Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).
Soergel, B. et al. A sustainable development pathway for climate action within the UN 2030 Agenda. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 656–664 (2021).
Hashempour-Baltork, F., Khosravi-Darani, K., Hosseini, H., Farshi, P. & Reihani, S. F. S. Mycoproteins as safe meat substitutes. J. Clean. Prod. 253, 119958 (2020).
Finnigan, T. J. A. et al. Mycoprotein: the future of nutritious nonmeat protein, a symposium review. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 3, nzz021 (2019).
Stephens, N. et al. Bringing cultured meat to market: technical, socio-political, and regulatory challenges in cellular agriculture. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 78, 155–166 (2018).
Linder, T. Making the case for edible microorganisms as an integral part of a more sustainable and resilient food production system. Food Secur. 11, 265–278 (2019).
Rubio, N. R., Xiang, N. & Kaplan, D. L. Plant-based and cell-based approaches to meat production. Nat. Commun. 11, 6276 (2020).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food and agricultural data. FAOSTAT https://www.fao.org/faostat (accessed 26 March 2021).
Herrero, M. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 452–461 (2016).
Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2, 198–209 (2021).
Steinfeld, H. & Gerber, P. Livestock production and the global environment: consume less or produce better? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18237–18238 (2010).
Weindl, I. et al. Livestock and human use of land: productivity trends and dietary choices as drivers of future land and carbon dynamics. Glob. Planet. Change 159, 1–10 (2017).
Heinke, J. et al. Water use in global livestock production—opportunities and constraints for increasing water productivity. Water Resour. Res. 56, e2019WR026995 (2020).
Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818 (2010).
Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).
Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).
Sun, Z. et al. Dietary change in high-income nations alone can lead to substantial double climate dividend. Nat. Food 3, 29–37 (2022).
Fehér, A., Gazdecki, M., Véha, M., Szakály, M. & Szakály, Z. A comprehensive review of the benefits of and the barriers to the switch to a plant-based diet. Sustainability 12, 4136 (2020).
Herrero, M. et al. Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food system. Nat. Food 1, 266–272 (2020).
Stephens, N. & Ellis, M. Cellular agriculture in the UK: a review. Wellcome Open Res. 5, 12 (2020).
Ciani, M. et al. Microbes: food for the future. Foods 10, 971 (2021).
Sillman, J. et al. A life cycle environmental sustainability analysis of microbial protein production via power-to-food approaches. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25, 2190–2203 (2020).
Järviö, N., Maljanen, N.-L., Kobayashi, Y., Ryynänen, T. & Tuomisto, H. L. An attributional life cycle assessment of microbial protein production: a case study on using hydrogen-oxidizing bacteria. Sci. Total Environ. 776, 145764 (2021).
Edwards, D. G. & Cummings, J. H. The protein quality of mycoprotein. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 69, E331 (2010).
Souza Filho, P. F., Andersson, D., Ferreira, J. A. & Taherzadeh, M. J. Mycoprotein: environmental impact and health aspects. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 35, 147 (2019).
Smetana, S., Mathys, A., Knoch, A. & Heinz, V. Meat alternatives: life cycle assessment of most known meat substitutes. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 1254–1267 (2015).
Alexander, P. et al. Could consumption of insects, cultured meat or imitation meat reduce global agricultural land use? Glob. Food Sec. 15, 22–32 (2017).
Pikaar, I. et al. Decoupling livestock from land use through industrial feed production pathways. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 7351–7359 (2018).
Lapeña, D. et al. Production and characterization of yeasts grown on media composed of spruce-derived sugars and protein hydrolysates from chicken by-products. Microb. Cell Fact. 19, 19 (2020).
Dietrich, J. P. et al. MAgPIE 4 – a modular open-source framework for modeling global land systems. Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 1299–1317 (2019).
Dietrich, J. P. et al. MAgPIE – An Open Source Land-Use Modeling Framework, v.4.3.4. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4730378 (2021).
Jägermeyr, J., Pastor, A., Biemans, H. & Gerten, D. Reconciling irrigated food production with environmental flows for sustainable development goals implementation. Nat. Commun. 8, 15900 (2017).
Riahi, K. et al. The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).
Humpenöder, F. et al. Large-scale bioenergy production: how to resolve sustainability trade-offs? Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 024011 (2018).
Mattick, C. S., Landis, A. E., Allenby, B. R. & Genovese, N. J. Anticipatory life cycle analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 11941–11949 (2015).
Tuomisto, H. L. & Teixeira de Mattos, M. J. Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 6117–6123 (2011).
Lynch, J. & Pierrehumbert, R. Climate impacts of cultured meat and beef cattle. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 3, 5 (2019).
Mendly-Zambo, Z., Powell, L. J. & Newman, L. L. Dairy 3.0: cellular agriculture and the future of milk. Food Cult. Soc. 24, 675–693 (2021).
Järviö, N. et al. Ovalbumin production using Trichoderma reesei culture and low-carbon energy could mitigate the environmental impacts of chicken-egg-derived ovalbumin. Nat. Food 2, 1005–1013 (2021).
Luderer, G. et al. Impact of declining renewable energy costs on electrification in low-emission scenarios. Nat. Energy 7, 32–42 (2022).
Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Gerber, P. & Reid, R. S. Livestock, livelihoods and the environment: understanding the trade-offs. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 1, 111–120 (2009).
Jones, M., Gandia, A., John, S. & Bismarck, A. Leather-like material biofabrication using fungi. Nat. Sustain. 4, 9–16 (2021).
Rogelj, J. et al. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (IPCC, WMO, 2018).
Smith, P. et al. in Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems (IPCC, 2019).
Lotze-Campen, H. et al. Global food demand, productivity growth, and the scarcity of land and water resources: a spatially explicit mathematical programming approach. Agric. Econ. 39, 325–338 (2008).
Bondeau, A. et al. Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial carbon balance. Glob. Change Biol. 13, 679–706 (2007).
Müller, C. & Robertson, R. D. Projecting future crop productivity for global economic modeling. Agric. Econ. 45, 37–50 (2014).
Dietrich, J. P., Popp, A. & Lotze-Campen, H. Reducing the loss of information and gaining accuracy with clustering methods in a global land-use model. Ecol. Modell. 263, 233–243 (2013).
Stevanović, M. et al. Mitigation strategies for greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and land-use change: consequences for food prices. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 365–374 (2017).
Popp, A., Lotze-Campen, H. & Bodirsky, B. Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 451–462 (2010).
Bodirsky, B. L. et al. Reactive nitrogen requirements to feed the world in 2050 and potential to mitigate nitrogen pollution. Nat. Commun. 5, 3858 (2014).
Bonsch, M. et al. Trade-offs between land and water requirements for large-scale bioenergy production. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 8, 11–24 (2014).
Smil, V. Worldwide transformation of diets, burdens of meat production and opportunities for novel food proteins. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 30, 305–311 (2002).
Shepon, A., Eshel, G., Noor, E. & Milo, R. Energy and protein feed-to-food conversion efficiencies in the US and potential food security gains from dietary changes. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 105002 (2016).
Kc, S. & Lutz, W. The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 181–192 (2017).
Dellink, R., Chateau, J., Lanzi, E. & Magné, B. Long-term economic growth projections in the shared socioeconomic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 200–214 (2017).
The World Bank. World Development Indicators. https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (accessed 19 March 2019).
James, S. L., Gubbins, P., Murray, C. J. & Gakidou, E. Developing a comprehensive time series of GDP per capita for 210 countries from 1950 to 2015. Popul. Health Metr. 10, 12 (2012).
Bodirsky, B. L. et al. mrvalidation: madrat data preparation for validation purposes. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4317827 (2020).
Bodirsky, B. L. et al. Global food demand scenarios for the 21st century. PLoS ONE 10, e0139201 (2015).
Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).
Wada, Y. et al. Global monthly water stress: 2. Water demand and severity of water stress. Water Resour. Res. 47, W07518 (2011).
Wisser, D. et al. Global irrigation water demand: variability and uncertainties arising from agricultural and climate data sets. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L24408 (2008).
Gasser, T. et al. Historical CO2 emissions from land-use and land-cover change and their uncertainty. Biogeosciences 17, 4075–4101 (2020).
European Commission, Joint Research Centre/Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. EDGAR – Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research. https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu (2011).
More Stories
Metropolis goes in advance with Brian Coburn extension environmental assessment
Electric cars are better than fossil fuels, despite the mineral problem
The Big 3 Want You To Think Striking Workers and the Climate Are at Odds. They’re Not.