Cereals & Grains Association
Log In

02 Features
Cereal Foods World, Vol. 64, No. 5
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1094/CFW-64-5-0052
Print To PDF
Sustainability Impacts of Pulses in Meat-Analogue Food Products
Ryan J. Kowalski1

C.W. Brabender Instruments Inc., South Hackensack, NJ, U.S.A. 

1 C.W. Brabender Instruments Inc., 50 E Wesley St, South Hackensack, NJ 07606, U.S.A. Tel: +1.201.343.8425 x42; E-mail: ryan.kowalski@cwbrabender.com; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cwbrabender/?__tn__=C-R; LinkedIn 1: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ryan-kowalski-79572b37; LinkedIn 2: https://www.linkedin.com/company/cwbrabender.

© 2019 AACC International, Inc.


The plant-based food movement has been gaining traction rapidly among consumers, companies, and investors. The combination of this movement and the growing popularity of pulses is driving food companies to create meat-analogue products that incorporate pulses as the main replacement for meat protein. Although the popularity of the plant-based food movement is being driven by a multitude of factors, one of the primary drivers is the consumer appeal of environmentally sustainable diets, which can be coupled with sustainability messages around pulses. Sustainability messages resonate with consumers, who often do not have a clear understanding of exactly how environmentally sustainable pulse-based meat alternatives are compared with their meat-based counterparts. Looking at sustainability impacts across the food supply chain, switching from meat-based to pulse-based products drastically reduces land and water use requirements and the carbon footprint of the food production process. Substituting even one plant-based meal for a meat-based meal begins to have an environmental impact. As this impact grows, pulse-based meat-analogue products can play a major part in reducing carbon emissions and slowing global warming and can help sustain a healthier planet for future generations.

Trying to reach content?

View Full Article

if you don't have access, become a member


  1. Béné, C., Oosterveer, P., Lamotte, L., Brouwer, I. D., de Haan, S., Prager, S. D., Talsma, E. F., and Khoury, C. K. When food systems meet sustainability—Current narratives and implications for actions. World Dev. 113:116, 2019.
  2. Endres, G., Forster, S., Kandel, H., Pasche, J., Wunsch, M., Knodel, J., and Hellevang, K. Field pea production. Publ. A1166. Published online at www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/crops/field-pea-production/a1166.pdf. NDSU Extension Service, Fargo, ND, 2016.
  3. Friedman, L., Pierre-Louis, K., and Sengupta, S. The meat question, by the numbers. Published online at www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warming.html. New York Times, January 25, 2018.
  4. Mekonnen, M. M., and Hoekstra, A. Y. The green, blue and grey water footprint of farm animals and animal products. Vol. 1, Main report. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 48. Published online at https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/5146067/Report-48-WaterFootprint-AnimalProducts-Vol1.pdf. Unesco-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, Netherlands, 2010.
  5. Merrill, D., and Leatherby, L. Here’s how America uses its land. Published online at www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use. Bloomberg, July 31, 2018.
  6. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry. How much meat? Published online at www.ag.ok.gov/food/fs-cowweight.pdf. Oklahoma Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry, Oklahoma City, OK, 2018.
  7.  Poore, J., and Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360:987, 2018.
  8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Greenhouse gas emissions from a typical passenger vehicle. Available online at www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle. EPA, Washington, DC, 2018.
  9. Weber, C. L., and Matthews, H. S. Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42:3508, 2008.