Utilization of Fermentation Process for the Production of Novel Plant-Based Meat Analogs: A Review of Microorganisms, Processing, and Regulations.

Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf . 2026 Apr 13;25:e70470. doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.70470 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Utilization of Fermentation Process for the Production of Novel Plant‐Based Meat Analogs: A Review of Microorganisms, Processing, and Regulations Fatma Beyza Özpınar Fatma Beyza Özpınar 1 Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering Faculty, Food Engineering Department, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkiye Find articles by Fatma Beyza Özpınar 1 , Sevda Dere Sevda Dere 1 Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering Faculty, Food Engineering Department, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkiye Find articles by Sevda Dere 1 , Serdar Altunay Serdar Altunay 2 Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physiology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkiye Find articles by Serdar Altunay 2 , Osman Sagdic Osman Sagdic 1 Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering Faculty, Food Engineering Department, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkiye Find articles by Osman Sagdic 1 , Enes Dertli Enes Dertli 3 Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering Faculty, Food Engineering Department, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkiye Find articles by Enes Dertli 3, ✉ Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering Faculty, Food Engineering Department, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkiye 2 Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physiology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkiye 3 Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering Faculty, Food Engineering Department, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkiye ✉ Corresponding author. Revised 2026 Mar 7; Received 2026 Jan 10; Accepted 2026 Mar 19; Issue date 2026 May. © 2026 The Author(s). Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Institute of Food Technologists. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13074123  PMID: 41972597 ABSTRACT The production of plant‐based meat analogues from various protein sources is an emerging application worldwide, driven by growing population and health concerns. Many microorganisms during fermentation play a crucial role in fermented plant‐based meat alternatives, together with structuring and analytical approaches in terms of nutritional, physicochemical, and textural properties. On the other hand, various countries enforce regulations and legislation for these products while producing and labeling them in order to protect consumers. This review focused on plant sources, microorganisms, and technologies applied to fermented meat alternatives, including 3D food printing, extrusion, and advanced biotechnological and analytical approaches such as precision fermentation, artificial intelligence, machine learning, and metabolomics analysis. Besides, dietary, chemical, flavor, and appearance effects were mentioned for these combinations. In addition, the review discusses legal regulations and labeling enforced in several countries, aimed at providing consumers with safe, healthy food by defining appropriate protein dosages. The techno‐functional properties of plant‐based meat alternatives improved owing to fermentation and microorganisms playing a vital role. This review also highlighted that other advanced technologies assisted in the development of better final products in line with consumer demands and legal regulations enforced to produce high‐quality, safe, and healthy foods. Keywords: fermentation, legal regulations, meat analogues, microorganisms, novel technologies, plant proteins Abbreviations 3D three‐dimensional AI artificial intelligence CAC Codex Alimentarius Commission CIFST Chinese Institute of Food Science and Technology DJC Department of Justice Canada DSL D‐saccharide acid, 1,4 lactone EC European Commission EFSA European Food Safety Authority EU European Union FD&C Act Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act FDA Food and Drug Administration GABA γ‐aminobutyric acid GC‐MS gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry GRAS generally recognized as safe HMEP high‐moisture extrusion processing LMEP low‐moisture extrusion processing LOX lipoxygenase ML machine learning MUFA monounsaturated fatty acids PBFA Plant Based Foods Association PBMAs plant‐based meat alternatives PUFA polyunsaturated fatty acids SAMR Announcement (No. 48/2024) of the State Administration for Market Regulation SCFAs short‐chain fatty acids SFA Singapore Food Agency SPI soybean protein isolate SSF solid‐state fermentation TPA texture profile analysis 1. Introduction The demand for plant‐based protein food sources has recently shown a significant increase worldwide due to the growing population, health concerns, ethical values, and changing in dietary habits (De Angelis et al. 2024 ). Especially, when meat‐based foods are produced, some environmental problems may occur such as negative impacts on land and water resources and emission of greenhouse gases (M. Singh et al. 2021 ). Besides, the overuse of antibiotics in animal production may contribute to public health concerns and has been associated with adverse health outcomes in humans (Melaku et al. 2025 ). Searches have begun for alternative protein sources that contribute positively to animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and health issues to minimize these negative effects (Bryant 2022 ). The plant‐based diet has demonstrated many advantages such as improvement in cholesterol and blood pressure, anti‐inflammatory effects, increased fiber content, and enhancement of the gastrointestinal tract and microbiome diversity (Ewy et al. 2022 ). The market for non‐meat products manufactured from plant‐based proteins has gradually increased in recent years (H. Lee et al. 2020 ). While processing these products, all ingredients are sourced from non‐meat origins such as cereals, legumes (soy and pea), seeds, nuts, algae, fungi, and oils/fats (M. Singh et al. 2021 ). For example, Beyond Meat, Impossible Foods, Nestlé Garden Gourmet, Moving Mountains, The Vegetarian Butcher, Next Gen Foods, and Heura Foods are companies that produce non‐fermented meat alternatives from different plant sources (Table 1 ). There are some concerns about plant‐based meat alternatives (PBMAs) regarding nutritional deficiencies, low digestibility, and high allergenicity. Therefore, fermentation technology has been applied using starters like lactic acid bacteria (LAB) such as Lactiplantibacillus plantarum , Lactobacillus acidophilus , and Levilactobacillus brevis to address these concerns. These starters play a role in improving the organoleptic and nutritional attributes of the final product (Boukid, Hassoun, et al. 2023 ; Elhalis et al. 2023a ; Fernandez‐Varela et al. 2024 ; Razavizadeh et al. 2021 ). In particular, fermentation and starter culture technology for PBMAs can be considered as a novel solution in terms of economics and sustainability (Elhalis et al. 2023b ). The interaction between plant protein and starters contributes to sensorial properties by reducing undesirable off‐flavor compounds. Meati Foods, Nature's Fynd, Quorn, Prime Roots, The Better Meat Co., and Peace of Meat are examples of companies that produce meat analogues based on fermentation (Table 1 ). TABLE 1. Novel fermented and non‐fermented plant‐based meat alternatives. Country Product Source Reference United States Plant‐based burger patties (non‐fermented) Avocado oil, canola oil, coconut oil, rice protein, potato protein, apple extract Beyond Meat ( 2025 ) Meatballs (non‐fermented) Pea protein, rice protein, potato protein, coconut oil, apple extract, pomegranate extract, beet powder, garlic powder Plant‐based sausage links (non‐fermented) Pea protein, rice protein, avocado oil, onion powder, paprika, oat bran, oat fiber, lemon juice concentrate Steak (non‐fermented) Faba bean protein, canola oil, garlic powder, onion powder, pomegranate concentrate, vegetable juice color Plant‐based chicken pieces (non‐fermented) Soy protein, avocado oil, garlic powder, onion powder, pea fiber Plant‐based chicken nuggets (non‐fermented) Pea protein, wheat flour, canola oil, rice flour, coconut oil, oat fiber, oat bran, onion powder, dried garlic, paprika, garlic powder United States Ground beef, taco beef, steak bites, meatballs, burger patties, chicken patties, chicken nuggets, ground sausage, sausage links (non‐fermented) Soybeans, sunflower, coconuts Impossible Foods ( 2025 ) United Kingdom No chicken burger (non‐fermented) Soy concentrate, soy isolate, wheat flour, pea protein, dietary fiber (sugar cane), paprika extract, sunflower oil Moving Mountains ( 2025 ) No chicken nuggets (non‐fermented) Mushrooms, onion, oyster mushrooms, coconut oil, soy protein 5.9%), soy protein isolate (2.1%), pea protein isolate (1.4%), oat fiber, barley malt extract, apple vinegar, beetroot red (coloring agent) Burger (non‐fermented) Oyster mushrooms, mushrooms, onion, coconut oil, soy protein isolate, pea protein isolate, oat fiber, barley malt extract, beetroot red (coloring agent) Mince (non‐fermented) Oyster mushrooms, onion, coconut, sunflower, pea protein, oat fiber, barley malt extract Hot dogs (non‐fermented) Carrot, onion, coconut oil, sunflower seeds Sausage (non‐fermented) Oyster mushrooms, vegetable oil (sunflower, coconut, rapeseed), vegetable protein (soy protein concentrate, soy protein isolate, pea protein isolate), oat fiber, lemon juice, barley malt extract, wheat Superfood sausages (non‐fermented) Vegetables (pea, tomato, onion, green pepper), legumes (chickpeas, green lentils), pea protein, seeds (pumpkin, sunflower, chia), sugar cane fiber, goji berry, parsley No fish fingers (non‐fermented) Wheat flour, soy protein concentrate, vegetable oil (sunflower, rapeseed), maize, potato, rice No fish fillets (non‐fermented) Soy protein concentrate, vegetable oil (sunflower, rapeseed), maize, potato, rice, wheat United Kingdom No chicken chunks (non‐fermented) Soy protein (92%), sunflower oil, natural flavoring The Vegetarian Butcher ( 2025 ) No chicken shawarma (non‐fermented) Soy protein (92%), sunflower oil, garlic powder, onion powder Patty on the back raw burger (soy‐based beef) (non‐fermented) Soy protein concentrate, wheat protein, sunflower oil, potato protein, vinegar powder, beet‐root juice, psyllium fiber Frozen happy go clucky (soy‐based chicken) (non‐fermented) Soy protein, wheat flour, vegetable oils (sunflower, rapeseed), fibers (bamboo, psyllium husk, oat), yeast extract, herb extract Frozen little peckers (chicken style nuggets) (non‐fermented) Soy protein, vegetable oils (sunflower, rapeseed), rice flour, oat fiber Impeckable (soy‐based chicken) (non‐fermented) Soy protein, vegetable oils (sunflower, rapeseed), yeast extract Hentastic (soy‐based chicken) (non‐fermented) Soy protein, vegetable oils (sunflower, rapeseed), fibers (bamboo, psyllium husk, oat), yeast extract Switzerland Vegan filet pieces (non‐fermented) Soy protein, rapeseed oil, spirit vinegar, yeast extract Garden Gourmet ( 2025 ) Vegan burger (non‐fermented) Soy protein concentrate (18.5%), wheat protein (5.7%), vegetable oils (sunflower, rapeseed), fried onion, onion powder, malt extract powder (from barley), spirit vinegar, yeast extract Vegan schnitzel (non‐fermented) Soy protein (14.4%), vegetable oils (sunflower, rapeseed), wheat flour, onion powder, garlic powder Sensational bratwurst (non‐fermented) Soy protein (14.9%), vegetable oils (coconut, rapeseed), apple fibers, spices (ginger, garlic, pepper black), plant concentrations (carrot, beetroot) Singapore Garlic and Herb Kyiv (plant‐based chicken) (non‐fermented) Garlic sauce (16%), rapeseed oil, coconut oil, black pepper, garlic powder, oat fiber, parsley Tindle Foods ( 2025 ) Tikka masala stuffed chicken (non‐fermented) Soy protein concentrate, coconut milk, sunflower oil, oat fiber, turmeric, garlic powder Spain Chorizo (plant‐based sausage) (non‐fermented) Soy protein (17.8%), shea butter, smoked paprika, radish concentrate, carrot concentrate, virgin olive oil Heura Foods ( 2025 ) Salchicha (plant‐based sausage) (non‐fermented) Soy protein concentrate (18.3%), shea butter, extra virgin olive oil (3.5%), vegetable extracts, vegetable fiber, parsley Daditos (plant‐based protein cubes) (non‐fermented) Rehydrated soy protein (85%), rapeseed oil, virgin olive oil, lemon juice concentrate, vegetable concentrates (radish, carrot, paprika) United States Crispy cutlet (fermented) Mycelium ( Neurospora crassa ), chickpea flour, rice four, potato protein, paprika, garlic, onion Meati Foods ( 2025 ) Southwest style (plant‐based steaks) (fermented) Mycelium ( N . crassa ), natural coloring agents (fruit juice, lycopene), oat fiber, olive oil, paprika, onion Breakfast patty maple (fermented) Mycelium ( N . crassa ), maple syrup, yeast extract, fruit and vegetable juices (coloring agents) United States Protein + Veg Bites; Herby Thai, Spicy Indian, Zesty Greek, Savory Italian (fermented) Fungi protein, chickpea, carrot, pea protein, avocado oil, chickpea flour, canola oil, garlic powder, onion powder Nature's Fynd ( 2025 ) Meatless Fy breakfast patties (fermented) Fungi protein, soy protein concentrate, high oleic sunflower oil, yeast extract, black pepper, fruit juice color, natural flavors ( < 2 % ) United States Cracked pepper Turkey‐inspired clean plant protein (fermented) Mycoprotein, yeast, koji, pea fiber, rice bran oil, konjac root flour, onion powder, garlic powder Prime Roots ( 2025 ) Italian style salami‐inspired clean plant protein (fermented) Mycoprotein, yeast, koji, coconut oil, konjac root flour, natural lycopene (coloring agent), rice bran oil, garlic powder Black forest ham‐ inspired clean plant protein (fermented) Mycoprotein, yeast, koji, pea fiber, coconut oil, natural lycopene (coloring agent), bamboo fiber, rice bran oil, garlic powder, onion powder Sliced applewood smoked bacon‐ inspired clean plant protein (fermented) Mycoprotein, yeast, koji, coconut oil, konjac root flour, pea fiber, rice bran oil, natural smoke flour United Kingdom Vegan sausage roll (fermented) Mycoprotein, wheat flour, pea protein, pea fiber, rapeseed oil, beetroot red Quorn ( 2025 ) Brilliant bangers (fermented vegan sausage) Mycoprotein (17%), pea protein, wheat flour, rapeseed, and palm oils Vegan pepperoni slices (fermented) Mycoprotein (53%), rapeseed and palm oils, pea fiber, paprika extract, cayenne chilli Yorkshire ham style slices (fermented) Mycoprotein (28%), rapeseed oil, yeast extract, bamboo fiber, thyme oil Chicken nuggets (fermented) Mycoprotein (54%), wheat flour, pea protein, pea fiber, vegetable oils (sunflower, rapeseed), onion powder, garlic powder Open in a new tab Several food components can be converted by fermentation to produce meat analogs. For example, the use of microorganisms in bioconversion can provide desired features such as proteolysis, and aromatization via amino acid catabolism. Such processes help improve taste properties and remove beany flavors from pea‐based products, making them more acceptable to consumers (Molfetta et al. 2022 ). Aquafaba can be used to enhance the structure of the fermentation process after hydrothermal treatment, aiming to preserve the activity of bioactive compounds and the nutritional value of the end product (Gumienna et al. 2025 ). It can also be utilized alternatively as non‐adhesive binders replacing hydrocolloid additives for cleaner labels of meat alternatives (Tyndall et al. 2024 ). Besides this, protein aggregates are known to convert into a fibrous texture because of the texturization process (Ishaq et al. 2022 ). Plant proteins aid in structuring to build fiber in the final product (Du et al. 2023 ). In particular, the mixing of soy‐based protein and starch increases tensile strength and hardness (Sun et al. 2022 ). On the other part, lipids are significant bioactive ingredients. The most common oils in meat alternatives include canola, coconut, corn, sunflower, cocoa butter, and sesame oil (Bohrer 2019 ). Lipids also play an essential role in affecting the mechanical attributes of proteins and the organoleptic perception of the product, such as water‐binding capacity and protein strength (Benković et al. 2023 ). In recent years, many processing methods and new technologies have been developed to produce plant‐based products that meet consumer expectations. The most important step in these technologies is the use of methods that create textural anisotropy and develop fibrous structures, both of which are essential for mimicking the texture of real meat (Taghian Dinani et al. 2023 ; Zink et al. 2024 ). In particular, the bottom‐up approaches (e.g., cultivation of filamentous fungi, synthesis of myofibril‐like proteins, wet spinning, electrospinning) and top‐down approaches (e.g., extrusion, high‐temperature shear, freeze structuring, protein‐hydrocolloid blending, 3D printing) play a key role in producing meat alternatives with desirable appearance, taste, and flavor attributes. Technologies such as wet spinning and electrospinning further support this objective by producing highly ordered filamentous networks through controlled flow dynamics and electric field‐induced stretching, enabling the formation of myofibril‐like strands with tunable thickness and strength (A. Singh and Sit 2022 ). Correspondingly, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into formulation design and process optimization has gained momentum; AI‐based models can predict optimal ingredient combinations, simulate structural outcomes, and adjust processing parameters in real time to enhance fibrous texture development (D. Lee et al. 2024 ). These advancements collectively accelerate the creation of plant‐based meat analogues with enhanced structural fidelity and sensory realism. Besides, three‐dimensional (3D) food printing is a novel method that allows the creation of edible items layer‐by‐layer (Waseem et al. 2024 ). This technology is also key in manufacturing meat analogs with desired nutrition, taste, and texture. Notably, alternative protein sources are selected according to consumer needs when using food printers (Çakmak and Gümüş 2020 ). 3D printing shows promise both technically and commercially for plant‐based meat products (M. Singh et al. 2021 ; Wen et al. 2023 ). In addition, the fermentation process has been identified as a promising pre‐printing step to develop texture and structure, enabling 3D printing to more effectively mimic traditional meat products (Miller et al. 2024 ). If the printing method is used as a post‐processing step for fermented meat analogs, their quality can improve in terms of both functional and nutritional features (Boukid, Hassoun, et al. 2023 ). Nevertheless, studies that have produced fermented meat analogs using 3D printers are still limited and must be further developed in the future. It is essential to comply with the related regulations and standards to provide food safety and consumer rights to produce these meat products (K. Zhang et al. 2022 ). Therefore, manufacturers must monitor the limitations of some nutrients such as fat, protein, vitamins, and minerals (Yang et al. 2023 ). Since it is estimated that the consumption of meat analogs will become prevalent soon, establishing legal regulations to guide ingredient development and manufacturing technology is unavoidable (Künili et al. 2023 ). Various countries worldwide have already enacted legislative regulations on nutrition labeling, contamination limits, and additives within certain standards. In addition, fermented pea and fungal proteins have obtained generally recognized as safe (GRAS) notification for use in meat and poultry analogs (K. Zhang et al. 2022 ). Singapore Food Agency (SFA) consistently updates its guidelines and requirements for novel food products and their ingredients in the framework of safety. Accordingly, Singapore is a leading country in the regulation of meat alternative products, including fermented proteins (Protein Production Technology International 2023 ). On the other hand, microalgal products consumed before May 15, 1997, such as Arthrospira platensis , are confirmed according to the regular food safety standard regulation (EC) 178/2002 (Hadi and Brightwell 2021 ). This review discusses fermentation for PBMAs, the role of microorganisms, and the conversion of food components through fermentation. It also aims to elucidate the implementation of advanced technology on meat alternatives. These technologies include 3D printing, textural anisotropy, extrusion, spinning, and AI. In contrast to previous reviews that primarily focus on raw materials, other fermented food analogues, or non‐fermented plant‐based meat products, as well as conventional processing methods, this review jointly provides an integrated and critical perspective on fermented plant‐based meat analogues, addressing fermentation‐driven functionality, emerging structuring technologies, and regulatory frameworks. This integrated scope addresses a significant gap in the current literature, as fermented meat analogues alongside advanced biotechnological approaches remain underrepresented. Finally, regulations and legislation around the world were explained with several examples. This study is expected to generate substantial knowledge in its field. It provides a ground for future applications that may significantly contribute to scientific and technological advancements. Furthermore, although the number of studies on fermented plant‐based meat analogues is increasing, important research gaps remain regarding the effects of fermentation on nutrient bioavailability, flavor and texture development, as well as process scalability and product consistency at an industrial scale. Generally, the outlooks offered in this review emphasize the significant role of fermentation and emerging technologies in shaping the future of sustainable food production. The review also highlights the importance of integrating scientific innovation with global regulatory perspectives. By combining engineering, microbiological, and technological approaches, this work aims to bridge current research gaps. It seeks to inspire new strategies for the development of high‐quality, eco‐friendly, and consumer‐accepted plant‐based meat products. 2. Plant‐Based Fermentation Process and Responsible Microorganisms The process of making plant‐based fermented meat analogues involves various sources, such as legumes, cereals, seeds, nuts, algae, fungi, and oils, together with several microorganisms. These microorganisms contribute distinct flavors, tastes, and colors to the final product. They also play a significant role in antioxidant activity and nutritional properties. Some examples of microorganisms responsible for these characteristics in meat alternatives include L. plantarum , L. delbrueckii , Weissella confusa , Monascus purpureus , Debaryomyces hansenii , A. platensis , and Rhizopus oryzae (Table 2 ). TABLE 2. Microorganisms used in plant‐based fermented meat analogues and their contributions. Microorganism Source Contribution Reference Yeast ( R . mucilaginosa and M. purpureus ) and Lpb. plantarum Soybean proteins Meaty flavor owing to acid and ester metabolites and color formation with metabolic modulation by β‐carotene Lou et al. ( 2023 ) Lpb. plantarum , L. delbrueckii , and L. acidophilus Pea‐oat blend Phytase activity, increase in acidity, and metabolic activity Kaleda et al. ( 2020 ) Ltb. sakei , S. xylosus , S. carnosus , and D. hansenii Pea protein Improved flavor through enzymatic proteolysis Flores et al. ( 2024 ) R. oligosporus and R. oryzae Peanut tempeh High sensorial value Jayanegara et al. ( 2024 ) Lpb. plantarum and R. oryzae Whole‐grain oat Richer in soluble proteins and improved the growth capacity of lactobacilli monocultures Wu et al. ( 2018 ), Molfetta et al. ( 2022 ) L. helveticus FAM1213 Sunflower seed press cake Neutral pH value, improved color, and textural properties Pöri et al. ( 2023 ) Lpb. plantarum and W. confusa Rapeseed protein concentrate Removed intense off‐odor and flavor notes Nisov et al. ( 2024 ) Lactobacillus and Staphylococcus genera Walnut leaf extract Low microbial load and high antioxidant capacity Tutulescu et al. ( 2019 ) A. platensis Lupin protein Increased antioxidant activity and phenolic content Palanisamy et al. ( 2019 ) H. pluvialis Pea protein Similarity to real meat in terms of color and texture Xia et al. ( 2022 ) Monascus ruber and mixed LAB (LM) freeze‐dried powder (12 bacterial strains) Soy protein Improving product quality, water holding capacity, and color Zhu, Zhu, et al. ( 2024 ) P. limosum Pea protein Improved chewiness, gelling properties, fibrous degree, viscosity, and protein digestibility C. Zhang et al. ( 2024 ) R . mucilaginosa , M. purpureus , and Lpb. plantarum Soy protein Improved the textural and flavor properties Ou et al. ( 2023 ) N. intermedia Peanut press cake, coconut residue, and cassava by‐products Carotenoid‐derived pigmentation (promising for developing red color) Milcarz and Harasym ( 2025 ) Lpb. plantarum and L. acidophilus Rapeseed oil and soy protein Reduction of protein oxidation; improvement of water‐holding capacity, and taste Razavizadeh et al. ( 2021 ) Open in a new tab Figure 1 exhibit several keywords that frequently appear together with plant sources and LAB in studies on plant‐based fermented food analogues. The keywords represent frequently used terms in the literature, while the thickness of the connecting lines refers to the strength of the co‐occurrence relationships. The clusters are color‐coded according to thematic areas. The yellow cluster (e.g., cereal, legume, fermentation) means plant‐derived raw materials and their role in fermentation processes. Among these, cereal demonstrates the strongest connection, indicating that cereal‐based fermented food products dominate the research field. The green cluster (e.g., probiotic, gut microbiota, antioxidant, lactic acid) reflects the health‐related and functional properties associated with LAB fermentation. These terms frequently co‐occur with LAB, highlighting the probiotic and bioactive potential of LAB in plant‐based matrices. The red cluster centers on LAB and their metabolic outcomes (e.g., organic acids, fatty acids, antifungal activity, biopreservation, L. plantarum ). Strong connections within this cluster demonstrate the importance of LAB‐driven metabolites in improving the safety, shelf‐life, and microbial stability of plant‐based fermented food analogues. The blue cluster (e.g., essential oil, antimicrobial activity, spoilage) emphasizes the use of natural antimicrobial compounds in preventing spoilage and improving product stability. The strong association between “essential oil” and “antimicrobial activity” indicates the extensive research on combining LAB with plant‐derived antimicrobial agents. Overall, the network analysis suggests that cereal‐based substrates, LAB metabolites, and probiotic functionalities are the dominant thematic clusters within plant‐based food analogue fermentation. FIGURE 1. Open in a new tab Frequently co‐occurring keywords related to plant sources and lactic acid bacteria in plant‐based fermented food analogues, identified through a bibliometric analysis of Scopus and Web of Science publications from 2020 to 2025 (created with VOSviewer software). 2.1. Legume‐Based Products Legumes contain high protein, fibers, vitamins, minerals, and being cost‐effective, they are preferred for use as meat alternatives (Zipori et al. 2024 ). Soybean is one of the most used among plant sources for meat analogs because it is characterized by amino acid composition and essential amino acid content close to animal requirements (Patil et al. 2017 ; Molfetta et al. 2022 ). Lou et al. ( 2023 ) showed that yeast ( Rhodotorula mucilaginosa and M. purpureus ) and Lactobacillus ( Lpb. plantarum ) fermentation of soybean proteins have provided meaty flavor owing to acid and ester metabolites and color formation with metabolic modulation by β‐carotene. The main mold used in tempeh is R. oligosporus . However, Citrobacter freundii , or Propionibacterium adding to soybeans as co‐culture can increase B12 vitamin content in tempeh during fermentation (Subali et al. 2023 ). For instance, Stanin et al. ( 2020 ) showed that tempeh‐based meat analogues have high B12 content. Kaleda et al. ( 2020 ) demonstrated that the fermentation of the pea‐oat blend has positively affected the extrusion process, as well as its physicochemical, sensorial, and textural features. In particular, fermentation combined with phytase treatment before extrusion has been shown to break down macromolecules, resulting in a more flavorful matrix. Furthermore, while phytic acid content was decreased by 32%, aroma compounds were significantly enhanced. Some selected commercial starters such as Lpb. plantarum , L. delbrueckii , and L. acidophilus , have been shown to possess phytase activity. Incidentally, the strains of Weissella sp. and Lpb. plantarum were preferred because they have the potential to degrade antinutrients. In another study, pea protein inoculated with Latilactobacillus sakei , Staphylococcus xylosus , S. carnosus , and D. hansenii has improved flavor through enzymatic proteolysis in the fermented meat analogs (Flores et al. 2024 ). The fermentation of pea proteins with LAB, consisting of L. acidophilus , Streptococcus thermophilus , L. delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus , and Bifidobacterium lactis , and yeasts ( Kluyveromyces lactis and K. marxianus ) modified sensorial attributes by masking the undesirable green flavor. Owing to the fermentation process, aldehyde, ketone, and furan compounds have significantly decreased compared to the uninoculated sample (El Youssef et al. 2020 ). The solid‐state fermentation (SSF) of lentils showed that, it increased the mineral contents like calcium, iron, zinc, copper, potassium, and sodium and improved digestibility (Dhull et al. 2020 ; Oduro‐Yeboah et al. 2022 ). Mockus et al. ( 2023 ) evidenced that Lpb. plantarum and Lacticaseibacillus casei strains in the SSF of red lentils increased the content of essential free amino acids, GABA (γ‐aminobutyric acid), MUFA (monounsaturated fatty acids), and decreased PUFA (polyunsaturated fatty acids) contents. Respondents found the meat analogue made from peanut tempeh that was fermented by the mixture of R. oligosporus and R. oryzae to have high sensorial value (Jayanegara et al. 2024 ). 2.2. Cereal‐Based Products Cereals are a primary energy source containing significant nutrients such as proteins, carbohydrates, dietary fiber, vitamins, fats, and minerals. Some cereals are also rich in functional bioactive components like tocopherol and polyphenol, which provide a protective mechanism against cardiovascular risk, high blood pressure, cancer, Type‐2 diabetes, and hypertension (Baniwal et al. 2021 ). Since cereals lack B‐group vitamins, the fermentation process aids in the increment of this group vitamins (Capozzi et al. 2012 ). C. Xie et al. ( 2021 ) used Propionibacterium freudenreichii as the vitamin producer in the fermentation process and it showed that the highest vitamin B12 production belonged to rice bran with 742 ng/g dw concentration. In a study, the plant‐based vegan meat from the by‐product of rice processing was obtained by adding dried yeast that contains vitamin B12. The results demonstrated lower fat and higher protein content than commercial vegan meat. On the other hand, it observed higher polyphenol, antioxidant, ACE inhibitory peptide, D‐saccharide acid, 1,4 lactone (DSL), and GABA than the real meat. Finally, this product showed similar properties such as oil holding capacity, firmness, color, size, sensorial features, and long shelf life to commercial products (Puangwerakul and Soithongsuk 2022 ). Besides, co‐fermentation with LAB ( Lpb. plantarum ) and filamentous fungi ( R. oryzae ) for whole‐grain oat made it richer in soluble proteins and improved the growth capacity of lactobacilli monocultures, because fungi degraded polymers to simple molecules that promote the growth of lactobacilli (Wu et al. 2018 ; Molfetta et al. 2022 ). Wilson et al. ( 2024 ) reported that LAB improved iron bioavailability in sorghum. Although cereal‐based protein sources, especially rice, are commonly investigated in fermented plant‐based food matrices, studies on cereal‐based meat analogues are still limited. Based on Figure 2 , cereals appear as the most frequently studied plant source in the field. Among the cereal‐based studies identified through Scopus and Web of Science, cereal was found to be the most commonly investigated ingredient. The keywords most frequently associated with cereal in these publications are shown in Figure 2 . This network was specifically constructed using rice‐related terms because bibliometric analysis showed that rice is the most extensively studied cereal substrate in the literature. As a result, rice and its derivatives (e.g., rice bran, rice flour) were selected to exhibit cereal‐based matrices in this figure. “Lactic acid bacteria” appears as the hub node, highlighting its dominant role in linking functional, metabolic, and substrate‐related themes. The blue cluster (e.g., rice bran, phenolic acids, bioactive peptides) represents works focused on the enhancement of bioactive compounds through LAB fermentation of rice bran. Strong connections to “phenolic acids” and “bioactive peptides” show that rice bran is frequently investigated for its functional potential. The orange cluster, centered on fermentation, acts as a connecting bridge between raw materials and functional outcomes. The green cluster (e.g., antioxidant activity, flavor, gluten‐free) reveals the sensory and health‐related attributes of fermented rice‐based products. The red cluster includes primary substrates such as rice and terms related to fermentation performance (e.g., fermentation quality, probiotics). Meanwhile, the purple cluster links rice flour to LAB fermentation, underlining its role in gluten‐free fermented product development. The presence of P. freudenreichii in the yellow cluster suggests infrequent co‐culture strategies or synergistic applications in rice‐based fermentation systems. Overall, the network indicates that rice bran‐derived bioactives, gluten‐free product development, and antioxidant enhancement are the predominant thematic clusters in LAB fermentation of rice‐based matrices. FIGURE 2. Open in a new tab Frequently co‐occurring keywords associated with rice in cereal‐based studies, identified through a bibliometric analysis of Scopus and Web of Science publications from 2020 to 2025 (generated using VOSviewer). 2.3. Seed‐Based Products Seeds are a crucial food source for human health, plant growth, and mineral reserves (Welch 1999 ). Many seeds such as chia, chickpea, legume, and oilseed (rapeseed, cottonseed, sunflower seed) could be used in the food analogs (Asgar et al. 2010 ; He et al. 2021 ; Senna et al. 2024 ). After the fermentation process, oilseed extract proteins with starter cultures could be combined in the meat analogs (Bakhsh et al. 2021 ). In addition, sunflower seed protein extracts have high protein and amino acid content and improve the nutritional quality, therefore they prefer to be used in meat analogs (Gonçalves and Egea 2021 ). For instance, sunflower seed press cake extracts were fermented by L. helveticus FAM1213. Following the fermentation the pH value was changed to neutral, this situation made the color and textural properties improved (Pöri et al. 2023 ). Nisov et al. ( 2024 ), in order to modify the sensory properties of meat alternatives, fermented the rapeseed with Lpb. plantarum and W. confusa and applied high‐moisture extrusion treatment on the product. This study revealed that fermentation removed intense off‐odor and flavor notes in the native raw material. Another study reported a 10%–11% increase in MUFAs, such as oleic acid in fermented rapeseed meal, accompanied by a reduction in PUFAs, indicating an improved fatty acid profile (Vlassa et al. 2022 ). 2.4. Nut‐Based Products Nuts are rich in phytic acid and bind minerals such as calcium, iron, zinc, and magnesium (Molfetta et al. 2022 ). Pecans, which belong to the nut family, contain over 90% protein and are high in protein. Therefore, they could be used as meat alternatives (Norman 2008 ). Tutulescu et al. ( 2019 ) analyzed the effect of walnut leaf extract on microbial and antioxidant activity. Results showed that the microbial load was low, and Lactobacillus and Staphylococcus genera were found. On the other hand, it exhibited high antioxidant capacity. So, the walnut leaf extract has the potential to be used instead of real meat. In a study, ash content was found in low amounts as a result of the utilization of minerals after co‐fermentation of raw maize and walnut because of inherent microorganisms such as Bacillus pumilus , Lb. delbrueckii , Leuconostoc mesenteroides , and Saccharomyces cerevisiae . Through this property, anti‐nutritional factors, and high protein content, walnuts promise to replace meat (Oyarekua and Bankefa 2015 ). Fermentation of chestnut protein with L. rhamnosus showed that it cured in vitro protein digestibility and improved protein quality (W. Fu et al. 2024 ). 2.5. Algae‐Based Products Algae could be preferred in meat analog because of their high growth rate and rich nutritional value (Y. Fu et al. 2021 ). They are a functional group of autotrophic photosynthetic, aquatic, and non‐embryophyte organisms. They could be unicellular, colonial, filamentous, or composed of simple tissues (Espinosa‐Ramirez et al. 2023 ). Algae such as Dunaliella salina , Spirulina platensis, Chlorella vulgaris , and Haematococcus pluvialis are used in nutritive food applications (Elhalis et al. 2023a ). Moreover, proteins obtained from microalgae showed high solubility, foaming, emulsifying, and forming gel capacities. Their proteins could be considered safe for food ingredients (Kurek et al. 2022 ). Also, microalgal proteins have good digestibility attributes (Zhu, Xiao, et al. 2024 ). The addition of Spirulina ( Arthospira platensis ) flour at a 30% level to a lupin protein‐based meat analog increased its physicochemical and nutritional properties, such as antioxidant activity and phenolic content (Palanisamy et al. 2019 ). Xia et al. ( 2022 ) utilized H. pluvialis with pea protein in their meat analog. Outcomes exhibited that the algae contributed to the color and texture of the product and the meat alternative's appearance was similar to real meat products. Also, an improvement in the fibrous structure of the meat alternative was observed. Grossmann et al. ( 2019 ) found out that C. protothecoides has high solubility with ≥ 84.3 in a wide pH range (from pH 2–12). Chlorella and Arthospira are rich in iron and several vitamins, such as B12 and E, which are essential for meat products. Thus, these microalgae could be used as meat substitutes (Zhu, Xiao, et al. 2024 ). 2.6. Fungal‐Based Products Fungal proteins have high nutritional value and biological activity, so they could be considered novel protein sources. C. Zhang et al. ( 2024 ) demonstrated that 5% Penicillium limosum (SSF starter culture) content, when extruded with pea protein, improved chewiness, gelling properties, fibrous degree, viscosity, and protein digestibility in high‐moisture meat analogues. Some edible filamentous fungal species such as Aspergillus oryzae , R. oryzae , Fusarium venenatum , and Neurospora intermedia contain high protein and their mycelium has PUFAs and fibers. These structures could be converted to meat‐like textures utilizing the denaturation process in a controlled manner (Elhalis et al. 2023a ). For instance, Quorn products, produced through the fermentation of fungal biomass by F. venenatum , are notable for their protein content (Cheriaparambil and Grossmann 2025 ). The fungal biomass is converted to meat analogs by adding various flavorings (Wood and Tavan 2022 ). Besides, ascomycetous fungi like Monascus species are known for their ability to produce secondary metabolites, including many pigments such as melanins, flavins, ankaflavin, β‐carotene, azaphilones, quinones, monascin, anthraquinone, and naphthoquinone. Thanks to these metabolites, several colors are produced, involving yellow, red, orange, green, purple, blue, and brown in food products (Toma et al. 2023 ). Especially, the red pigment is quite significant for meat alternatives to resemble visually real meat products. Ou et al. ( 2023 ) investigated the effect of pigment produced by R . mucilaginosa and M. purpureus in soy‐based fermentation. The results showed that the colors of fermented soy‐based meat products and fresh meat products were similar and addition of Lpb. plantarum improved the textural and flavoral properties, suggesting that the co‐fermentation of LAB and fungi could advance the quality features. Besides, it accelerates the hydrolysis of plant proteins, thus peptide properties and plant protein may develop (Farid et al. 2024 ). Zhu, Zhu, et al. ( 2024 ) exhibited that LAB promotes the pigment production of Monascus in fermented textured soy protein and soluble protein contents increased by approximately 302.34% because of the co‐fermentation process. Furthermore, N. intermedia is a good option for its carotenoid‐derived pigmentation, which is promising for developing red‐colored meat analogs (Milcarz and Harasym 2025 ). Correlatively, the fermentation of N . crassa swelled β‐carotene and protein content (Nuraini et al. 2009 ). Yuan et al. ( 2022 ) produced the fermented sausage analogs by using soybean protein isolate (SPI) and edible mushrooms ( Lentinula edodes , Pleurotus ostreatus , and Coprinus comatus ). Afterward, their textural and flavor profiles were analyzed. The outputs demonstrated that the meat analog prepared with C. comatus exhibited close to real beef in textural properties and a total of 64 volatile compounds were detected according to gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry (GC‐MS), which explains the flavor similarities among meat analogs and real meat. Zwinkels et al. ( 2023 ) reported that SSF of barley and rice using such as filamentous fungi ( R. microsporus and A. oryzae ) induced the formation of mycelium‐like (fibrillar) structures and improved protein quality by approximately 10%–30%. These structural and nutritional attributes make SSF a promising approach for enhancing more meat‐like, high‐quality plant‐based meat formulations. 2.7. Oil/Fats‐Based Products Fats and vegetable oils such as cocoa butter, margarine coconut oil, rapeseed oil (canola), corn oil, avocado oil, soybean oil, palm oil, and sunflower oil are commonly used in meat alternatives to provide the texture and attributes of real meat (Sha and Xiong 2020 ). Fats are also essential in meat analogs for the substituting of real meat in terms of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor features. During heat treatment, lipid oxidation plays an important role in the occurring flavor of PBMAs and enhancing meat‐like taste (Jang and Lee 2024 ). The balancing of unsaturated and saturated fats is crucial for resembling the textural and sensorial properties of meat analogs to those of real meat. Coconut oil and coconut butter are good examples due to their marbling effect in PBMAs (Penna Franca et al. 2022 ). Isusi et al. ( 2023 ) tested the textural impact of rapeseed oil on soy‐based and pea‐based meat analogs. According to the results, firmness increased in both samples; however, the soy‐based meat product was more similar to real meat than the pea‐based one. In addition, the study also investigated the mechanical and rheological effects of rapeseed oil incorporation, such as gel strength and G ′ modules on different protein matrices. Razavizadeh et al. ( 2021 ) maturated okara by adding soy protein, rapeseed oil, and Lpb. plantarum and L. acidophilus strains. The study showed that the samples fermented by the Lpb . plantarum P1 strain had the best quality properties such as reduction of protein oxidation, improvement of water‐holding capacity, and taste. Although a wide variety of plant sources and microorganisms have been investigated for fermented plant‐based meat analogues, the current literature remains highly limited on raw materials and microbial systems. Most studies focus on improving single attributes, such as flavor masking, bioactive compound formation, or nutritional enhancement, while the combined effects of substrate selection, starter culture composition, and fermentation conditions on final product structure and sensory quality are still poorly understood. In particular, systematic comparisons of different microbial components on multiple plant matrices are infrequent. Moreover, the majority of available studies remain limited to model systems or laboratory scale formulations, which restricts the transferability of the reported results to meat analogue production. Future studies should prioritize integrated fermentation strategies that associate microbial metabolism with structure formation, texture development, nutritional functionality, and industrial scalability. Such integrated approaches are essential to enable the reasonable design of fermented plant‐based meat analogues with consistent quality and predictable performance. 3. Conversion of Food Components by Fermentation as a Tool to Produce Plant‐Based Meat Analogs The conversion of food components through the fermentation process has emerged as a promising approach to produce PBMAs that mimic the sensory and nutritional features of conventional meat products, handling both consumer requirements for sustainable alternatives and the challenges of replicating the complex properties of meat (Vila‐Clarà et al. 2024 ). For instance, it could be discussed that, the components such as starch, proteins, lipids, polysaccharides, and dietary fibers that can be biochemically and functionally enhanced through fermentation, could lead the formation of key metabolites with technological, nutritional, and functional relevance. These components play a significant role in the improvement of meat‐like textures, flavors, and nutritional profiles (Molfetta et al. 2022 ). In fermented meat analogues, the metabolites formed during fermentation and their technological, nutritional, and functional effects are illustrated below (Figure 3 ). Fermentation by LAB (e.g., Weissella , Lactobacillus ) generates key metabolites such as organic acids, free amino acids, bioactive peptides, phenolic compounds, EPS, and stabilized pigments, which collectively enhance texture, nutritional quality, flavor, shelf‐life, and functional health properties of plant‐based meat analogues. FIGURE 3. Open in a new tab Metabolites formed during fermentation and their technological, nutritional, and functional effects in meat analogues. 3.1. Influence of Fermentation on the Physicochemical and Structural Properties of Starch in Plant‐Based Meat Analogues Starch is a substantial polysaccharide that influence the texture and mouthfeel of plant‐based meats. Through fermentation, starch molecules are broken up into more digestible forms. This biochemical process improves elasticity and water retention, aiding in imitating the fibrous texture of animal meat (Boukid, Hassoun, et al. 2023 ). Similarly, fermentation alters the physicochemical properties of starch, enhancing its gelation and binding capabilities, which are critical for the structural integrity of plant‐based meat formulations. Mao et al. ( 2024 ) exhibited that when corn flour is applied fermentation modification and combined modification with heat‐moisture treatment, the starch structure changes in a way that improves water holding, elasticity, and structural capacity of noodles. This type of process could aid in mimicking the intended mouthfeel in PBMAs. In addition, microbial activities during fermentation can break down starch into simpler forms, which contributes to improving sensory characteristics and digestibility of the end product. These modifications also support the occurrence of fibrous textures by interacting with plant proteins and other polysaccharides, making fermented starch a key functional ingredient in PBMAs (Elhalis et al. 2023a ). In a study, potato starch was fermented with Lpb. plantarum and tested with physicochemical properties and morphological characteristics. The results showed the crystallinity, gel hardness, and chewiness of potato starch (Y. Xu et al. 2020 ). Because of its hardness and chewiness, potato starch could have the potential to be used in plant‐based meat products. 3.2. Structural and Functional Modification of Plant Proteins Through Fermentation for Improved PBMA Quality Plant proteins have some limitations in terms of digestibility, off‐flavors, and technofunctional properties compared to animal proteins (L. Day 2013 ). Fermentation is a favorable strategy, which could be used as a transformative tool to tackle these challenges by modifying protein structures because of microbial enzymatic activity, enhancing nutritional and functional properties (Table 3 ). The combination of fermentation and enzymatic hydrolysis facilitates the breakdown of complex protein matrices into smaller peptides and amino acids, resulting in easier digestibility and contributing to the development of desirable sensory attributes. Arteaga et al. ( 2022 ) demonstrated that fermentation and enzymatic hydrolysis of pea protein isolate notably reduced potential pea allergens and improved foaming capacity and sensory profile. Correlatively, Siddiqui et al. ( 2024 ) reported that microbial fermentation acts as a powerful tool for modifying plant protein structures through proteolytic enzyme activity. Thanks to fermentation, protein interactions are changed, and structural features such as solubility, gel‐forming and emulsification capacity, and water/oil retention capacity are improved. Furthermore, some significant parameters like pH and temperature alterations during fermentation aid in reforming protein networks, and developing the texture and sensory qualities of PBMAs. Besides, Zhao et al. ( 2018 ) emphasized that the fermentation of soy protein by A. oryzae caused enhanced umami taste due to the conversion of L‐glutamine into L‐glutamic acid. TABLE 3. Sources, microorganisms, and technological applications used in fermentation‐based plant food analogues. Source Microorganism Technological application Technological aspects Reference Red bean seeds Lpb. plantarum Lactic acid fermentation Inhibiting the growth of E. coli pathogen Gumienna et al. ( 2025 ) Chickpea aquafaba Antrodia xantha (AXA) and L. edodes (Berk.) Pegler (LED) Submerged fermentation More fluffy appearance and less beany flavor Mehren et al. ( 2025 ) Fresh corn Lpb. plantarum (lyophilized powder, ATCC 8014) Fermentation modification and combined modification with heat‐moisture treatment (HMT) Increased amylopectin proportion, ester aldehydes, and acid content; reducing olefin and alkane levels Mao et al. ( 2024 ) Potato starch Lpb. plantarum CGMCC 14177 Lactic acid fermentation Increased amylase production owing to an enhancement in gel hardness and chewiness Y. Xu et al. ( 2020 ) Pea protein Lpb. plantarum DSM 20174 Lactic acid fermentation and enzymatic hydrolysis Stronger protein degradation, reduction of potential pea allergens and off‐flavors; improved foaming capacity Arteaga et al. ( 2022 ) Soybeans A . oryzae 3.042 Soy sauce fermentation Enhanced umami taste due to the conversion of L‐glutamine into L‐glutamic acid Zhao et al. ( 2018 ) Defatted rice bran B . subtilis , S . cerevisiae , and Lpb . plantarum Two stage co‐fermentation Increased antioxidant activity; reduced the activity of lipase and lipoxygenase; inhibited pathogens; improved the nutritional quality and physicochemical properties Su et al. ( 2022 ) Rice bran R . oligosporus 6010 Solid‐state fermentation (SSF) Enhanced in volatile compounds such as phenol, benzenes, esters, and lactones Astuti et al. ( 2022 ) Soybean and lipids Prevotella , Veillonella , and norank_f_Propionibacteriaceae Co‐fermentation and batch fermentation Increased propionate productivity N. Xu et al. ( 2023 ) Xylan Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus Microbial fermentation Enhancement of SCFAs and restoration of dietary fiber deprivation Wang et al. ( 2021 ) Soy protein P . expansum Microbial fermentation Increased hydroxyl radical scavenging capacity and enhanced in probiotic bacteria of the intestinal system Liang et al. ( 2023 ) Soy protein B . subtilis BSNK‐5 Microbial fermentation Enhanced in soluble dietary fiber; antioxidant activity; glucose and lipid‐lowering effects Meng et al. ( 2025 ) Carob pulp P. ostreatus Solid‐state fermentation (SSF) Increased fiber and protein content Iqbal et al. ( 2024 ) Grain sorghum S. cerevisiae , Lactobacillus amylovorus , and Lipomyces kononenkoae Yeast and lactic acid fermentation Increased mineral content as a result of breakdown of carbohydrates; enhanced protein content; increased pepsin digestibility; reduced phytates C. Day and Morawicki ( 2018 ) Open in a new tab Aquafaba is also a viscous liquid rich in proteins, primarily derived from legume seeds, such as cooked chickpeas. Fermentation is useful for improving the foaming and emulsifying properties that contribute to the structure and stability of PBMAs. Since aquafaba is an alternative to emulsifies and gelling agents, it acts as a proper reference for stabilizing the oil‐water phase in PBMAs (Yazıcı et al. 2022 ). In addition, during fermentation, undesirable off‐flavors reduce and refine their sensory profile (Jang and Lee 2024 ). Besides, the fermentation of aquafaba can be helpful in developing the textural properties after hydrothermal treatment, intending to protect the activity of bioactive compounds and the nutritional value of the end product (Gumienna et al. 2025 ). Mehren et al. ( 2025 ) analyzed the fungal structure, aroma profile, and texture of chickpea aquafaba after fungal fermentation. Their findings demonstrated that fermentation notably reduced the characteristic beany aroma, thereby developing sensory profile. The obtained foam structure was fluffy, porous, and soft. Therefore, this texture is promising for use with PBMAs. All these factors make fermentation a crucial approach to enhance protein functionality and improve the structural and sensory attributes of PBMAs. 3.3. Fermentation‐Mediated Modification of Lipids and Its Contribution to Flavor and Oxidative Stability in PBMAs Lipids are vital ingredients for flavor, mouthfeel, and overall sensory perception in plant‐based meat formulations. Fermentation plays a significant role in the converting plant lipids into volatile aroma compounds while enhancing oxidative stability (Bansal et al. 2023 ). Therefore, this case has a positive effect on shelf life and sensory quality of the final product. Unsaturated fatty acids are the primary reason for the “beany” off‐flavor in legume‐based food products resulting in the hydrolysis of lipids. For this reason, fermentation is also an intelligent strategy for odor masking and transformation (Tao et al. 2022 ). For instance, a study showed that lipoxygenase (LOX) and lipase activities significantly reduced due to co‐fermentation ( B. subtilis , S. cerevisiae , and Lpb . plantarum ) of rice bran by enhancing antioxidant activity (Su et al. 2022 ). In fermented substrates, microorganisms control lipid oxidation pathways by modulating LOX and lipase activities. Thus, the level of aldehydes, such as hexanal and pentanal, decreases while promoting in the enrichment of ketones, esters, lactones, and alcohols (Astuti et al. 2022 ). N. Xu et al. ( 2023 ) conducted co‐fermentation of lipids and food waste, and their results showed that some volatile fatty acids, such as propionic acid, were produced from butyric acid. These transformations improve both sensory properties and modify lipid‐derived flavor profiles in plant‐based meat production. 3.4. Impact of Fermentation on the Techno‐Functional, Nutritional, and Prebiotic Properties of Dietary Fibers in PBMAs Dietary fibers contribute to the structural integrity and moisture retention of plant‐based meat formulations. Fermentation modifies the solubility and water‐holding capacity of fibers, optimizing their textural features. Moreover, the process enhances the functional benefits of the product by promoting prebiotic effects and improving the gut health system. This not only mimics the sensory attributes of meat but also presents health‐promoting benefits, which is significant for consumers (Ciobano et al. 2025 ). During fermentation processes, some bioactive compounds, including short‐chain fatty acids (SCFAs), vitamins, and peptides, can be released which may contribute to enhanced immune modulation and gastrointestinal tract (Mazhar et al. 2023 ). Wang et al. ( 2021 ) showed that xylan supplementation to Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp., resulted in enhancement of SCFAs and restored dietary fiber deprivation. Liang et al. ( 2023 ), soluble dietary fiber (SDF) from fermented okara by P. expansum fermentation. Through the fermentation process, SDF yield in okara increased to 45.63% and exhibited porous microstructure and good functional properties. Moreover, a study proved that fermented okara using B. subtilis strain increased the conversion of insoluble dietary fiber to soluble form by 7.5‐fold. Hereby, antioxidant activity and lipid and glucose‐lowering effects of fibers were observed (Meng et al. 2025 ). In addition, rice fermentation by Cordyceps sinensis may enhance the fiber content due to the transformation mechanisms of its substances. Some hydrolyzing enzymes such as cellulase, cellobiose, α‐galactosidase, β‐glucanases, carboxypeptidases, and so on. can cause the conversion of insoluble fibers into soluble fibers in some fermented food sources like maize flour, pearl millet, sorghum, seeds, and pea (Adebo et al. 2022 ). Iqbal et al. ( 2024 ) fermented carob pulp by P. ostreatus , which is an edible fungus species. According to their findings, fiber content significantly increased through SSF. As a result, the metabolic activity of microorganisms plays a vital role fiber contents and are advantages in terms of prebiotic, nutritional, and bioavailability. These fermentation‐driven modifications in dietary fiber functionality are advantageous for plant‐based meat analogs. In this direction, it is important to consider some parameters such as nutritional quality, bioavailability, and prebiotic value, aligning with the goals of functional meat alternatives. 3.5. Functional, Structural, and Nutritional Significance of Polysaccharides and Microbial EPSs in Fermented PBMAs Polysaccharides comprise a diverse group of biopolymers that play significant roles in modulating the rheological, textural, and structural features of PBMAs. They perform as binders, gelling agents, stabilizers, and water‐holding agents; accordingly, the appearance and mouthfeel of food matrices can improve (Marczak and Mendes 2024 ; Özpınar et al. 2024 ). In addition, they can interact with plant proteins via hydrogen bonding and electrostatic interactions. Therefore, they can ensure that PBMAs mimic real meat products in terms of muscle fibers and muscle tissues (Cui et al. 2024 ). Besides, polysaccharide hydrocolloids play a crucial role in improving the nutritional profiles and health enhancement, such as digestibility by incorporating with dietary fibers, plant proteins, and essential micronutrients, and regulating acidity in the gastrointestinal system through fermentation (Rasul et al. 2025 ). Since the studies related to PBMAs adding polysaccharides are limited, the effects of polysaccharides (especially microbial polysaccharides) on PBMAs have not been well‐revealed. Hence, more studies should be done to fill the gap in the literature. Nevertheless, some studies have been conducted on the effects of polysaccharides on meat alternatives. For instance, Han et al. ( 2023 ) showed that the addition of polysaccharides (κ‐carrageenan) decreased the moisture and fat content and increased the water‐holding capacity of plant‐based patties. Also, overall texture properties were improved owing to κ‐carrageenan, and the appearance features, like lightness, were affected positively. Moreover, Yuliarti et al. ( 2023 ) demonstrated that the addition of konjac to fermented soybean dough patties enhanced the viscoelastic behavior through the interaction of protein and konjac networks. Otherwise, methylcellulose, alginate, and locust bean gum are other polysaccharides used in meat alternatives in order to retain color, stability during cooking, fat entrapment, protein binding, improve elasticity, increase water‐holding capacity, and avoid ice crystal formation for frozen foods (Dahal et al. 2025 ). In addition, exopolysaccharides produced during fermentation processes can assist in decreasing the growth of food pathogens by synthesizing organic acids, thereby they can prevent probable food poisoning cases and increasing the final product quality (Elhalis et al. 2023a ). Furthermore, mineral content may increase during fermentation due to the breakdown of polysaccharides (C. Day and Morawicki 2018 ; Sawant et al. 2025 ). Therefore, understanding how polysaccharides and their fermentation‐based metabolites derived from plant proteins affect the safety, nutrition, and texture of PBMAs is necessary. Further research on microbial polysaccharides could ensure new insights into improving the quality and functionality of meat alternatives. Figure 4 illustrates the technological and functional roles of polysaccharides in fermented plant‐based meat analogues. FIGURE 4. Open in a new tab Functional and technological roles of polysaccharides in fermented plant‐based meat analogues. 4. Fermentation‐Based Production of Plant‐Based Meat Analogues PBMAs are designed to replicate various types of meat in terms of texture, color, nutritional value, and flavor (St Pierre and Kuhl 2024 ). In this context, plant proteins play a crucial role in achieving these qualities due to their techno‐functional properties, including solubility, emulsification, foaming, viscosity, gelation, flavor binding, and film formation (Boukid 2021 ). However, PBMAs have been reported to exhibit disadvantages, including textural deficiencies, color instability, and undesirable flavor attributes (Choudhury et al. 2020 ). Addressing these challenges requires further investigation, and the incorporation of innovative technologies into these systems is considered essential (Elhalis et al. 2023b ). Fermentation exhibits considerable potential in overcoming these limitations and is commonly applied as a complementary process to conventional structuring methods. However, the integration of fermentation with novel technologies is considered a more effective approach for overcoming such limitations. Figure 5 shows a diagram of sources and technologies used in plant‐based meat analogues. Besides, Figure 6 exhibit several methods frequently used on plant‐based fermented food analogues according to the number of published studies based on a dataset of 802 publications. As shown in the figure, high‐moisture extrusion appears as one of the most commonly applied techniques, while methods such as 3D printing, machine learning (ML), metabolomics analysis, electrospinning, and wet spinning represent relatively newer approaches. The color gradient also suggests that research on these emerging technologies has increased particularly after 2023. FIGURE 5. Open in a new tab Sources and technological approaches for the development of plant‐based meat analogues (created with BioRender). FIGURE 6. Open in a new tab Frequently co‐occurring keywords related to methods used in fermented food analogues, categorized by publication frequency and identified through a bibliometric analysis of Scopus and Web of Science (2020–2025) using VOSviewer. 4.1. Integration of Fermentation With Structuring Methods for PBMAs The textural and sensory quality of meat analogs mainly depends on the ingredients, formulation, and structuring methods (Elhalis et al. 2023b ). The major challenge in producing meat analogues is achieving the desired textural properties and developing a fibrous structure, for which textural anisotropy is essential to evaluate their resemblance to targeted animal products (Taghian Dinani et al. 2023 ; Zink et al. 2024 ). Animal meat consists of myofibrils, together with sarcoplasmic and connective tissue proteins, whereas many plant proteins are predominantly globular in nature, lack fibrillar organization, and exhibit a less ordered macrostructure (Ozturk and Hamaker 2023 ; H. Xie and Grossmann 2025 ). Various processing methods are employed to unfold the native structures of proteins and convert them into a denatured form to overcome this disadvantage (Sha and Xiong 2020 ). Plant‐derived proteins can be transformed into layered and striated muscle‐like structures by inducing protein unfolding and intermolecular cross‐linking through processing techniques such as extrusion, spinning, shear cell, and 3D printing technologies (Joshi et al. 2023 ; Younis et al. 2022 ). A wide range of processing techniques has been developed for plant‐based meat substitutes, which are classified into bottom‐up and top‐down structuring approaches (Younis et al. 2022 ). The bottom‐up approach involves designing and assembling structural elements such as fibers or protein filaments into a whole product, aiming to mimic the anisotropic organization of meat (A. Singh and Sit 2022 ). Structural elements can be produced using biotechnological and advanced engineering methods, such as cultivating filamentous fungi, synthesizing myofibril‐like proteins, or generating fibers through wet‐spinning or electrospinning (A. Singh and Sit 2022 ). Other technologies, named the top‐down approach, transform bulk biopolymeric matrices into fibrous structures through mechanical or physical processing, for example, extrusion, high‐temperature shearing, freeze structuring, mixing plant proteins with hydrocolloids, and 3D printing technology, to produce a meat‐like texture (Boukid 2021 ). Although all of these technologies are still under investigation and continue to progress through innovative approaches, synergistic effects have been demonstrated when integrated with fermentation (Valtonen et al. 2023 ). Extrusion is one of the most widely used structuring techniques in the production of PBMAs, and plant‐based materials undergo several processes, including conveying, mixing, shearing, kneading, cooking, texturizing, and shaping. During this process, various complex transformations such as denaturation, structure formation, and solidification occur (Guyony et al. 2022 ). At the stage of solidification, a fibrous structure forms, providing PBMA products with a meat‐like texture and appearance (Guan et al. 2024 ). Depending on the water content, extrusion can be classified as high‐moisture extrusion processing (HMEP), typically containing 40%–70% water and widely applied in the production of plant‐based meat analogues, or low‐moisture extrusion processing (LMEP), operating with less than 35% water (Guan et al. 2024 ; Pöri et al. 2023 ). The combined application of both HMEP and LMEP with fermentation in the production of plant‐based sausages has been shown to create a synergistic effect. While extrusion contributes to the formation of fibrous structures and partially breaks down anti‐nutrients such as phytates, fermentation enhances meat‐like flavor development in the extruded analogues. Fermentation also effectively eliminates undesirable odors and improves meaty characteristics, particularly in terms of texture and structural properties. Furthermore, the production of glutamic acid during fermentation contributes to the perception of umami taste (Kaleda et al. 2020 ; Pöri et al. 2023 ; Valtonen et al. 2023 ). 3D food printing allows the production of meat alternatives that meet consumer preferences and provides opportunities to develop products with improved texture and sensorial properties (M. Singh et al. 2021 ). 3D printing combines cooking, engineering, and materials science. It works by creating layers of edible materials (Waseem et al. 2024 ). The fermentation process provides more stable and firm features to meat analogues by mimicking real meat's mouthfeel. If the 3D printing technique is applied after fermentation, the quality of the final product might be preferable in terms of nutrition, flavor, structure, and stability (Boukid, Ganeshan, et al. 2023 ). Besides, the combination of SSF) and 3D printing enhances the efficiency of printed material (Ou et al. 2023 ). In a work, mycelium‐enhanced plant protein polysaccharide hydrocolloids were used to develop meat analogues through 3D printing and fermentation treatments. The analogues demonstrated a strong structural stability, elasticity, and mechanical anisotropy together with an inimitable fibrous texture. In addition, the products resembled salmon and chicken breast with literal, meat‐like attributes (Y. Liu, Dai, et al. 2025 ). Ghimire et al. ( 2025 ) demonstrated that fermented millet flour and plant‐based protein isolates increased the hardness, gumminess, springiness, and chewiness of 3D printed meat analogs. Otherwise, edible mushrooms can also be used in meat analogues. For instance, Demircan et al. ( 2023 ) prepared a meat analog formulation using various protein sources as a printable ink and fortified with three mushroom cultivars. In their study, the results indicated that the nozzle height and printing speed are significant factors for the accuracy of prints and smooth layers. Furthermore, thixotropy analysis showed the suitability of the inks for 3D printing because of the quick and reversible behavior of their viscosity. Although 3D printing technology for food products presents many advantages, there are also some disadvantages, such as high temperature and pressure in the appearance of meat analogs (Ko et al. 2021 ). So, it is crucial to develop other processing and remodeling techniques perfectly for these products (Wen et al. 2023 ). Studies that have produced fermented meat analogs using 3D printers are still deficient; therefore, they must be developed in the future. Beyond lactic acid fermentations with single or multiple strains, mixed fermentation systems have recently attracted attention due to their ability to combine the metabolic activities of different microorganisms, thereby further enhancing flavor complexity, nutritional quality, and color development in plant‐based meat analogues (Ou et al. 2023 ). For example, using soy protein as a matrix in mixed fermentation is considered a promising approach to produce meat‐like products (Ou et al. 2023 ; Wen et al. 2023 ; Zhu, Zhu, et al. 2024 ). In soy fermentation products using strains such as R. mucilaginosa and M. purpureus , which produce pigments contributing to the color of meat analogues, and Lpb. plantarum , improvements in texture and flavor quality have been demonstrated. Fermentation with mixed cultures provided a strong structure and a distinct fibrous texture, and when compared to fresh meat, a clear similarity in aroma was observed (Ou et al. 2023 ). 4.2. Emerging Biotechnological and Analytical Approaches in Fermented PBMAs Development The traditional fermentation process has been widely used for many years in various food industries and provides a basis for the microbial production of components in plant‐based alternatives (Rice et al. 2025 ). In the development of plant‐based alternative products, specific food components such as proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and flavor compounds are essential, as each contributes to replicating the functional roles of their counterparts in meat products. In this context, unlike traditional fermentation processes, it is necessary to produce products in a more specific and precise manner by using controlled and advanced biotechnological processes to achieve the desired functions (Webb et al. 2021 ; Jin et al. 2025 ). Precision fermentation is a leading biotechnological approach that aims to produce high‐value food ingredients with specific functional properties (Knychala et al. 2024 ). Precision fermentation focuses on producing specific food ingredients from abundant and low‐cost substrates through targeted genetic modifications that reprogram the metabolic pathways of microorganisms. In this process, genetically engineered microorganisms are designed to efficiently convert simple substrates into complex biomolecules, thereby enabling the sustainable production of high‐value food components (Peiris et al. 2025 ). Currently, precision fermentation has emerged as a significant technological advancement in the production of plant‐based alternative products, particularly for the development of milk and meat‐like substitutes (Boukid, Ganeshan, et al. 2023 ). Precision fermentation enables the synthesis of animal‐derived proteins, fats, and other components through the genetic programming of microorganisms such as yeasts, bacteria, and makes it possible to produce target ingredients that help mimic meat products. Unlike analog proteins offered by the plant‐based industry, proteins produced through precision fermentation are biologically identical to their animal‐derived counterparts and share the same nutritional value and sensory characteristics (Knychala et al. 2024 ; Peiris et al. 2025 ). Through precision fermentation, in addition to proteins, fats, hydrocolloids, and flavor compounds have been produced for use in the production of meat analogues (Fraser et al. 2018 ). The integration of AI into food science has advanced formulation optimization, allowing for more precise regulation of product texture and quality. By predicting optimal ingredient combinations and proportions, AI facilitates the design of formulations that achieve the desired textural, sensory, and nutritional attributes, thereby enhancing the development of plant‐based products that closely replicate the characteristics of conventional meat (Gulzar et al. 2025 ). ML utilizes data‐driven algorithms to identify patterns and develop predictive models, thereby improving product texture, quality, and process efficiency. AI‐based approach enables a more accurate estimation of complex relationships between composition and structure through analytical methods such as classification, regression, and clustering (D. Lee et al. 2024 ). An ML‐based framework developed to predict the textural properties of plant‐based meat analogs has been shown to have significant potential for optimizing formulation and facilitating the product development process (Kircali Ata et al. 2023 ). In this study, an ML approach was applied to elucidate the correlation between the compositional attributes and the textural properties of plant‐based meat analogs. Two processing techniques, high moisture extrusion and mechanical elongation, were employed to predict key textural parameters such as hardness and chewiness, which were quantified through texture profile analysis (TPA). The ML approach represents a potential strategy to reduce the number of experimental iterations in the development of meat analogs, thereby enabling faster and more cost‐efficient optimization of product development cycles. The metabolomics analysis makes an important contribution to explaining the metabolic state of a food and to understanding the complex metabolic interactions involved in food processing (F. Liu, Shang, et al. 2025 ). Metabolomics is an analytical technique that enables the detection and comparison of a wide range of nutrients and metabolites present in biological samples (van Vliet et al. 2021 ). Fermentation modifies the nutritional profile of foods by breaking down macromolecules and non‐nutritive factors, leading to improved flavor and functionality. Recently, metabolomics has been widely used to analyze metabolites in fermented foods for better evaluation of their properties (Gao et al. 2021 ). Comparative metabolomic analysis holds significant potential for identifying the essential compounds necessary to accurately replicate the flavor and color of real meat, thereby providing a promising approach to overcoming the challenge in PBMAs (Lou et al. 2023 ). A comparative metabolomic analysis between a commercial PBMA and beef revealed that, despite having similar nutrition facts panels, approximately 90% of the metabolites, including amino acids, phenols, vitamins, unsaturated fatty acids, and dipeptides, differed in abundance (van Vliet et al. 2021 ). In a recent study, Lou et al. ( 2023 ) conducted a comparative metabolomic analysis to investigate the effects of mixed fermentation using R. mucilaginosa , M. purpureus , and Lpb. plantarum on soybean protein‐based PBMAs. The analysis revealed significant changes in metabolites related to meaty flavor and color, including the upregulation of glutathione and methyl (indol‐3‐yl) acetate and the accumulation of β‐carotene, which contributed to the formation of meat‐like sensory properties. Future research in this field is essential to better understand the biochemical processes and microbial interactions required for PBMAs to achieve a metabolite profile that most closely resembles real meat. 5. Legal Regulations and Labeling In the development and commercialization of plant‐based fermented meat analogues, regulatory frameworks play a significant role in providing consumer safety. Various countries enforce laws related to the production of meat alternatives, focusing on nutritional and functional properties. Terminologically, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), the United States, the EU, New Zealand, Australia, and Singapore use the term “meat analogues”. In contrast, China and Canada use “simulated meat/poultry products” and “vegetarian meat (surou),” respectively (CFIA 2024 ; SAMR 2020 ). The term “plant‐based” is commonly used to describe food products that contain vegetable proteins (K. Zhang et al. 2022 ). In the United States, Voluntary Standards for the Labeling of Meat Alternatives define “plant‐based” for food ingredients that do not include any animal content. Meanwhile, the Chinese Institute of Food Science and Technology (CIFST) allows up to 10% of animal ingredients (Institute of Food Science & Technology 2020 ; Plant Based Foods Association 2019 ). Nevertheless, to avoid confusion, the definition of labels needs to be clear to consumers. Fermented meat alternatives are regulated by the Novel Food Regulation (EU 2015/2283) under the broader category of “novel foods”. In the European Union, the Novel Food Regulation (EU 2015/2283) applies to foods not consumed in significant quantities before 1997, which includes products made by microbial fermentation, such as mycoproteins and mycelium. Fermented meat analogues are not listed separately but are treated as part of this novel food group (European Commission 2021 ). Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 on novel foods has introduced regulations regarding fermented plant‐based sources, the peptides used, and the microorganisms involved (European Union 2025 ). For instance, fermented black bean extract with A. oryzae was categorized in Food Supplements as defined in Directive 2002/46/EC with maximum level of 4.5 g/day, and “Fermented black bean (soy) extract” or “Fermented soy extract” shall be written on the label of novel food designed, whereas soybean extract fermented with B. subtilis var. natto was accepted in Food Supplements as defined in Directive 2002/46/EC with maximum level of 100 mg/day, and all adults excluding pregnant and lactating women can use as capsules, tablets, or powder form, it should be described as “Fermented soybean extract” on the label. On the other hand, chondroitin sulfate is a biosynthetic product that is obtained by chemical sulfation of chondroitin derived from fermentation of Escherichia coli strain ATCC 23502 (serovar O5:K4:H4), and it suggests that the adults excluding pregnant and lactating women consume up to 1200 mg/day, also “Chondroitin sulfate derived from microbial fermentation and sulfation” should be written on the labelling of foodstuffs containing. In addition, pea and rice protein fermented by L. edodes (Shiitake mushroom) mycelia could be used in meat analogues with amount of 40 g/100 g, and on the label shall be defined as “Pea and rice protein fermented by Shiitake mushroom mycelia” (European Union 2025 ). In the United States, the naming and labeling of plant‐based foods are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In 2025, the FDA published draft guidance recommending clear labeling for plant‐based analogues. According to this draft, before supplying products to consumers, companies must ensure that the names and labels of their food products are truthful, not misleading, and accurately describe the products. If a food ingredient is new, companies must send safety data to the FDA. The FDA then assesses this information in line with all relevant provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (Food and Drug Administration 2025a ). In Asia, Singapore was the first country to approve “clean meat” that does not include any animal ingredients in 2020, and it also evaluates fungal or plant‐based proteins under the SFA (Singapore Food Agency 2025 ). In addition, there is no specific law for fermented meat analogues in Turkiye. These products are usually regulated under the Turkish Food Codex. According to this codex, in the label, it should be defined that is a favorable for vegans or vegetarians (Turkish Food Codex 2010 ). Many plant proteins and microproteins, including those from peas, fava beans, mung beans, and fungi, have been rigorously evaluated and approved by regulatory authorities such as the GRAS system in the United States and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). For these proteins, regulatory bodies have established safe usage levels, providing clear guidance for their inclusion in meat analogue formulations. This approval ensures consumer safety and facilitates the expanding industrial use of these proteins in developing sustainable, acceptable alternatives to conventional meat (K. Zhang et al. 2022 ). Food additives play a crucial role in replicating the texture and flavor of traditional meat products. Red beet and cacao, used as natural colorants, successfully imitate meat's appearance (Ryu et al. 2023 ). EFSA and FDA have approved plant‐based colorants such as betalains, anthocyanins, carotenoids, curcuminoids, and chlorophylls as food additives (Wu et al. 2024 ). Soy leghemoglobin, found in soybean root nodules, is used by Impossible Foods to enhance the aroma and color of plant‐based meats. Produced by Pichia pastoris using soy genes, this iron‐containing, oxygen‐carrying protein is approved as safe in the United States, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Australia, and Macau between amounts of 0.45% and 0.8% (Impossible Foods Inc. 2019 ; K. Zhang et al. 2022 ). Moreover, some potential allergen ingredients, such as soybeans, nuts (almonds, walnuts, hazelnuts etc.) sesame seeds, wheat and peanuts, must be labeled in the United States, the EU, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (Department of Justice Canada 2023 ; European Food Safety Authority 2025 ; Food and Drug Administration 2025b ; Food Standards Australia and New Zealand 2022 ). Mycoproteins could also cause allergic reactions, including urticaria, pruritus, and anaphylaxis, and gastrointestinal reactions like emesis and diarrhea (Jacobson and DePorter 2018 ). Therefore, these products should indicate that they may cause allergic reactions. Consequently, fermented meat analogues are often treated as novel foods. So, safety approval is required before they can penetrate the market. Moreover, labels must be clear and not mislead consumers, and producers must ensure the correct dosage of protein alternatives in each product. Therefore, producers must carefully follow both national and international food regulations. In this regard, the legal framework founded by authorities such as the EFSA or the FDA plays an important role in ensuring the labeling, safety, and marketing of these products. These regulations ensure that fermented meat analogues are safe, meet hygiene standards, control allergens, provide convenient nutritional content, and offer clear and accurate information to consumers. In addition, as fermentation‐based proteins increase their popularity, producers need to keep up with changing rules and approvals to sell their products safely and keep the trust of consumers. 6. Conclusion and Future Perspectives As mentioned above, the rapid growth of the global population has increased both the demand for protein sources and health‐related concerns. This review highlights the current technologies, key microorganisms, and regulatory frameworks involved in the development of plant‐based fermented meat analogues. Despite existing gaps in the literature, studies in this field have steadily increased, focusing on improving the structure, texture, and taste of plant‐based alternatives through fermentation combined with advanced technological methods. Microorganisms, such as LAB and yeasts, play a critical role in flavor development, protein digestibility, and nutrient bioavailability. Advanced structuring technologies, including 3D printing, extrusion, and spinning, enhance product fibrosity and viscosity, making them more similar to conventional meat. AI is increasingly applied to predict and control product quality in line with consumer expectations. Regulations and legal frameworks are essential to ensure product safety, traceability, and transparency throughout the production process. Compliance with labeling standards and safety regulations in different countries helps build consumer confidence and supports the broader acceptance of plant‐based fermented meat products globally. Overall, these studies demonstrate that integrating fermentation, technology, and nutritional strategies can create sustainable and improved plant‐based meat products. In conclusion, continued studies in this area are likely to produce plant‐based alternatives that more closely resemble real meat while offering enhanced nutritional value and techno‐functional properties, thereby contributing to healthier and more sustainable foods worldwide. Nevertheless, compared with other plant‐based food analogues, relatively fewer studies have focused specifically on fermented plant‐based meat analogues. Accordingly, several significant research gaps still need to be addressed in the field of fermented plant‐based meat analogues. In particular, studies on the specific starter cultures and their metabolic activities in relation to the technofunctional, nutritional, and sensory properties of fermented PBMAs are still limited. In addition, the combined effects of fermentation and structuring technologies, such as high‐moisture extrusion and 3D food printing, on fiber formation, texture development, and product stability remain poorly understood. Furthermore, the metabolic pathways responsible for lipid and protein‐derived flavor formation during fermentation in complex PBMA matrices have not been sufficiently clarified yet. There is limited information on how fermentation affects the bioavailability of amino acids, minerals, and bioactive compounds in meat analogue formulations. Finally, most studies have been conducted at the laboratory scale, and there remains a lack of information on process scalability, reproducibility, and product quality consistency under industrial conditions. Nevertheless, the increasing number of studies and the integration of fermentation with advanced technologies are expected to further accelerate the development and industrial adoption of high‐quality fermented plant‐based meat analogues in the near future. Author Contribution Fatma Beyza Özpınar : conceptualization, investigation, writing – original draft, visualization, data curation, formal analysis. Sevda Dere : conceptualization, writing – original draft, investigation, formal analysis. Serdar Altunay : investigation, visualization, formal analysis, software. Osman Sağdıç : writing – review and editing, conceptualization, resources. Enes Dertli : conceptualization, writing – review and editing, supervision, investigation, formal analysis. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Data Availability Statement Data will be made available on request. References "Beyond Meat." 2025. https://www.beyondmeat.com/en‐US/ . Adebo, J. , Njobeh P., Gbashi S., et al. 2022. “Fermentation of Cereals and Legumes: Impact on Nutritional Constituents and Nutrient Bioavailability.” Fermentation 8, no. 2: 63. 10.3390/fermentation8020063. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Arteaga, V. , Demand V., Kern K., et al. 2022. “Enzymatic Hydrolysis and Fermentation of Pea Protein Isolate and Its Effects on Antigenic Proteins, Functional Properties, and Sensory Profile.” Foods 11, no. 1: 118. 10.3390/foods11010118. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Asgar, M. , Fazilah A., Huda N., Bhat R., and Karim A.. 2010. “Nonmeat Protein Alternatives as Meat Extenders and Meat Analogs.” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 9, no. 5: 513–529. 10.1111/j.1541-4337.2010.00124.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Astuti, R. , Fibri D., Handoko D., et al. 2022. “The Volatile Compounds and Aroma Description in Various Rhizopus oligosporus Solid‐State Fermented and Nonfermented Rice Bran.” Fermentation 8, no. 3: 120. 10.3390/fermentation8030120. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Bakhsh, A. , Lee S., Lee E., Hwang Y., and Joo S.. 2021. “Traditional Plant‐Based Meat Alternatives, Current, and Future Perspective: A Review.” Journal of Agriculture & Life Science 55, no. 1: 1–11. 10.14397/jals.2021.55.1.11. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Baniwal, P. , Mehra R., Kumar N., Sharma S., and Kumar S.. 2021. “Cereals: Functional Constituents and Its Health Benefits.” Pharma Innovation Journal 10, no. 2: 343–349. 10.22271/tpi.2021.v10.i2e.5681. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Bansal, S. , Sundararajan S., Shekhawat P. K., et al. 2023. “Rice Lipases: A Conundrum in Rice Bran Stabilization: A Review on Their Impact and Biotechnological Interventions.” Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants 29, no. 7: 985–1003. 10.1007/s12298-023-01343-3. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Benković, M. , Tušek A., Cvetnić T., Jurina T., Valinger D., and Kljusurić J.. 2023. “An Overview of Ingredients Used for Plant‐Based Meat Analogue Production and Their Influence on Structural and Textural Properties of the Final Product.” Gels 9, no. 12: 921. 10.3390/gels9120921. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Bohrer, B.

2019. “An Investigation of the Formulation and Nutritional Composition of Modern Meat Analogue Products.” Food Science and Human Wellness 8, no. 4: 320–329. 10.1016/j.fshw.2019.11.006. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Boukid, F.

2021. “Plant‐Based Meat Analogues: From Niche to Mainstream.” European Food Research and Technology 247: 297–308. 10.1007/s00217-020-03630-9. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Boukid, F. , Hassoun A., Zouari A., et al. 2023. “Fermentation for Designing Innovative Plant‐Based Meat and Dairy Alternatives.” Foods 12, no. 5: 1005. 10.3390/foods12051005. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Boukid, F. , Ganeshan S., Wang Y., Tülbek M. Ç., and Nickerson M. T.. 2023b. “Bioengineered Enzymes and Precision Fermentation in the Food Industry.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24, no. 12: 10156. https://www.mdpi.com/1422‐0067/24/12/10156 . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Bryant, C.

2022. “Plant‐Based Animal Product Alternatives Are Healthier and More Environmentally Sustainable Than Animal Products.” Future Foods 6: 100174. 10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100174. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Çakmak, H. , and Gümüş C.. 2020. “3D Food Printing With Improved Functional Properties: A Review.” International Journal of 3D Printing Technologies and Digital Industry 4, no. 2: 178–192. 10.46519/ij3dptdi.746389. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) . 2024. https://inspection.canada.ca/en/food‐labels/labelling/industry/meat‐and‐poultry‐products/simulated‐products . Capozzi, V. , Russo P., Dueñas M., López P., and Spano G.. 2012. “Lactic Acid Bacteria Producing B‐Group Vitamins: A Great Potential for Functional Cereals Products.” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 96: 1383–1394. 10.1007/s00253-012-4440-2. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Cheriaparambil, R. , and Grossmann L.. 2025. “Properties and Cultivation of Fusarium spp. To Produce Mycoprotein as an Alternative Protein Source.” Sustainable Food Proteins 3: e70002. 10.1002/sfp2.70002. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Choudhury, D. , Singh S., Seah J. S. H., Yeo D. C. L., and Tan L. P.. 2020. “Commercialization of Plant‐Based Meat Alternatives.” Trends in Plant Science 25, no. 11: 1055–1058. 10.1016/j.tplants.2020.08.006. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Ciobanu, M. , Manoliu D., Ciobotaru M., Flocea E., and Boișteanu P.. 2025. “Dietary Fibres in Processed Meat: A Review on Nutritional Enhancement, Technological Effects, Sensory Implications and Consumer Perception.” Foods 14, no. 9: 1459. 10.3390/foods14091459. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Cui, B. , Zeng X., Liang H., et al. 2024. “Construction of a Soybean Protein Isolate/Polysaccharide‐Based Whole Muscle Meat Analog: Physical Properties and Freeze‐Thawing Stability Study.” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 265, no. 2: 131037. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.131037. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Dahal, P. , Hall C., and Janaswamy S.. 2025. “Impact of Polysaccharides on Advancing Plant‐Based Meat Alternatives.” Food Biomacromolecules 2, no. 2: 182–192. 10.1002/fob2.70005. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Day, C. , and Morawicki R.. 2018. “Effects of Fermentation by Yeast and Amylolytic Lactic Acid Bacteria on Grain Sorghum Protein Content and Digestibility.” Journal of Food Quality 2018: 1–8. 10.1155/2018/3964392. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Day, L.

2013. “Proteins From Land Plants—Potential Resources for Human Nutrition and Food Security.” Trends in Food Science & Technology 32, no. 1: 25–42. 10.1016/j.tifs.2013.05.005. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] De Angelis, D. , van der Goot A., Pasqualone A., and Summo C.. 2024. “Advancements in Texturization Processes for the Development of Plant‐Based Meat Analogs: A Review.” Current Opinion in Food Science 58: 101192. 10.1016/j.cofs.2024.101192. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Demircan, E. , Aydar E. F., Mertdinc (Mertdinç) Z., Kasapoglu (Kasapoğlu) K. N., and Ozcelik (Özçelik) B.. 2023. “3D Printable Vegan Plant‐Based Meat Analogue: Forti Cation With Three Different Mushrooms, Investigation of Printability, and Characterization.” Food Research International 173: 113259. 10.1016/j.foodres.2023.113259. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Department of Justice Canada (DJC) . 2023. Food Allergen Labeling. https://www.canada.ca/en/health‐canada/services/food‐nutrition/food‐labelling/allergen‐labelling.html . Dhull, S. , Punia S., Kidwai M., et al. 2020. “Solid‐State Fermentation of Lentil ( Lens culinaris L .) With Aspergillus awamori : Effect on Phenolic Compounds, Mineral Content, and Their Bioavailability.” Legume Science 2: e37. 10.1002/leg3.37. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Du, Q. , Tu M., Liu J., Ding Y., Zeng X., and Pan D.. 2023. “Plant‐Based Meat Analogs and Fat Substitutes, Structuring Technology and Protein Digestion: A Review.” Food Research International 170: 112959. 10.1016/j.foodres.2023.112959. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] El Youssef, C. , Bonnarme P., Fraud S., Péron A., Helinck S., and Landaud S.. 2020. “Sensory Improvement of a Pea Protein‐Based Product Using Microbial Co‐Cultures of Lactic Acid Bacteria and Yeasts.” Foods 9, no. 3: 349. 10.3390/foods9030349. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Elhalis, H. , See X., Osen R., Chin X., and Chow Y.. 2023a. “Significance of Fermentation in Plant‐Based Meat Analogs: A Critical Review of Nutrition, and Safety‐Related Aspects.” Foods 12, no. 17: 3222. 10.3390/foods12173222. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Elhalis, H. , See X. Y., Osen R., Chin X. H., and Chow Y.. 2023b. “The Potentials and Challenges of Using Fermentation to Improve the Sensory Quality of Plant‐Based Meat Analogs.” Frontiers in Microbiology 14: 1267227. 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1267227. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Espinosa‐Ramírez, J. , Mondragón‐Portocarrero A., Rodríguez J., Lorenzo J., and Santos E.. 2023. “Algae as a Potential Source of Protein Meat Alternatives.” Frontiers in Nutrition 10: 1254300. 10.3389/fnut.2023.1254300. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] European Commission . 2021. "Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on Novel Foods, Amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001 (Text With EEA Relevance)." https://eur‐lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2015/2283/oj/eng . European Food Safety Authority . 2025. "Food Allergens. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/safe2eat/food‐allergens . European Union . 2025. "Consolidated Text: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2470 of 20 December 2017 Establishing the Union List of Novel Foods in Accordance With Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Novel Foods (Text With EEA Relevance)." https://eur‐lex.europa.eu/legal‐content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02017R2470‐20250820 . Ewy, M. W. , Patel A., Abdelmagid M. G., et al. 2022. “PlantBased Diet: Is It as Good as an AnimalBased Diet When It Comes to Protein?” Current Nutrition Reports 11: 337–346. 10.1007/s13668-022-00401-8. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Farid, M. , Anjum R., Yang Y., et al. 2024. “Recent Trends in Fermented Plant‐Based Analogues and Products, Bioactive Peptides, and Novel Technologies‐Assisted Fermentation.” Trends in Food Science & Technology 149: 104529. 10.1016/j.tifs.2024.104529. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Fernández‐Varela, R. , Hansen A., Svendsen B., et al. 2024. “Harnessing Fermentation by Bacillus and Lactic Acid Bacteria for Enhanced Texture, Flavor, and Nutritional Value in Plant‐Based Matrices.” Fermentation 10, no. 8: 411. 10.3390/fermentation10080411. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Flores, M. , Comes D., Gamero A., and Belloch C.. 2024. “Fermentation of Texturized Pea Protein in Combination With Proteases for Aroma Development in Meat Analogues.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 72, no. 9: 4897–4905. 10.1021/acs.jafc.3c08432. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Food and Drug Administration (FDA) . 2025a. "Labeling of Plant‐Based Alternatives to Animal‐Derived Foods: Draft Guidance for Industry." https://www.fda.gov/regulatory‐information/search‐fda‐guidance‐documents/draft‐guidance‐industry‐labeling‐plant‐based‐alternatives‐animal‐derived‐foods . Food and Drug Administration (FDA) . 2025b. "Food Allergies." https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition‐food‐labeling‐and‐critical‐foods/food‐allergies . Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) . 2022. "Allergen Labelling for Consumers." https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/labelling/allergen‐labelling . Fraser, R. Z. , Shitut M., Agrawal P., Mendes O., and Klapholz S.. 2018. “Safety Evaluation of Soy Leghemoglobin Protein Preparation Derived from Pichia pastoris , Intended for Use as a Flavor Catalyst in Plant‐Based Meat.” International Journal of Toxicology 37, no. 3: 241–262. 10.1177/1091581818766318. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Fu, W. , Qin D., Cui H., et al. 2024. “Chestnut Protein as Functional Ingredients in Gluten‐Free Products: Evaluation of Nutritional Properties in Native and Fermented Forms.” Food Bioscience 62: 105316. 10.1016/j.fbio.2024.105316. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Fu, Y. , Chen T., Chen S., et al. 2021. “The Potentials and Challenges of Using Microalgae as an Ingredient to Produce Meat Analogues.” Trends in Food Science & Technology 112: 188–200. 10.1016/j.tifs.2021.03.050. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Gao, Y. , Hou L., Gao J., et al. 2021. “Metabolomics Approaches for the Comprehensive Evaluation of Fermented Foods: A Review.” Foods 10, no. 10: 2294. https://www.mdpi.com/2304‐8158/10/10/2294 . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Garden Gourmet . 2025. "Taste the Difference." https://www.gardengourmet.com/products . Ghimire, S. , Umar M., Gamonpilas C., and Anal A.. 2025. “Improving Rheology and 3D Printability of Pea, Fava and Mung Bean Proteins With Raw and Fermented Millet Flour.” Food Hydrocolloids 166: 111369. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2025.111369. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Gonçalves, J. , and Egea M.. 2021. “Sunflower Seed Byproduct and Its Fractions for Food Application: An Attempt to Improve the Sustainability of the Oil Process.” Concise Reviews and Hypotheses in Food Science 86, no. 5: 1497–1510. 10.1111/1750-3841.15719. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Grossmann, L. , Hinrichs J., and Weiss J.. 2019. “Solubility and Aggregation Behavior of Protein Fractions From the Heterotrophically Cultivated Microalga Chlorella protothecoides .” Food Research International 116: 283–290. 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.08.037. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Guan, T. , Sägesser C., Villiger R., et al. 2024. “In Situ Studies of Plant‐Based Meat Analog Texturization.” Food Hydrocolloids 155: 110215. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2024.110215. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Gulzar, S. , Hosseini A. F., Martín‐Belloso O., Soliva‐Fortuny R., and Rizvi S. S. H.. 2025. “Engineering Processes for Plant‐Based Meat Analogs: Current Status and Future Outlook.” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 24, no. 6: e70322. 10.1111/1541-4337.70322. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Gumienna, M. , Lasik‐Kurdyś M., Szymandera‐Buszka K., Górna‐Szweda B., Walkowiak‐Tomczak D., and Jędrusek‐Golińska A.. 2025. “Innovative Application of Fermented Red Bean Seeds in Constructing Foods With Increased Biological Activity.” Foods 14, no. 1: 88. 10.3390/foods14010088. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Guyony, V. , Fayolle F., and Jury V.. 2022. “Die Dimensions Impact on Fibrous Plant Protein Formation During High Moisture Extrusion.” Applied Food Research 2, no. 2: 100228. 10.1016/j.afres.2022.100228. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Hadi, J. , and Brightwell G.. 2021. “Safety of Alternative Proteins: Technological, Environmental and Regulatory Aspects of Cultured Meat, Plant‐Based Meat, Insect Protein and Single‐Cell Protein.” Foods 10, no. 6: 1226. 10.3390/foods10061226. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Han, J. , Keum D., Hong S., Kim Y., and Han S.. 2023. “Comparative Evaluation of Polysaccharide Binders on the Quality Characteristics of Plant‐Based Patties.” Foods 12, no. 20: 3731. 10.3390/foods12203731. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] He, Y. , Purdy S., Tse T., et al. 2021. “Standardization of Aquafaba Production and Application in Vegan Mayonnaise Analogs.” Foods 10, no. 9: 1978. 10.3390/foods10091978. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Heura Foods . 2025. "Products." https://heurafoods.com/products . Impossible Foods Inc . 2019. "Application to Amend the Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code to Allow for the Use of Soy Leghemoglobin." https://www.biosafety4u.berlin/images/pdf/A1186_Application_Redacted_Soy_Leghemoglobin.pdf . Impossible Foods . 2025. "Impossible Foods." https://impossiblefoods.com/recipes . Institute of Food Science & Technology (CIFST) . 2020. Plant‐Based Meat Products (T/CIFST 001–2020). https://www.cifst.org.cn/uploads/file/20201225/1608879643796557.pdf . Iqbal, S. , Tirpanalan‐Staben Ö., and Franke K.. 2024. “Effect of Solid‐State Fermentation With Pleurotus ostreatus on the Protein Content and Other Nutritional Components of De‐Seeded Carob Fruits.” Sustainable Food Technology 2: 1537–1544. 10.1039/d4fb00173g. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Ishaq, A. , Irfan S., Sameen A., and Khalid N.. 2022. “Plant‐Based Meat Analogs: A Review With Reference to Formulation and Gastrointestinal Fate.” Current Research in Food Science 5: 973–983. 10.1016/j.crfs.2022.06.001. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Isusi, G. , Pietsch V., Beutler P., Hoehne S., and Leister N.. 2023. “Influence of Rapeseed Oil on Extruded Plant‐Based Meat Analogues: Assessing Mechanical and Rheological Properties.” Processes 11, no. 7: 1871. 10.3390/pr11071871. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Jacobson, M. , and DePorter J.. 2018. “Self‐Reported Adverse Reactions Associated With Mycoprotein (Quorn‐Brand) Containing Foods.” Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology 120: 626–630. 10.1016/j.anai.2018.03.020. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Jang, J. , and Lee D.. 2024. “Advancements in Plant Based Meat Analogs Enhancing Sensory and Nutritional Attributes.” npj Science of Food 8: 50. 10.1038/s41538-024-00292-9. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Jayanegara, M. , Jayanegara A., and Palupi E.. 2024. “Protein Content and Sensory Evaluation of Meat Analogue Made From Fermented Peanut Meal.” BIO Web of Conferences 123: 02008. 10.1051/bioconf/202412302008. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Jin, J. , den Besten H. M. W., Rietjens I. M. C. M., and Widjaja‐van den Ende F.. 2025. “Chemical and Microbiological Hazards Arising From New Plant‐Based Foods, Including Precision Fermentation–Produced Food Ingredients.” Annual Review of Food Science and Technology 16: 171–194. 10.1146/annurev-food-111523-122059. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Joshi, K. , Shabani E., Kabir S. M. F., Zhou H., McClements D. J., and Park J. H.. 2023. “Optimizing Protein Fiber Spinning to Develop Plant‐Based Meat Analogs via Rheological and Physicochemical Analyses.” Foods 12, no. 17: 3161. https://www.mdpi.com/2304‐8158/12/17/3161 . [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kaleda, A. , Talvistu K., Tamm M., et al. 2020. “Impact of Fermentation and Phytase Treatment of Pea‐Oat Protein Blend on Physicochemical, Sensory, and Nutritional Properties of Extruded Meat Analogs.” Foods 9, no. 8: 1059. 10.3390/foods9081059. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kircali Ata, S. , Shi J. K., Yao X., et al. 2023. “Predicting the Textural Properties of Plant‐Based Meat Analogs With Machine Learning.” Foods 12, no. 2: 344. 10.3390/foods12020344. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Knychala, M. M. , Boing L. A., Ienczak J. L., Trichez D., and Stambuk B. U.. 2024. “Precision Fermentation as an Alternative to Animal Protein, a Review.” Fermentation 10, no. 6: 315. https://www.mdpi.com/2311‐5637/10/6/315 . [ Google Scholar ] Ko, H. , Wen Y., Choi J., Park B., Kim H., and Park H.. 2021. “Meat Analog Production Through Articial Muscle Ber Insertion Using Coaxial Nozzle‐Assisted Three‐Dimensional Food Printing.” Food Hydrocolloids 120: 106898. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2021.106898. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Künili, İ. , Dinç S., and Çolakoğlu F.. 2023. “Alternative to Traditional Meat Production and Consumption: Meat Analogues.” Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University Journal of Engineering Sciences 12, no. 1: 159–174. 10.28948/ngumuh.1159590. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Kurek, M. , Onopiuk A., Pogorzelska‐Nowicka E., Szpicer A., Zalewska M., and Półtorak A.. 2022. “Novel Protein Sources for Applications in Meat‐Alternative Products—Insight and Challenges.” Foods 11, no. 7: 957. 10.3390/foods11070957. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Lee, D. , Jeong S., Yun S., and Lee S.. 2024. “Artificial Intelligence‐Based Prediction of the Rheological Properties of Hydrocolloids for Plant‐Based Meat Analogues.” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 104, no. 9: 5114–5123. 10.1002/jsfa.13334. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Lee, H. , Yong H., Kim M., Choi Y., and Jo C.. 2020. “Status of Meat Alternatives and Their Potential Role in the Future Meat Market — A Review.” Asian‐Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 33, no. 10: 1533–1543. 10.5713/ajas.20.0419. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Liang, Z. , Li K., Huang W., et al. 2023. “Production, Structural and Functional Characteristics of Soluble Dietary Fiber From Fermented Okara by Penicillium expansum .” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 253, no. 1: 126621. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.126621. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Liu, F. , Shang S., Ren J., Zeng H., and Mei L.. 2025. “Comparative Metabolomic Analysis of Sichuan Dishes Prepared With Animal‐Based and Plant‐Based Meat Using an Untargeted Metabolomics Approach.” International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 42: 101286. 10.1016/j.ijgfs.2025.101286. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Liu, Y. , Dai Y., Xia X., et al. 2025. “3D Printing of Mycelium‐Enhanced Plant‐Based Protein Composites for Customizable Texture in Meat Analogues.” Food Hydrocolloids 168: 111476. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2025.111476. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Lou, J. , Ou M., Teng Y., et al. 2023. “Comparative Metabolomics Analysis of the Fermented Plant‐Based Meat Analogue of Soybean Proteins.” Food Bioscience 56: 103143. 10.1016/j.fbio.2023.103143. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Mao, C. , Wu S., Zhang L., and Zhuang H.. 2024. “Effects of Fermentation Modification and Combined Modification With Heat‐Moisture Treatment on the Multiscale Structure, Physical and Chemical Properties of Corn Flour and the Quality of Traditional Fermented Corn Noodles.” Foods 13, no. 24: 4043. 10.3390/foods13244043. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Marczak, A. , and Mendes A.. 2024. “Dietary Fibers: Shaping Textural and Functional Properties of Processed Meats and Plant‐Based Meat Alternatives.” Foods 13, no. 12: 1952. 10.3390/foods13121952. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Mazhar, M. , Zhu Y., and Qin L.. 2023. “The Interplay of Dietary Fibers and Intestinal Microbiota Affects Type 2 Diabetes by Generating Short‐Chain Fatty Acids.” Foods 12, no. 5: 1023. 10.3390/foods12051023. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Meati Foods . 2025. "Nutrient‐Rich Mycelium Steaks & Cutlets!." https://www.meati.com/products/maple‐breakfast‐patty . Mehren, L. , Elliger L., May H., Schieber A., and Schulze‐Kaysers N.. 2025. “Foaming Properties and Olfactory Profile of Fermented Chickpea Aquafaba and Its Application in Vegan Chocolate Mousse.” Current Research in Food Science 10: 100988. 10.1016/j.crfs.2025.100988. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Melaku, M. , Wang J., Xie Y., et al. 2025. “Reviving Hope: Phage Therapy Application for Antimicrobial Resistance in Farm Animal Production Over the Past Decade.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 324: 116333. 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2025.116333. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Meng, W. , Hu M., Zhang P., et al. 2025. “Efficient Conversion of Insoluble Dietary Fiber to Soluble Dietary Fiber by Bacillus subtilis BSNK‐5 Fermentation of Okara and Improvement of Their Structural and Functional Properties.” Food Chemistry 474: 143188. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2025.143188. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Milcarz, A. , and Harasym J.. 2025. “Solid State Fermentation—A Promising Approach to Produce Meat Analogues.” Foods 14, no. 10: 1820. 10.3390/foods14101820. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Miller, O. , Scarlett C., and Akanbi T.. 2024. “Plant‐Based Meat Analogues and Consumer Interest in 3D‐Printed Products: A Mini‐Review.” Foods 13, no. 15: 2314. 10.3390/foods13152314. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Mockus, E. , Zokaityte E., Starkute V., et al. 2023. “Influence of Different Lactic Acid Bacteria Strains and Milling Process on the Solid‐State Fermented Green and Red Lentils ( Lens culinaris L .) Properties Including Gamma‐Aminobutyric Acid Formation.” Frontiers in Nutrition 10: 1118710. 10.3389/fnut.2023.1118710. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Molfetta, M. , Morais E., Barreira L., et al. 2022. “Protein Sources Alternative to Meat: State of the Art and Involvement of Fermentation.” Foods 11, no. 14: 2065. 10.3390/foods11142065. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Moving Mountains . 2025. Our Products. https://movingmountainsfoods.com/our‐products/ . Nature's Fynd . 2025. "Fungi‐Powered Foods." https://www.naturesfynd.com/products . Nisov, A. , Valtonen A., Aisala H., et al. 2024. “Effect of Peptide Formation During Rapeseed Fermentation on Meat Analogue Structure and Sensory Properties at Different pH Conditions.” Food Research International 180: 114070. 10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114070. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Norman, C.

2008. The Sodium and Fat Content of Salted and Unsalted, Dry and Oil Roasted Pecans and Pecans Used in Ice Cream. Texas Women's University, MSc Thesis. Denton, Texas. Nuraini, S. , Latif S., and Nutr P.. 2009. “Improving the Quality of Tapioca by Product through Fermentation by Neurospora crassa to Produce β Carotene Rich Feed.” Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 8, no. 4: 487–490. [ Google Scholar ] Oduro‐Yeboah, C. , Sulaiman R., Uebersax M. A., and Dolan K. D.. 2022. “A Review of Lentil ( Lens culinaris Medik ) Value Chain: Postharvest Handling, Processing, and Processed Products.” Legume Science 5, no. 2: e171. 10.1002/leg3.171. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Ou, M. , Lou J., Lao L., et al. 2023. “Plant‐Based Meat Analogue of Soy Proteins by the Multi‐Strain Solid‐State Mixing Fermentation.” Food Chemistry 414: 135671. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.135671. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Oyarekua, M. A. , and Bankefa E. O.. 2015. “The Effect of Cooking and Fermentation on the Functional and Nutritional Properties of Walnut and Maize.” International Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences 4, no. 3: 332. 10.11648/j.ijnfs.20150403.21. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Özpınar, F. , İspirli H., Kayacan S., et al. 2024. “Physicochemical and Structural Characterisation of a Branched Dextran Type Exopolysaccharide (EPS) From Weissella confusa S6 Isolated From Fermented Sausage (Sucuk).” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 264: 130507. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.130507. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Ozturk, O. K. , and Hamaker B. R.. 2023. “Texturization of Plant Protein‐Based Meat Alternatives: Processing, Base Proteins, and Other Constructional Ingredients.” Future Foods 8: 100248. 10.1016/j.fufo.2023.100248. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Palanisamy, M. , Töpfl S., Berger R., and Hertel C.. 2019. “Physico‐Chemical and Nutritional Properties of Meat Analogues Based on Spirulina/Lupin Protein Mixtures.” European Food Research and Technology 245: 1889–1898. 10.1007/s00217-019-03298-w. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Patil, G. , Mian R., Vuong T., et al. 2017. “Molecular Mapping and Genomics of Soybean Seed Protein: A Review and Perspective for the Future.” Theoretical and Applied Genetics 130: 1975–1991. 10.1007/s00122-017-2955-8. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Peiris, U. , Samarasinghe S., Jayawardena A., et al. 2025. Precision Fermentation: A Molecular Mimic for Animal Protein. 13: 53. 10.11216/gsj.2025.08.238755. [ DOI ] Penna Franca, P. , Duque‐Estrada P., da Fonseca e Sá B., van der Goot A., and Pierucci A.. 2022. “Meat Substitutes—Past, Present, and Future of Products Available in Brazil: Changes in the Nutritional Profile.” Future Foods 5: 100133. 10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100133. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA) . 2019. "Voluntary Standards for the Labeling of Meat Alternatives in the United States." https://plantbasedfoods.org/wp‐content/uploads/PBFA‐Labeling‐Standards‐for‐Meat‐Alternatives.pdf . Pöri, P. , Lille M., Edelmann M., et al. 2023. “Technological and Sensory Properties of Plant‐Based Meat Analogues Containing Fermented Sunflower Protein Concentrate.” Future Foods 8: 100244. 10.1016/j.fufo.2023.100244. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Prime Roots . 2025. "Prime Roots." https://www.primeroots.com/en‐us/pages/about‐us . Protein Production Technology International (PPTI) . 2023. The Regulation of Alternative Proteins Around the World: Who's Holding the Recipe to Success? Protein Production Technology International. [ Google Scholar ] Puangwerakul, Y. , and Soithongsuk S.. 2022. “Innovation for Plant‐Based Foods: Allergen‐Free Vegan Meat and Egg Products From Rice Processing By‐Products.” Journal of Current Science and Technology 12, no. 2: 358–371. 10.14456/jcst.2022.28. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Quorn . 2025. "Quorn." https://www.quorn.co.uk/ . Rasul, S. , Asiz A., Ajith A., et al. 2025. “Role of Polysaccharide‐Based Hydrocolloids on the Structure and Nutritional Quality of Meat Analogues: A New Outlook for Vegetarian Foods.” Future Foods 11: 100644. 10.1016/j.fufo.2025.100644. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Razavizadeh, S. , Alencikiene G., Salaseviciene A., Vaiciulyte‐Funk L., Ertbjerg P., and Zabulione A.. 2021. “Impact of Fermentation of Okara on Physicochemical, Techno‐Functional, and Sensory Properties of Meat Analogues.” European Food Research and Technology 247: 2379–2389. 10.1007/s00217-021-03798-8. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Rice, D. , Singh R., Priya H., Valerozo J., and Anal A. K.. 2025. “Transforming Plant‐Based Alternatives by Harnessing Precision Fermentation for Next‐Generation Ingredients.” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 105, no. 12: 6296–6305. 10.1002/jsfa.14168. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Ryu, K. , Kang Y., Jeong E., Baek Y., Lee K., and Lee H.. 2023. “Applications of Various Natural Pigments to a Plant‐Based Meat Analog.” LWT 174: 114431. 10.1016/j.lwt.2023.114431. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] SAMR . 2020. "Announcement of the State Administration for Market Regulation on Revising and Publishing the Catalogue of Food Production License Classification." http://gkml.samr.gov.cn/nsjg/spscs/202002/t20200226_312123.html . Sawant, S. , Park H., Sim E., Kim H., and Choi H.. 2025. “Microbial Fermentation in Food: Impact on Functional Properties and Nutritional Enhancement—A Review of Recent Developments.” Fermentation 11, no. 1: 15. 10.3390/fermentation11010015. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Senna, C. , Soares L., Egea M., and Fernandes S.. 2024. “The Techno‐Functionality of Chia Seed and Its Fractions as Ingredients for Meat Analogs.” Molecules 29, no. 2: 440. 10.3390/molecules29020440. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Sha, L. , and Xiong Y.. 2020. “Plant Protein‐Based Alternatives of Reconstructed Meat: Science, Technology, and Challenges.” Trends in Food Science & Technology 102: 51–61. 10.1016/j.tifs.2020.05.022. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Siddiqui, S. A. , Khalifa I., Yin T., et al. 2024. “Valorization of Plant Proteins for Meat Analogues Design—A Comprehensive Review.” European Food Research and Technology 250: 2479–2513. 10.1007/s00217-024-04565-1. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Singapore Food Agency (SFA) . 2025. Singapore's Novel Food Regulatory Framework. https://gforss.org/wp‐content/uploads/2025/08/2025AsiaCodexForum_SFANovelFood_vf.pdf . Singh, A. , and Sit N.. 2022. “Meat Analogues: Types, Methods of Production and Their Effect on Attributes of Developed Meat Analogues.” Food and Bioprocess Technology 15: 2664–2682. 10.1007/s11947-022-02859-4. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Singh, M. , Trivedi N., Enamala M., et al. 2021. “Plant‐Based Meat Analogue (PBMA) as a Sustainable Food: A Concise Review.” European Food Research and Technology 247: 2499–2526. 10.1007/s00217-021-03810-1. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] St Pierre, S. R. , and Kuhl E.. 2024. “Mimicking Mechanics: A Comparison of Meat and Meat Analogs.” Foods 13, no. 21: 3495. 10.3390/foods13213495. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Stanin, E. , Swamilaksita P., and Mulyani E.. 2020. “Tempeh and Vital Wheat Gluten Based Analog Meat Development as Vegetarian Alternative Food.” Paper presented at 1st International Conference on Health (ICOH 2019)—Improving Quality of Care and Equity on Health, Jakarta, Indonesia, October 16–17. 10.5220/0009591902470256. [ DOI ] Su, W. , Jiang Z., Wang C., et al. 2022. “Dynamics of Defatted Rice Bran in Physicochemical Characteristics, Microbiota and Metabolic Functions During Two‐Stage Co‐Fermentation.” International Journal of Food Microbiology 362: 109489. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2021.109489. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Subali, D. , Christos R., Givianty V., et al. 2023. “Soy‐Based Tempeh Rich in Paraprobiotics Properties as Functional Sports Food: More Than a Protein Source.” Nutrients 15, no. 11: 2599. 10.3390/nu15112599. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Sun, C. , Fu J., Chang Y., Li S., and Fang Y.. 2022. “Structure Design for Improving the Characteristic Attributes of Extruded Plant‐Based Meat Analogues.” Food Biophysics 17: 137–149. 10.1007/s11483-021-09692-w. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Taghian Dinani, S. , Zhang Y., Vardhanabhuti B., and Jan van der Goot A.. 2023. “Enhancing Textural Properties in Plant‐Based Meat Alternatives: The Impact of Hydrocolloids and Salts on Soy Protein‐Based Products.” Current Research in Food Science 7: 100571. 10.1016/j.crfs.2023.100571. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Tao, A. , Zhang H., Duan J., et al. 2022. “Mechanism and Application of Fermentation to Remove Beany Flavor From Plant‐Based Meat Analogs: A Mini Review.” Frontiers in Microbiology 13: 1070773. 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1070773. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] The Vegetarian Butcher . 2025. "Meet The New Meat." https://www.thevegetarianbutcher.co.uk/products/retail.html . Tindle Foods . 2025. "Our Products." https://tindle.com/#products . Toma, M. , Rahman H., Rahman S., Arif M., Nazir K., and Dufossé L.. 2023. “Fungal Pigments: Carotenoids, Riboflavin, and Polyketides With Diverse Applications.” Journal of Fungi 9, no. 4: 454. 10.3390/jof9040454. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Turkish Food Codex . 2010. "Türk gida kodeksi gida etiketleme ve tüketicileri bilgilendirme yönetmeliği hakkinda kilavuz." https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/GKGM/Belgeler/DB_Gida_Isletmeleri/temp/TGK_Gida_Etiketleme_Tuketici_Bilgilendirme_Yonetmelik_Kilavuzu.pdf . Tutulescu, F. , Boruzi A., and Nour V.. 2019. “Antibacterial Activity of Walnut Leaves and Sweet Cherry Stems in Cooked Pork Patties.” South Western Journal of Horticulture, Biology and Environment 10, no. 2: 65–75. [ Google Scholar ] Tyndall, S. , Maloney G., Cole M., Hazell N., and Augustin M.. 2024. “Critical Food and Nutrition Science Challenges for Plant‐Based Meat Alternative Products.” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 64, no. 3: 638–653. 10.1080/10408398.2022.2107994. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Valtonen, A. , Aisala H., Nisov A., Nikinmaa M., Honkapää K., and Sozer N.. 2023. “Synergistic Use of Fermentation and Extrusion Processing to Design Plant Protein‐Based Sausages.” LWT 184: 115067. 10.1016/j.lwt.2023.115067. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] van Vliet, S. , Bain J. R., Muehlbauer M. J., et al. 2021. “A Metabolomics Comparison of Plant‐Based Meat and Grass‐Fed Meat Indicates Large Nutritional Differences Despite Comparable Nutrition Facts Panels.” Scientific Reports 11, no. 1: 13828. 10.1038/s41598-021-93100-3. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Vila‐Clarà, G. , Vila‐Martí A., Vergés‐Canet L., and Torres‐Moreno M.. 2024. “Exploring the Role and Functionality of Ingredients in Plant‐Based Meat Analogue Burgers: A Comprehensive Review.” Foods 13, no. 8: 1258. 10.3390/foods13081258. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Vlassa, M. , Filip M., Țăranu I., et al. 2022. “The Yeast Fermentation Effect on Content of Bioactive, Nutritional and Anti‐Nutritional Factors in Rapeseed Meal.” Foods 11, no. 19: 2972. 10.3390/foods11192972. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Wang, Z. , Bai Y., Pi Y., et al. 2021. “Xylan Alleviates Dietary Fiber Deprivation‐Induced Dysbiosis by Selectively Promoting Bifidobacterium pseudocatenulatum in Pigs.” Microbiome 9: 227. 10.1186/s40168-021-01175-x. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Waseem, M. , Tahir A., and Majeed Y.. 2024. “Printing the Future of Food: The Physics Perspective on 3D Food Printing.” Food Physics 1: 100003. 10.1016/j.foodp.2023.100003. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Webb, L. , Fleming A., Ma L., and Lu X.. 2021. “Uses of Cellular Agriculture in Plant‐Based Meat Analogues for Improved Palatability.” ACS Food Science & Technology 1: 1740–1747. 10.1021/acsfoodscitech.1c00248. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Welch, R.

1999. “Importance of Seed Mineral Nutrient Reserves in Crop Growth and Development.” In Mineral Nutrition of Crops, 205–226. CRC Press. [ Google Scholar ] Wen, Y. , Chao C., Che Q., Kim H., and Park H.. 2023. “Development of Plant‐Based Meat Analogs Using 3D Printing: Status and Opportunities.” Trends in Food Science & Technology 132: 76–92. 10.1016/j.tifs.2022.12.010. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Wilson, J. W. , Thompson T. W., Wei Y., et al. 2024. “Comparison of the In Vitro Iron Bioavailability of Tempeh Made With Tenebrio Molitor to Beef and Plant‐Based Meat Alternatives.” Nutrients 16, no. 16: 2756. 10.3390/nu16162756. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Wood, P. , and Tavan M.. 2022. “A Review of the Alternative Protein Industry.” Current Opinion in Food Science 47: 100869. 10.1016/j.cofs.2022.100869. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Wu, H. , Sakai K., Zhang J., and McClements D.. 2024. “Plant‐Based Meat Analogs: Color Challenges and Coloring Agents.” Food, Nutrition and Health 1, no. 4: 1–19. 10.1007/s44403-025-00037-w. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Wu, H. , Rui X., Li W., Xiao Y., Zhou J., and Dong M.. 2018. “Whole‐Grain Oats ( Avena sativa L .) as a Carrier of Lactic Acid Bacteria and a Supplement Rich in Angiotensin I‐Converting Enzyme Inhibitory Peptides Through Solid‐State Fermentation.” Food & Function 9: 2270–2281. 10.1039/C7FO01578J. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Xia, S. , Xue Y., Xue C., Jiang X., and Li J.. 2022. “Structural and Rheological Properties of Meat Analogues From Haematococcus pluvialis Residue‐Pea Protein by High Moisture Extrusion.” LWT 154: 112756. 10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112756. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Xie, C. , Coda R., Chamlagain B., et al. 2021. “Fermentation of Cereal, Pseudo‐Cereal and Legume Materials With Propionibacterium freudenreichii and Levilactobacillus brevis for Vitamin B12 Fortification.” LWT‐Food Science and Technology 137: 110431. 10.1016/j.lwt.2020.110431. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Xie, H. , and Grossmann L.. 2025. “Tenderness in Meat and Meat Alternatives: Structural and Processing Fundamentals.” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 24, no. 1: e70033. 10.1111/1541-4337.70033. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Xu, N. , Chen T., and Yin J.. 2023. “The Role of Lipids in Fermentative Propionate Production From the Co‐Fermentation of Lipid and Food Waste.” Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering 17, no. 7: 86. 10.1007/s11783-023-1686-0. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Xu, Y. , Ding J., Gong S., Li M., Yang T., and Zhang J.. 2020. “Physicochemical Properties of Potato Starch Fermented by Amylolytic Lactobacillus plantarum .” International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 158: 656–661. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.04.245. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Yang, Y. , Zheng Y., Ma W., Zhang Y., Sun C., and Fang Y.. 2023. “Meat and Plant‐Based Meat Analogs: Nutritional Profile and In Vitro Digestion Comparison.” Food Hydrocolloids 143: 108886. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.108886. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Yazıcı, G. , Taşpınar T., and Özer M.. 2022. “Aquafaba: A Multifunctional Ingredient in Food Production.” Biology and Life Sciences Forum 18, no. 1. 10.3390/Foods2022-13004. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Younis, K. , Ashfaq A., Ahmad A. M., Anjum Z., and Yousuf O.. 2022. “A Critical Review Focusing the Effect of Ingredients on the Textural Properties of Plant‐Based Meat Products.” Journal of Texture Studies 54: 365–382. 10.1111/jtxs.12704. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Yuan, X. , Jiang W., Zhang D., Liu H., and Sun B.. 2022. “Textural, Sensory and Volatile Compounds Analyses in Formulations of Sausages Analogue Elaborated With Edible Mushrooms and Soy Protein Isolate as Meat Substitute.” Foods 11, no. 1: 52. 10.3390/foods11010052. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Yuliarti, O. , Abdullah M., and Tay J.. 2023. “Plant‐Based Meat Analogue.” In Engineering Plant‐Based Food Systems, 169–183. Academic Press. 10.1016/B978-0-323-89842-3.00009-9. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Zhang, C. , Wu X., Chen J., and Zhou J.. 2024. “Novel Fungal Alternative Proteins From Penicillium limosum for Enhancing Structural and Functional Properties of Plant‐Based Meat Analogues.” Food Chemistry 444: 138627. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.138627. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Zhang, K. , Zang M., Wang S., Zhang Z., Li D., and Li X.. 2022. “Development of Meat Analogs: Focus on the Current Status and Challenges of Regulatory Legislation.” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 22, no. 2: 1006–1029. 10.1111/1541-4337.13098. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Zhao, G. , Ding L., Yao Y., Cao Y., Pan Z., and Kong D.. 2018. “Extracellular Proteome Analysis and Flavor Formation During Soy Sauce Fermentation.” Frontiers in Microbiology 9: 01872. 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01872. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Zhu, J. , Xiao X., Du W., et al. 2024. “Leveraging Microalgae as a Sustainable Ingredient for Meat Analogues.” Food Chemistry 450: 139360. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.139360. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Zhu, J. , Zhu Y., Zhang X., et al. 2024. “Lactic Acid Bacteria‐Assisted Monascus Fermentation Textured Soy Protein: Coloring Plant‐Based Meat and the Dynamic Changes of Its Physicochemical Properties.” Food Bioscience 61: 104984. 10.1016/j.fbio.2024.104984. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Zink, J. I. , Lutz‐Bueno V., Handschin S., et al. 2024. “Structural and Mechanical Anisotropy in Plant‐Based Meat Analogues.” Food Research International 179: 113968. 10.1016/j.foodres.2024.113968. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Zipori, D. , Hollmann J., Rigling M., Zhang Y., Weiss A., and Schmidt H.. 2024. “Rapid Acidification and Off‐Flavor Reduction of Pea Protein by Fermentation With Lactic Acid Bacteria and Yeasts.” Foods 13: 588. 10.3390/foods13040588. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Zwinkels, J. , Wolkers‐Rooijackers J., and Smid E.. 2023. “Solid‐State Fungal Fermentation Transforms Low‐Quality Plant‐Based Foods Into Products With Improved Protein Quality.” LWT 184: 114979. 10.1016/j.lwt.2023.114979. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Data Availability Statement Data will be made available on request. Articles from Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety are provided here courtesy of Wiley ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (1.9 MB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• On dedicated institutions and funding to support disaster risk reduction: Reflections on local instrumentation in Chile.#659900
• Self management strategies for hypertensive patients on treatment in selected clinics at Ga-Dikgale, Capricorn District, Limpopo, South Africa.#659901
• From integration to use: a qualitative study of barriers and facilitators to postpartum family planning use in northeast Ethiopia—a multistakeholder perspective.#659902
• Universal Health Coverage in Pakistan: Challenges, Reforms, and the Road to 2030.#659903
• Association of social restrictions with fear of cancer recurrence in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation patients: an exploratory analysis of the potential chain mediation role of illness perception and cognitive emotion regulation.#659904