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

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