Textured wheat and pea proteins for meat alternative applications

Abstract Background and objectives The market for plant‐based meat alternatives experienced unprecedented growth in the past 3 years bolstered by consumer passion for health and wellness, environmental sustainability, animal welfare, and flexitarian lifestyle. The objective of this review is to summarize the appearance, composition, properties, and plant‐based food applications of commercially available textured wheat and textured pea proteins including their blends. This review also covers the chronology of events leading to the development of plant‐based meat alternatives, the rationale behind consumer adoption of a plant‐based diet, and the different methods of texturizing plant proteins to assume the appearance and texture of real meat. Findings The origin of plant‐based meat alternatives can be traced back to the time when hydrated wheat gluten (i.e., seitan) and soy‐based tofu were first discovered thousands of years ago. A shift toward the consumption of more plant‐based foods for both human and planetary health is generating substantial interest from research scientists, food designers, investors, and consumers. More than a dozen texturization technologies for plant proteins have been employed to create the fibrous structure and fleshy appearance of meat alternative products. Textured wheat and pea proteins with appearance and fibrous structure that mimic those of real meat were developed using low‐moisture extrusion technology and formulated in meat alternative products with great success. Both textured proteins are available in several forms differing in size, shape, color, and hydration properties. Shapes can vary from crumbles (granules) to chips (flakes) or shreds of different sizes. They contain 59%–79% protein and possess hydration times that decrease with increasing temperature of soaking water with hydration capacities ranging from 1.2 to 4.7 g water absorbed per g of textured protein. Blending of textured wheat protein and textured pea protein improved the in vitro PDCAAS value (0.69–0.74) compared with that of textured wheat protein alone (0.31). Plant‐based nuggets, patties, sausages, potstickers, crab cakes, Mexican dishes, and other food products can be successfully formulated that contain either singular or binary mixture of textured protein products to provide texture and nutritional improvements. Conclusions Textured wheat and textured pea proteins including their blends play a significant role in the meat alternative market because they provide resilient meat‐like texture, clean flavor profile, a variety of size, shape, and color offerings, ease of formulation, and nutritional benefits (i.e., high protein and no cholesterol). They can be successfully formulated in numerous meat alternative products to provide taste, texture, and nutritional benefits. Significance and novelty This review provides meaningful information on the properties, composition, and food applications of textured wheat and pea proteins including genesis, environmental impact, texturization technologies, and consumer appeal of plant‐based meat alternatives. It is projected that meat alternative products will continue to grow driven by increasing consumer demand, the availability of traditional and new plant protein sources, and the application of emerging technologies to transform the plant proteins into a meat‐like structure.