Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 3 complete abstracts (544 words), 9 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
The edible portions of any animal used for food including cattle, swine, goats/sheep, poultry, fish, shellfish, and game.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Meats.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Food
- Narrower topics
- In Vitro Meat; Meat Products; Meat Proteins; Poultry; Red Meat; Seafood
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 90,079 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Meat” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 21,281 of them (23.6%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 28,847 records.
Reviews account for 7,080 records (7.9%) and meta-analyses for 523. Randomized controlled trials number 1,151 (1.3%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 25,062 |
| 2000-2009 | 14,889 |
| 2010-2019 | 28,847 |
| 2020 onward | 21,281 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 7,080 | 7.9% |
| Meta-analyses | 523 | 0.6% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 1,151 | 1.3% |
Method: PubMed query "Meat"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.
Reading the evidence in anatomy and physiology
Anatomy describes how body structures are built and physiology describes how they normally work, so most findings here are descriptive or mechanistic rather than evidence about treatment. Much of what is known comes from dissection, imaging, tissue studies and experiments in animals, and measurements in healthy volunteers can differ from those in people with disease or at different ages. Normal ranges vary between individuals and populations. Check whether a result was measured in people or in another species, the age and health of the participants, and the method used.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cultured Meat: A Multidimensional Review of Technological, Nutritional, Ethical, and Regulatory Advances (2020-2025) | 2026 | Review article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 11 | cc by PMID 41684290 · DOI · PMC12902808 |
| Global nutritional equity of fishmeal and aquaculture trade flows | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 4 | cc by PMID 41662524 · DOI · PMC12912983 |
| The meatball matchup: Plant vs. animal proteins on campus | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 3 | cc by PMID 42409564 · DOI · PMC13373619 |
Cultured Meat: A Multidimensional Review of Technological, Nutritional, Ethical, and Regulatory Advances (2020-2025) [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Global food systems face increasing environmental, ethical, and health-related challenges, prompting the search for sustainable protein alternatives.
- Closing excerpt
- Cultured meat represents a transformative innovation with the potential to reshape global protein production, but its success depends on interdisciplinary strategies that balance sustainability, safety, ethics, and public trust.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (212 words)
Global food systems face increasing environmental, ethical, and health-related challenges, prompting the search for sustainable protein alternatives. Cultured meat has emerged as a promising option, offering potential benefits such as reduced environmental impact, improved animal welfare, and nutritional customization. However, large-scale implementation remains limited by technological, economic, ethical, and social constraints. This scoping review synthesizes recent scientific literature (2020-2025) addressing the technological, nutritional, regulatory, ethical, and consumer acceptance dimensions of cultured meat. The analysis integrates multidisciplinary findings to identify major trends, research gaps, and challenges to the transition from laboratory development to market readiness. Persistent technological hurdles include optimizing cell culture conditions, scaffold design, and bioreactor scalability. The nutritional composition, particularly protein and lipid content, often lags behind conventional meat and requires improvement to meet dietary and sensory expectations. Regulatory frameworks remain inconsistent worldwide, with few markets approving commercial sales. Ethical debates continue over animal-derived inputs and product "naturalness." Consumer acceptance is influenced by psychological, cultural, and demographic factors, with greater acceptance among younger, educated, and health-conscious individuals. Ensuring long-term viability will require standardized safety regulations, cost-effective production systems, and transparent consumer engagement. Cultured meat represents a transformative innovation with the potential to reshape global protein production, but its success depends on interdisciplinary strategies that balance sustainability, safety, ethics, and public trust.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41684290 · DOI · PMC12902808
Global nutritional equity of fishmeal and aquaculture trade flows [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Aquaculture, the single fastest growing food sector, is central to achieving key Sustainable Development Goals (e.
- Closing excerpt
- 3% for farmed aquatic foods), rethinking existing distribution policies with nutrition as the primary objective may help unlock the full potential of aquaculture to eliminate hunger and malnutrition.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (148 words)
Aquaculture, the single fastest growing food sector, is central to achieving key Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 2: Zero Hunger). Linking the nutrient composition of >2,800 aquatic species with >2 million fishmeal and farmed fish transactions in international aquatic food trade between 2015 and 2019, we examined aquaculture's nutritional flows and distributional equity. We found that aquaculture provided adequate intakes for nearly a quarter of a million individuals, on average, across 14 key nutrients, and for up to 2.7 billion individuals for several nutrients, such as Vitamin B12. The vast majority of these nutrients (76.8%) were domestically retained, contributing to the nutritional security of producer countries. With most internationally traded nutrients originating from nutritionally vulnerable countries (57.7% for fishmeal and 66.3% for farmed aquatic foods), rethinking existing distribution policies with nutrition as the primary objective may help unlock the full potential of aquaculture to eliminate hunger and malnutrition.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41662524 · DOI · PMC12912983
The meatball matchup: Plant vs. animal proteins on campus [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Institutional dining halls increasingly serve plant-based meat products, yet it remains unclear how consumers perceive these products relative to animal-based options in real-world settings.
- Closing excerpt
- com/LivingMatterLab/AI4Food.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (184 words)
Institutional dining halls increasingly serve plant-based meat products, yet it remains unclear how consumers perceive these products relative to animal-based options in real-world settings. This study compares consumer sensory perceptions of two plant-based meatballs (soy, soy-wheat) and two animal-based meatballs (beef, beef-mushroom) among university dining hall patrons (n=116), complemented by instrumental Texture Profile Analysis. Animal-based meatballs received significantly higher ratings for moistness, meatiness, fattiness, and tastiness (all p<0.001), with the meatiness gap being the largest (Δ=1.40 on a 5-point scale). Texture analysis revealed that animal-based samples were significantly harder, more cohesive, and chewier than plant-based samples. In contrast, consumers perceived no differences in chewiness or hardness between categories, revealing a disconnect between instrumental and sensory measures. Just-About-Right penalty analysis identified insufficient savoriness as a universal improvement target across all products, including beef. Flavor and texture emerged as the dominant drivers of dining choice, while sustainability and animal welfare ranked lowest in importance. These findings suggest that sensory parity - particularly in moistness, meatiness, and savoriness - may drive acceptance of plant-based meat more strongly than sustainability messaging. Data and code are available at https://github.com/LivingMatterLab/AI4Food.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42409564 · DOI · PMC13373619
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Red and processed meat and colorectal cancer incidence: meta-analysis of prospective studies [4]
- Research article Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective studies [5]
- Research article Consumption of red meat and processed meat and cancer incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies [6]
- Research article Meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: dose-response meta-analysis of epidemiological studies [7]
- Research article Red and processed meat consumption and mortality: dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies [8]
- Research article Heme iron from meat and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis and a review of the mechanisms involved [9]
References
- Zão ACAF, Nogueira WV, Rondan FS, Scaglioni PT. Cultured Meat: A Multidimensional Review of Technological, Nutritional, Ethical, and Regulatory Advances (2020-2025). . 2026. PMID 41684290 · DOI · PMC12902808
- Elsler LG, Gephart JA, Zamborain-Mason J, Cashion T, Troell M, Naylor RL, et al.. Global nutritional equity of fishmeal and aquaculture trade flows. . 2026. PMID 41662524 · DOI · PMC12912983
- St Pierre SR, Koosis AO, Zhang N, Kuhl E. The meatball matchup: Plant vs. animal proteins on campus. . 2026. PMID 42409564 · DOI · PMC13373619
- Chan DS, Lau R, Aune D, Vieira R, Greenwood DC, Kampman E, et al.. Red and processed meat and colorectal cancer incidence: meta-analysis of prospective studies. PLoS One. 2011. PMID 21674008 · DOI · PMC3108955
- Larsson SC, Wolk A. Meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Int J Cancer. 2006. PMID 16991129 · DOI
- Farvid MS, Sidahmed E, Spence ND, Mante Angua K, Rosner BA, Barnett JB. Consumption of red meat and processed meat and cancer incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 2021. PMID 34455534 · DOI
- Norat T, Lukanova A, Ferrari P, Riboli E. Meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: dose-response meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. Int J Cancer. 2002. PMID 11857415 · DOI
- Wang X, Lin X, Ouyang YY, Liu J, Zhao G, Pan A, et al.. Red and processed meat consumption and mortality: dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Public Health Nutr. 2016. PMID 26143683 · DOI · PMC10270853
- Bastide NM, Pierre FH, Corpet DE. Heme iron from meat and risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis and a review of the mechanisms involved. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011. PMID 21209396 · DOI
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-31.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.