Questions and Concerns Re: Blue Water Footprints Reported in “Water Footprint of Meat Analogs: Selected Indicators According to Life Cycle Assessment”

Keeve E Nachman,Brent F Kim,Raychel E Santo

doi:10.3390/w12051270

Abstract

The article “Water Footprint of Meat Analogs: Selected Indicators According to Life Cycle Assessment,” Water 2019 11: 728 by Fresán et al. analyzes the water footprints (WFs) of 39 meat analogs and their associated eutrophication and ecotoxicity potential. We have several questions and concerns about the WFs presented in this study, which in some cases are an order of magnitude larger than those reported for similar products in other published works. Additionally, at least some of the WFs of other meat analogs and conventional meats—to which the authors compare their results—appear to misrepresent the cited literature. We encourage the authors to provide clarification on how the WF values for meat analogs are so much higher than those reported in other studies and to verify the comparison values reported from other sources.

Highlights

Fresán, Marrin, Mejia, and Sabaté published an analysis of the water footprints (WFs) of 39 meat analogs, and their associated eutrophication and ecotoxicity potential [1]
The blue WF reported by Fresán and colleagues for all phases of the meat analog production process (3800 L/kg) is significantly higher than those reported in other studies of plant-based meat analogs: 29 L/kg [2], 107 L/kg [3], and 180 L/kg [4]
We do not expect the WFs of these raw ingredients to match those of the processed ingredients used in meat analogs, and Fresán and colleagues’ results would be highly dependent on the country of production as well as the extraction rates and method of coproduct allocation used in converting the WFs of primary products into processed ingredients

Summary

Introduction

Marrin, Mejia, and Sabaté published an analysis of the water footprints (WFs) of 39 meat analogs, and their associated eutrophication and ecotoxicity potential [1]. Analyses such as these are timely and important given the rapidly growing market presence of plant-based meat analogs, and the limited research comparing their environmental impacts to those of conventional meats. We have several questions and concerns about the WFs presented in this study, which in some cases are an order of magnitude larger than those reported for similar products in other published works. We are concerned that some of the values presented from other studies appear to misrepresent the cited literature. Throughout, we assume the authors’ use of the term “water consumption” refers to blue water only, per their explanation on page 4

Water Footprints of Meat Analogs

Water Footprints of Conventional Meats

Conclusions