Filling knowledge gaps on the nutritional, safety, allergenicity and environmental assessment of alternative proteins and dietary shift

Topic description

ExpectedOutcome:

In line with the European Green Deal priorities, the farm to fork strategy for a fair, healthy and environment‑friendly food system, and the EU’s climate ambition for 2030 and 2050, the successful proposal will support R&I to promote the production, provision and safe consumption of alternative sources of protein, and dietary shifts towards sustainable healthy nutrition, contributing to the transformation of food systems to deliver co‑benefits for climate (mitigation and adaptation), biodiversity, environmental sustainability and circularity, sustainable healthy nutrition and safe food, food poverty reduction, empowerment of communities, and thriving businesses.

The farm to fork strategy states that ‘[a] key area of research will relate to (…) increasing the availability and source of alternative proteins such as plant, microbial, marine and insect-based proteins and meat substitutes’.

While information already exists on the environmental and climate-related benefits of a dietary shift to alternative proteins, more R&I is needed to obtain a comprehensive and up‑to‑date understanding of the environmental footprint and sustainability performance of alternatives (e.g. plant-based, microbe-based, ocean-based (i.e. fish, algae, invertebrates), fungus-based, insect-based, cultured meat) compared to conventional sources of protein (e.g. meat and dairy) and dietary shifts. There is also a need for further research on the positive and negative impacts of alternative protein sources in European diets on human health (e.g. food allergies) and their bioavailability (along with other characteristics such as structure, colour, taste and flavour). It is presumed that a shift to alternative proteins should lead to healthier and overall more sustainable diets, but this depends on the nature of the shift (e.g. shifting from processed meat to another nutrient‑poor, highly processed protein source might not provide the desired health benefits).

Projects results are expected to contribute to all of the following expected outcomes:

• informing a systemic approach to integrated food policy development and informing sectoral policies (e.g. on food safety, public health, agriculture, aquaculture and the environment) through additional, up-to-date information and knowledge on alternative sources of protein and dietary shift; and
• providing solutions and assessing their potential for fighting climate change (through adaptation and mitigation), halting biodiversity loss and improving ecosystem services, promoting the circularity of the food system and improving people’s health and well‑being through more nutritious, healthier and overall sustainable food systems and food choices.

Many studies (e.g. IPCC, EAT-Lancet) have highlighted the large environmental impact of traditional livestock production and consumption of products thereof, and the need for and benefits of a dietary shift to alternative protein sources. For example, switching from meat and dairy to alternative sources of protein could lead to savings in land use (plant alternatives need less land per unit of protein; aquatic animals generally have a high production per area), better animal welfare and less deforestation for food production. Excessive consumption of livestock-derived products could also lead to a decline in health. The World Health Organization (WHO) has classified processed meat as carcinogenic to humans and red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans. An Oxford University model specifies that switching to diets made of alternative protein sources (e.g. algae, insects, plants, fungi) reduces diet‑related mortality by 5-7%, due to increased consumption of dietary fibres^[1]. However, a concern regarding novel foods (especially those containing proteins) is the likelihood of food allergies.

Proposals are expected to address the following:

• consider all alternative sources of protein (e.g. plant-based, microbe-based, ocean‑based (i.e. fish, algae, invertebrates), fungus-based, insect-based, cultured meat), including their processing, and avoid focusing on only one, so as to enable comparison;
• fill knowledge gaps and improve our understanding of the positive and negative impacts of each type of alternative protein and the overall dietary shift with respect to the environment, natural resources, biodiversity and climate (considering global aspects, pedo‑climatic and biogeographical conditions, pollution pressure and trade issues);
• fill knowledge gaps on the characteristics of each type of alternative protein, including nutritional quality (e.g. bioavailability, the quality of the protein itself and of combined protein sources), alone and in the context of its introduction in European diets (taking into account the cultural aspects of diets and national dietary advice in the EU);
• fill knowledge gaps on the health impact of alternative proteins and overall dietary shift in the European Union, in particular for those sources of proteins for which limited information on health impacts is available, such as (but not limited to) invertebrates or insects-based proteins (e.g. allergies, compliance with nutrient‑based and food‑based dietary guidelines and recommended dietary patterns), while considering gender aspects, and other safety aspects (e.g. not cytotoxic, no toxic aggregates or excessive amount of toxic substances);
• conduct a comparative systemic analysis of conventional and alternative proteins. New Product Environmental Footprint (PEF)-based categories should be created and health effects should be included in diet assessment frameworks. Non-linear effects should be studied, with regard to both consumption and production;
• highlight the need for new future-proof technologies and anticipate potential issues in relation to resource availability, pollution and societal acceptability;
• create or contribute to a data space to gather knowledge, information and results of studies, and share them openly (open science) among research communities, interested parties and the public (dietary data hub). Seek interactions and complementarities with the data space for R&I and the European Open Science Cloud, and contribute to increasing the level of FAIRness (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Re-usability) of dietary data;
• clearly explain how they will contribute to the farm to fork objectives and deliver co-benefits on each of the Food 2030 priorities: nutrition for sustainable healthy diets, climate and environment, circularity and resource efficiency, innovation and empowering communities (e.g. meeting the needs, values and expectations of society in a responsible and ethical way); and
• implement the multi-actor approach by involving a wide range of food system actors and conducting inter-disciplinary research. Proposals should also promote international cooperation. Where relevant, activities should build and expand on the results of past and ongoing research projects (especially the four projects funded under topic LC-SFS-17-2019: Alternative proteins for food and feed). Projects should have a clear plan as to how they will collaborate with other projects selected under this topic (if funding of more than one project is possible) and topic HORIZON‑CL6‑2021-FARM2FORK-01-02: Developing sustainable and competitive land‑based protein crop systems and value chains. They should participate in joint activities, workshops, focus groups or social labs, and common communication and dissemination activities, and show potential for upscaling. Applicants should plan the necessary budget to cover these activities. The possible participation of the JRC in the projects will also ensure that the proposed approach will be compatible with and/or improve existing databases and tools used at the European Commission with regard to the environmental aspects, and ensure open access to data.
• This topic should involve the effective contribution of SSH disciplines.

EOSC and FAIR data
Societal Engagement
International Cooperation
Socio-economic science and humanities
Ocean sustainability and blue economy

[1]World Economic Forum, Oxford Martin School, Oxford University (2019), Meat: The future of series – Alternative proteins.