 
  50. Hosseini S, Khosravi-Darani K. Response surface methodology for mycoprotein production by Fusarium venenatum ATCC 20334. J Bioprocess Biotech 2011;1:1000102. https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9821.1000102 
  51. Souza Filho PF, Nair RB, Andersson D, Lennartsson PR, Taherzadeh MJ. Vegan-mycoprotein concentrate from pea-processing industry byproduct using edible filamentous fungi. Fungal Biol Biotechnol 2018;5:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40694-018-0050-9 
  52. Jeong JY, Jo C. The application of meat alternatives and ingredients for meat and processed meat industry. Animal Food Science and Industry 2018;7:2-11. 
  53. Lonchamp J, Clegg PS, Euston SR. Foaming, emulsifying and rheological properties of extracts from a co-product of the Quorn fermentation process. Euro Food Res Technol 2019:245;1825-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-019-03287-z 
  54. Finnigan TJA. Mycoprotein: origins, production and properties. Handbook of food proteins. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Woodhead Publishing; 2011. p. 335-52. 
  55. Lonchamp J, Clegg PS, Euston SR. Foaming, emulsifying and rheological properties of extracts from a co-product of the Quorn fermentation process. Eur Food Res Technol 2019:245;1825-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-019-03287-z 
  56. Park YK, Nicaud JM, Ledesma-Amaro R. The engineering potential of Rhodosporidium toruloides as a workhorse for biotechnological applications. Trends Biotechnol 2018;36:304-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.10.013 
  57. Lee JJ, Chen L, Cao B, Chen WN. Engineering Rhodosporidium toruloides with a membrane transporter facilitates production and separation of carotenoids and lipids in a biphasic culture. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2016;100:869-77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-015-7102-3 
  58. Belluco S, Losasso C, Maggioletti M, Alonzi CC, Paoletti MG, Ricci A. Edible insects in a food safety and nutritional perspective: a critical review. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 2013;12:296-313. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12014 
  59. Xia Z, Wu S, Pan S, Kim JM. Nutritional evaluation of protein from Clanis bilineata (Lepidoptera), an edible insect. J Sci Food Agric 2012;92:1479-82. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4730 
  60. Kourimska L, Adamkova A. Nutritional and sensory quality of edible insects. NFS J 2016;4:22-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nfs.2016.07.001 
  61. Xiaoming C, Ying F, Hong Z, Zhiyong C. Review of the nutritive value of edible insects. Proceedings of a workshop on Asia-Pacific resources and their potential for development, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 19-21 February, 2008. Forest insects as food: humans bite back. Rome, Italy: FAO; 2010. pp. 85. 
  62. Mishyna M, Martinez JJI, Chen J, Benjamin O. Extraction, characterization and functional properties of soluble proteins from edible grasshopper (Schistocerca gregaria) and honey bee (Apis mellifera). Food Res Int 2019;116:697-706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.08.098 
  63. Purschke B, Meinlschmidt P, Horn C, Rieder O, Jager H. Improvement of techno-functional properties of edible insect protein from migratory locust by enzymatic hydrolysis. Eur Food Res Technol 2018;244:999-1013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-017-3017-9 
  64. Lee HS, RyuHJ, Song HJ, Lee SO. Enzymatic preparation and antioxidant activities of protein hydrolysates from Protaetia brevitarsis larvae. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr 2017;46:1164-70. https://doi.org/10.3746/jkfn.2017.46.10.1164 
  65. De Marchi L, Mainente F, Leonardi M, et al. Allergenicity assessment of the edible cricket Acheta domesticus in terms of thermal and gastrointestinal processing and IgE cross-reactivity with shrimp. Food Chem 2021;359:129878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.129878 
  66. Pali-Scholl I, Meinlschmidt P, Larenas-Linnemann D, et al. Edible insects: Cross-recognition of IgE from crustacean-and house dust mite allergic patients, and reduction of allergenicity by food processing. World Allergy Organ J 2019;12:100006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.waojou.2018.10.001 
  67. Poma G, Cuykx M, Amato E, Calaprice C, Focant JF, Covaci A. Evaluation of hazardous chemicals in edible insects and insect-based food intended for human consumption. Food Chem Toxicol 2017;100:70-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2016.12.006 
  68. Stull VJ, Finer E, Bergmans RS, et al. Impact of edible cricket consumption on gut microbiota in healthy adults, a double-blind, randomized crossover trial. Sci Rep 2018;8:10762. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29032-2 
  69. Choi YS, Kim TK, Choi HD, et al. Optimization of replacing pork meat with yellow worm (Tenebrio molitor L.) for frankfurters. Food Sci Anim Resour 2017;37:617-25. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2017.37.5.617 
  70. Lee DY, Lee SY, Yun SH, et al. Review of the current research on fetal bovine serum and the development of cultured meat. Food Sci Anim Resour 2022;42:775-99. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2022.e46 
  71. Ahmad S, Chun H, Ahmad K, et al. The roles of growth factors and hormones in the regulation of muscle satellite cells for cultured meat production. J Anim Sci Technol 2023;65:16-31. https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2022.e114 
  72. Kim YJ, Kim TK, Cha JY, et al. Consumer awareness survey analysis of alternative protein: Cultured meat and edible insect. Food Life 2022;2022:89-95. https://doi.org/10.5851/fl.2022.e11 
  73. Shaikh S, Lee E, Ahmad K, et al. Cell types used for cultured meat production and the importance of myokines. Foods 2021;10:2318. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10102318 
  74. Lyu P, Qi Y, Tu ZJ, Jiang H. Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals heterogeneity of cultured bovine satellite cells. Front Genet 2021;12:742077. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.742077 
  75. Jang M, Scheffold J, Rost LM, Cheon H, Bruheim P. Serum-free cultures of C2C12 cells show different muscle phenotypes which can be estimated by metabolic profiling. Sci Rep 2022;12:827. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-04804-z 
  76. KR patent 10-2016-0150130. Serum-free medium for animal cell culture. Daejeon, Korea: Korean Intellectual Property Office; 2018. 
  77. KR patent 10-2017-0120431. Manufacturing method of patty using mushroom concentrates and bovine satellite cell culture media. Daejeon, Korea: Korean Intellectual Property Office; 2018. 
  78. Lei Q, Li M, Du G, Zhou J, Guan X. An effective cytokine combination for ex vivo expansion of porcine muscle stem cells. Food Biosci 2022;46:101571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2022.101571 
  79. Liu Z, Lin L, Zhu H, et al. YAP promotes cell proliferation and stemness maintenance of porcine muscle stem cells under high-density condition. Cells 2021;10:3069. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10113069 
  80. Jones JD, Rebello AS, Gaudette GR. Decellularized spinach: An edible scaffold for laboratory-grown meat. Food Biosci 2021;41:100986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2021.100986 
  81. Ko DH. EDGC's cultured meat technology draws global attentions [cited 2022 Dec 12]. Available from: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2021/01/693_301974 
  82. Seo JW, Moon JH, Jang G, et al. Cell-laden gelatin methacryloyl bioink for the fabrication of Z-stacked hydrogel scaffolds for tissue engineering. Polymers 2020:12;3027. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12123027 
  83. Ye Y, Zhou J, Guan X, Sun X. Commercialization of cultured meat products: current status, challenges, and strategic prospects. Future Foods 2022;6:100177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100177 
  84. Hoek AC, Luning PA, Weijzen P, Engels W, Kok FJ, De Graaf C. Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person-and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite 2011;56:662-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.02.001 
  85. Schreuders FK, Schlangen M, Kyriakopoulou K, Boom RM, van der Goot AJ. Texture methods for evaluating meat and meat analogue structures: A review. Food Control 2021;127:108103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108103 
  86. Martinez-Villaluenga C, Gulewicz P, Frias J, Gulewicz K, Vidal-Valverde C. Assessment of protein fractions of three cultivars of Pisum sativum L.: Effect of germination. Eur Food Res Technol 2008;226:1465-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-007-0678-9 
  87. Brouns F, van Rooy G, Shewry P, Rustgi S, Jonkers D. Adverse reactions to wheat or wheat components. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 2019;18:1437-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12475 
  88. Franca PAP, Duque-Estrada P, e Sa BF, van der Goot AJ, Pierucci APTR. Meat substitutes-past, present, and future of products available in Brazil: changes in the nutritional profile. Future Foods 2022;5:100133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100133 
  89. Ishaq A, Irfan S, Sameen A, Khalid N. Plant-based meat analogs: A review with reference to formulation and gastrointestinal fate. Curr Res Food Sci 2022;5:973-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crfs.2022.06.001