The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Could consumption of insects, cultured meat or imitation meat reduce global agricultural land use?
Open accessAbstract
Animal products, i.e. meat, milk and eggs, provide an important component in global diets, but livestock dominate agricultural land use by area and are a major source of greenhouse gases. Cultural and personal associations with animal product consumption create barriers to moderating consumption, and hence reduced environmental impacts. Here we review alternatives to conventional animal products, including cultured meat, imitation meat and insects (i.e. entomophagy), and explore the potential change in global agricultural land requirements associated with each alternative. Stylised transformative consumption scenarios where half of current conventional animal products are substituted to provide at least equal protein and calories are considered. The analysis also considers and compares the agricultural land area given shifts between conventional animal product consumption. The results suggest that imitation meat and insects have the highest land use efficiency, but the land use requirements are only slightly greater for eggs and poultry meat. The efficiency of insects and their ability to convert agricultural by-products and food waste into food, suggests further research into insect production is warranted. Cultured meat does not appear to offer substantial benefits over poultry meat or eggs, with similar conversion efficiency, but higher direct energy requirements. Comparison with the land use savings from reduced consumer waste, including over-consumption, suggests greater benefits could be achieved from alternative dietary transformations considered. We conclude that although a diet with lower rates of animal product consumption is likely to create the greatest reduction in agricultural land, a mix of smaller changes in consumer behaviour, such as replacing beef with chicken, reducing food waste and potentially introducing insects more commonly into diets, would also achieve land savings and a more sustainable food system.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Trumbo, P., Schlicker, S., Yates, A. A., & Poos, M. (2002) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/s0002-8223(02)90346-9 · Cited by 5,993
Food consumption trends and drivers
Kearney, J. (2010) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0149 · Cited by 1,987
Hu, F. B. (2011) · Diabetes Care · doi:10.2337/dc11-0442 · Cited by 1,954
The nutrition transition: worldwide obesity dynamics and their determinants
Popkin, B. M., & Gordon-Larsen, P. (2004) · International Journal of Obesity · doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0802804 · Cited by 1,538
Macronutrients, P. O., Fiber, P. O. T. D. O. D., Nutrients, S. O. U. R. L. O., Intakes, S. O. I. A. U. O. D. R., Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes, Food and Nutrition Board, & Institute of Medicine (2005) · doi:10.17226/10490 · Cited by 1,482
Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector
Herrero, M., Henderson, B., Havlík, P., Thornton, P. K., Conant, R. T., Smith, P., Wirsenius, S., Hristov, A. N., Gerber, P., Gill, M., et al. (2016) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2925 · Cited by 1,045
Environmental impacts of cultured meat production
Tuomisto, H. L., & Teixeira de Mattos, M. J. (2011) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es200130u · Cited by 891
The Protein Digestibility–Corrected Amino Acid Score
Schaafsma, G. (2000) · The Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1093/jn/130.7.1865s · Cited by 537 · cited 1×
“Beef and soy have a similar Protein Digestibility–Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS), indicating that they have similar protein values in human nutrition (Schaafsma, 2000).”
BackgroundExploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation
Erb, K.-H., Lauk, C., Kastner, T., Mayer, A., Theurl, M. C., & Haberl, H. (2016) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms11382 · Cited by 352
Cited by
Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems
Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., et al. (2019) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31788-4 · Cited by 10,880
van Dijk, M., Morley, T., Rau, M. L., & Saghai, Y. (2021) · Nature Food · doi:10.1038/s43016-021-00322-9 · Cited by 2,339
Plant-based and cell-based approaches to meat production
Rubio, N. R., Xiang, N., & Kaplan, D. L. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20061-y · Cited by 606
Gold, M., Tomberlin, J. K., Diener, S., Zurbrügg, C., & Mathys, A. (2018) · Waste Management · doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2018.10.022 · Cited by 528
The Myth of Cultured Meat: A Review
Chriki, S., & Hocquette, J.-F. (2020) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2020.00007 · Cited by 518
Metadata
- Authors
- Alexander, P., Brown, C., Arneth, A., Dias, C., Finnigan, J., Moran, D., & Rounsevell, M. D. A.
- Venue
- Global Food Security
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-12
- Volume
- 15
- Pages
- 22-32
- ISSN
- 2211-9124 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2606286161
- Cited by
- 379
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 20.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Could consumption of insects, cultured meat or imitation meat reduce global agricultural land use? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.04.001
- The paper
- Alexander, P., Brown, C., Arneth, A., Dias, C., Finnigan, J., Moran, D., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2017). Could consumption of insects, cultured meat or imitation meat reduce global agricultural land use? Global Food Security. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.04.001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.