Wheat protein (seitan) bacon compared with soy and pork bacon
What it found
Seitan-based bacon had more protein than pork bacon, and both plant-based bacon alternatives were low in fat.
The biggest environmental and health risks came from side industries like petroleum production and diesel combustion, not from making or cooking the bacon.
What they found
Protein content
Seitan protein based bacon had higher protein content than pork bacon.
Fat content
Both soy protein and seitan based bacon alternatives were low in fat.
Environmental impacts
The packaging and packaging materials of plant-based bacon products had lower environmental impacts than petroleum production and diesel combustion.
Cooking methods
The life cycle assessment looked at heating plant-based bacon with induction, ceramic and electric stoves before eating.
Main sources of risk
The highest environmental and human health risks from bacon substitutes came from side industries, not from individual activities or food production itself.
What the authors conclude
“Soy protein and seitan-based bacon alternatives were low in fat content, and seitan protein-based bacon provides more protein content than original bacon.”
Also in their conclusions
- They say soy protein and seitan based bacon alternatives were low in fat content.
- They note that seitan protein based bacon provides more protein content than original bacon.
- They conclude that the highest risks of environmental and human health effects of bacon substitutes have not come from individual activities and/or food production, but from side industries that cause the highest amounts of environmental issues crucial for food production and transportation.
How it was done
High meat consumption is linked to cardiometabolic diseases and higher death rates, and animal farming produces the most methane emissions from manure. Consumers looking for healthy and environmentally friendly food are turning to plant-based meat alternatives.
The researchers compared soy protein and seitan protein based bacon products. They ran a life cycle assessment covering global warming, terrestrial acidification, terrestrial toxicity, water consumption, freshwater eutrophication and human carcinogenic toxicity. They also compared the nutritional contents of the plant-based bacon products with each other and with pork bacon.
What it can’t tell you
- We summarised it from the abstract only.
- This study compared nutritional contents and environmental impacts, not health outcomes in people.
- It cannot show what would happen to human health from eating these products.
Who paid
- Authors work at
- The Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland
The paper
- Title
- Comparison of life cycle assessments and nutritional contents of soy protein and wheat protein (seitan) based vegan bacon products for human and environmental health
- Type
- Study
- Summarised from
- Abstract only
- Cite
- Yusuf EH (2023). Comparison of life cycle assessments and nutritional contents of soy protein and wheat protein (seitan) based vegan bacon products for human and environmental health. Journal of the science of food and agriculture. doi:10.1002/jsfa.12507PubMed 36794485DOI
Summary written 26 Sep 2026. Check it against the paper before it changes what you eat. How we summarise papers · Report an error