Plant-Based Fish Analogs-A Review

applied
sciences
Review
Plant-Based Fish Analogs—A Review
Malgorzata Nowacka 1, * , Magdalena Trusinska 1 , Paulina Chraniuk 2 , Jagoda Piatkowska 1 , Anna Pakulska 1 ,
Karolina Wisniewska 2 , Anna Wierzbicka 1 , Katarzyna Rybak 1 and Katarzyna Pobiega 2
1 Department of Food Engineering and Process Management, Institute of Food Sciences, Warsaw University of
Life Sciences—SGGW, Nowoursynowska 159c, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
2 Department of Food Biotechnology and Microbiology, Institute of Food Sciences, Warsaw University of Life
Sciences—SGGW, Nowoursynowska 159c, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract: Recently, plant-based food has become important in the global food market. The increasing
demand for plant-based food is a consequence of the increase in both environmental awareness
and care for animal welfare as well as the changes in nutritional recommendations. Therefore, food
producers are concentrating on fulfilling consumer needs by creating alternatives to animal-based
products with comparable nutritional and sensory qualities but from plant-based sources. One
promising trend is the production of plant-based fish. Thus, this work aimed to summarize the
possibilities of creating plant-based fish analogs, including a review of alternatives to fish products
currently available on the market and the possible use of the various ingredients to produce plant-
based fish analogs like fillets, slices, as well as sticks, or burgers. Furthermore, the plant-based
ingredients were characterized for potential use in fish analogs production. Additionally, the study
includes technologies used for plant-based fish analogs production, e.g., texturization, 3D and 4D
printing, electrospinning, etc. Furthermore, future perspectives were given considering the challenges
and limitations in this range.
Keywords: fish analogs; plant-based products; fish analog markets; texturization; 3D printing
Citation: Nowacka, M.; Trusinska,

1. Introduction
M.; Chraniuk, P.; Piatkowska, J.;
Pakulska, A.; Wisniewska, K.; One dynamic developing trend in the food market is the growing popularity of vegan
Wierzbicka, A.; Rybak, K.; Pobiega, K. products [1]. Plant-based products are produced based on plant sources, which can be listed
Plant-Based Fish Analogs—A Review. as vegetables, grains, pulses, seeds, nuts, fruits, etc. [2]. According to a report published
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509. https:// by Allied Market Research [3], the size of the vegan food market was valued at USD
doi.org/10.3390/app13074509 16.55 billion in 2022 and is forecast to reach USD 37.45 billion by 2030, i.e., the average
annual growth rate (CAGR) in 2022–2030 will be 10.6%.
Academic Editor: Ioannis G. Roussis
The growth of the plant-based food market has been primarily driven by people who
Received: 20 February 2023 restrict animal-based foods in their diets, including vegans [4]. The growing percentage of
Revised: 28 March 2023 the population on a plant-based diet translates into an increasing market offer of vegan
Accepted: 30 March 2023 products. According to the Mintel report [5], every tenth product introduced to the Euro-
Published: 2 April 2023 pean market in the food and drink category is labeled as vegetarian. As a result, more and
more companies dealing exclusively with plant food are being established. In Europe, there
were 11,655 of them in 2019, which is 93 percent more than in 2016. According to the Good
Food Institute [6], plant-based fish and seafood alternatives remain a small fraction of the
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
plant-based meat and seafood alternatives category, accounting for less than 1% of that
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
category. However, it should be noted that in 2020 sales in this group of products in the US
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
increased to USD 12 million, or 23%. In addition, investments in vegan seafood substitutes
conditions of the Creative Commons
in the US reached USD 175 million in 2021, almost twice the amount raised in the previous
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// year. These statistics show that, recently, work has been underway to fill the market gap
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ with plant substitutes for fish and seafood.
4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13074509 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

fish populations, which has, in turn, affected marine biodiversity and ecosystem health.
Additionally, fish farming practices can have a negative impact on the environment,
including water pollution, habitat destruction, and the spread of disease. Unfortunately,
fish are susceptible to various diseases, resulting in high mortality rates and reduced fish
farm yields [8]. According to the United Nations, almost 90% of the world’s marine fish
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 stocks are overfished. Another issue is ethical aspects and the growing popularity of2 of 22
animal rights protection, whose supporters increasingly raise the problem of the suffering
of fish.
Furthermore,
There are an increasing
several reasonspart
whyof consumers
the population is giving up giving
are increasingly eating fish for health
up eating fish and
reasons. For example, the contamination of fish by microplastics poses a significant
seafood, including ecological, ethical, or health reasons [7], which have been presented threat. in
Exposure
Figureto1.it,Ecological
alone or in combination
aspects include with other pollutants,
overfishing, can lead toreduction,
marine biodiversity various health
and envi-
issues in fish [9,10].
ronmental Furthermore,
destruction. Due toalthough
the growingfish population
contains many andvaluable
increasing ingredients and
fish consumption,
is anoverfishing
essential protein
has beensource
noted. for human overfishing
Moreover, growth and hasdevelopment,
led to a declineissues
in fishrelated to
populations,
mercury,
whichdioxins,
has, in microplastics, lead, and
turn, affected marine arsenic have
biodiversity recently
and been health.
ecosystem raised [11,12]. Heavy fish
Additionally,
metals are a major
farming source
practices canofhave
pollution in aquatic
a negative impactenvironments and can accumulate
on the environment, in the pol-
including water
tissues of fish,
lution, posing
habitat a risk to human
destruction, and the health
spread when consumed
of disease. [13]. Considering
Unfortunately, thesusceptible
fish are above
reasons, in the diseases,
to various last few years, bothinlarge
resulting high companies
mortality ratesand and
start-ups have
reduced tried
fish farm toyields
meet the
[8]. Ac-
needscording to the United Nations,
of consumers—the Fact.MR almost
report 90% of thea world’s
predicts marine fish
CAGR increase stocks
of the are overfished.
global plant-
basedAnother issue in
fish market is 2021–2031
ethical aspects and which
by 28%, the growing
means popularity of animal
that the projected rightsvalue
market protection,
in
2031whose supporters
is 1.3 billion increasingly
dollars [14]. raise the problem of the suffering of fish.
Figure 1. Reasons
Figure for interest
1. Reasons in fish
for interest inanalogs.
fish analogs.
Furthermore,
Plant-based animalananalog
increasing
food part of thecan
products population is giving
be classified up eating
into several fish for as
categories, health
reasons.
follows For example, the contamination of fish by microplastics poses a significant threat.
[15–17]:
Exposure to it, alone or in combination with other pollutants, can lead to various health
issues in fish [9,10]. Furthermore, although fish contains many valuable ingredients and is
an essential protein source for human growth and development, issues related to mercury,
dioxins, microplastics, lead, and arsenic have recently been raised [11,12]. Heavy metals
are a major source of pollution in aquatic environments and can accumulate in the tissues
of fish, posing a risk to human health when consumed [13]. Considering the above reasons,
in the last few years, both large companies and start-ups have tried to meet the needs
of consumers—the Fact.MR report predicts a CAGR increase of the global plant-based
fish market in 2021–2031 by 28%, which means that the projected market value in 2031 is
1.3 billion dollars [14].
Plant-based animal analog food products can be classified into several categories, as
follows [15–17]:
- Dairy analogs. These plant-based products mimic dairy products like milk, cheese,
and yogurt. They are typically made from nuts, soy, chickpea, oats, seeds, tapioca,
yeasts, etc.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 3 of 22
- Meat analogs. These are plant-based products that mimic the meat’s taste, texture,
and nutritional profile. They are usually made from soy, wheat, or pea protein and
can be prepared in different forms, such as burgers, sausages, and meatballs.
- Seafood analogs. These plant-based products are usually made from algae, seaweed,
soy protein, and gluten and can be used in a variety of dishes, such as sushi, crab
cakes, and fish and chips.
- Egg analogs. These are plant-based products that replicate the taste and texture of
eggs. They are typically made from tofu, chickpea flour, or aquafaba.
Commonly, plant-based fish products are a sub-category of seafood analogs and
are specifically designed to mimic the taste, texture, and nutritional profile of fish [16].
Such products usually have a longer shelf life and better food safety than animal-origin
food [18] due to plant-derived protein, eliminating the risk of zoonotic diseases. Moreover,
in order to achieve a meat-like texture, the plant-derived ingredients undergo multiple
processing steps, including heat treatment (high-temperature cooking or extrusion), during
which microbial contamination can be significantly reduced. However, high-temperature
processing of protein products can lead to the formation of harmful substances such as
heterocyclic aromatic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and advanced glycation
end products from the Maillard reaction. On the other hand, analogs are multi-component,
so each ingredient introduced into the final product (e.g., dyes or spices) can be a source of
pathogenic microflora. Additionally, meals prepared with meat analogs can be more prone
to spoilage during storage due to their neutral pH. This can complicate the supply chain and
requires strict control during release for consumption, compared to their meat-containing
counterparts [19–22].
To prevent contamination, the packaging and storage of meat analogs should be simi-
lar to meat products. Chilled or frozen conditions in closed plastic containers or flexible bags
are recommended for storing plant-based analogs [18]. Additionally, Priyadarshini et al. [23]
noted that the quality of shrimp analog prepared from Pangasionodon hypophthalmus surimi
was better under vacuum packaging than without vacuum (standard packaging). The study
found that psychrophilic microorganisms were detected later in the vacuum-packaged
samples, and the amount of total volatile base nitrogen was lower compared to standard
packaging. Generally, for plant-based analogs packaging with the modified atmosphere can
reduce oxidation and expand shelf life [18]. However, similarly to meat and fish products,
numerous studies have explored the utilization of natural antioxidants to prolong their
shelf life. Thus, it can also be used to prolong the shelf life of plant-based analogs [24].
According to the above-mentioned aspects, this article attempts to compare vegan fish
analogs available on the market, ingredients used for the production of vegan meat and
fish analogs, as well as methods of their preparation.
2. Fish Alternative Products Market Review

Currently, there are several plant-based fish products available on the market. In
Table 1, plant-based fish products with listed ingredients as well as nutritional value, are
shown. Main groups such as fillets, slices, fish sticks, or burgers can be distinguished
(Figure 2). The most popular product group is fillets. The market review showed fillets
are commonly found on each analyzed continent—Europe, Asia, and North and South
America. Moreover, fillets occur both in breaded and non-breaded forms. In this group,
the most commonly used basic raw material is soybean protein. Wheat or pea protein, as
well as rice, are also often used [25]. For instance, the OmniFoods company from Hong
Kong produces fish analogs (“Golden fillet”) using soybean, pea and rice protein, rapeseed
oil, and potato starch. The products have also been enriched with omega-3 fatty acids [26].
Some companies use a mixture of various plant proteins. This way of designing plant-
based food products is very important from the point of view of providing complementary
proteins [15]. For example, the American Good Catch uses a blend of pea protein isolate,
soy protein concentrate, chickpea flour, faba protein, lentil protein, soy protein isolate, and
navy bean powder [27]. Vegan fish fillets are also present on the European market—Novish,
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509

plant-based food products is very important from the point of view of providing 4 of 22
complementary proteins [15]. For example, the American Good Catch uses a blend of pea
protein isolate, soy protein concentrate, chickpea flour, faba protein, lentil protein, soy
protein isolate, and navy bean powder [27]. Vegan fish fillets are also present on the
aEuropean
Dutch company, launched plant-based
market—Novish, substitutes in
a Dutch company, January plant-based
launched 2020, which made them the
substitutes in
first vegan fish company in Europe. The products contain, e.g., rice, water,
January 2020, which made them the first vegan fish company in Europe. The productswheat flour, or
rapeseed oil [28].
contain, e.g., rice, water, wheat flour, or rapeseed oil [28].
Figure 2. Types of plant-based analogs available on the market.

Figure 2. Types of plant-based analogs available on the market.
It is well-known that soybean is an allergenic food product. Its proteins can cause
It is well-known
unwanted effects like that soybean
diarrhea, is an allergenic
vomiting, urticaria,food product. Its
anaphylaxis, andproteins
atopy, as can cause
well as
unwanted
facial effects
swelling, like diarrhea,
airway narrowing, vomiting, urticaria,
and difficulties anaphylaxis,
in breathing [29].and
A lotatopy, as well as
of plant-based
alternatives
facial swelling,contain thisnarrowing,
airway source of protein. However,insome
and difficulties products
breathing [29].onA the market
lot of do not
plant-based
contain this allergen.
alternatives contain this For source
example, Novish produces
of protein. However,soy-free products,on
some products which may bedo
the market good
not
product for allergy sufferers interested in a vegan diet [28].
contain this allergen. For example, Novish produces soy-free products, which may be There are also VBites products
from
goodthe United
product forKingdom on the European
allergy sufferers interested market, whichdiet
in a vegan are [28].
madeThere
of, e.g.,
arerapeseed
also VBitesoil,
yeast,
productskonjac
from flour,
the tapioca, and wheaton
United Kingdom starch [30]. Yeastmarket,
the European is the source
whichofarethemade
specific
of,taste
e.g.,
and the protein
rapeseed that can
oil, yeast, konjacbe used
flour,intapioca,
a wide range of foodstuffs—an
and wheat inexpensive
starch [30]. Yeast supplement
is the source of the
to the human
specific taste diet
and[31].
the protein that can be used in a wide range of foodstuffs—an
Industries
inexpensive supplement try to recreate
to thespecific
humanfish dietspecies;
[31]. salmon is the most frequently chosen
species. An analog of salmon produced
Industries try to recreate specific fish species; by the Asiansalmon
company Maymost
is the Wahfrequently
is made from soy
chosen
and wheat proteins, salt, soy sauce, and canola oil [32]. In
species. An analog of salmon produced by the Asian company May Wah is made from soyaddition, another often imitated
species
and wheat of fish is cod.salt,
proteins, Forsoyinstance,
sauce, andcod canola
fillet produced
oil [32]. Inbyaddition,
the Malaysian
anothercompany TKC
often imitated
Food
speciesuses
of soy
fishprotein,
is cod. tapioca starch,cod
For instance, andfillet
vegetable
produced oils [33].
by theOccasionally,
Malaysiancompanies
company TKC seek
unique concepts which differentiate them from others. Such
Food uses soy protein, tapioca starch, and vegetable oils [33]. Occasionally, companies an approach is represented
by
seekEverbest,
uniquewhich developed
concepts whicha differentiate
substitute for themthe Goby from Fish. The product
others. Such an is based
approachon soyis
protein, water, tapioca starch, yeast extract, and seaweed [34].
represented by Everbest, which developed a substitute for the Goby Fish. The product is
based Another
on soy popular type oftapioca
protein, water, plant-based
starch, product is slicedand
yeast extract, smoked
seaweed salmon.
[34]. For example,
the vegan salmon of Austrian company Revo is made
Another popular type of plant-based product is sliced smoked salmon. For of pea protein, canola, andexample,
linseed
oils
the vegan salmon of Austrian company Revo is made of pea protein, canola, and [30].
[35], whereas the product of Vbites is based on rapeseed oil and soya protein In
linseed
contrast, the salmon alternative produced by the American enterprise Sophie’s Kitchen con-
oils [35], whereas the product of Vbites is based on rapeseed oil and soya protein [30]. In
tains olive oil, konjac powder, pea starch, potato starch, pea protein, organic agave nectar,
contrast, the salmon alternative produced by the American enterprise Sophie’s Kitchen
or seaweed powder [36]. Ran et al. [8] showed that using the water-soluble polysaccharide-
contains olive oil, konjac powder, pea starch, potato starch, pea protein, organic agave
konjac glucomannan could influence the texture and rheological properties to mimic the
nectar, or seaweed powder [36]. Ran et al. [8] showed that using the water-soluble
tissue of the seafood analogs. The authors stated that adding konjac glucomannan could be
polysaccharide-konjac glucomannan could influence the texture and rheological
a good solution to simulate seafood products without the need for high-pressure extrusion.
properties to mimic the tissue of the seafood analogs. The authors stated that adding
Market research shows that fish sticks are most often produced and are common
konjac glucomannan could be a good solution to simulate seafood products without the
mainly in Europe. In addition, they usually occur in breaded form, and the main ingredient
need for high-pressure extrusion.
is wheat protein. Wheat protein has several functions, including visco-elasticity and specific
Market research shows that fish sticks are most often produced and are common
texture, and due to these properties, it can be used as the main component of plant-based
mainly in Europe. In addition, they usually occur in breaded form, and the main
products [1,18]. On the market, there is Paluszki a’la rybne by the Polish company Polsoja.
ingredient
This product is contains
wheat protein. Wheat protein
wheat protein, isolatedhas soyseveral
protein, functions, including
wheat starch, visco-elasticity
and wheat fiber [37].
and specific texture, and due to these properties, it
There are several fish stick products produced using wheat protein or wheatcan be used as the main component
flour. These of
plant-based products [1,18]. On the market, there is Paluszki a’la
include Sea Style Sticks [38], Vivera’s Vegan Crispy Sticks [39], Good Catch’s Fish Sticks [27], rybne by the Polish
etc. Even when the product contains another source of protein, wheat proteins are added
to obtain complementary protein sources [15]. Mainly tofu was used for the production of
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 5 of 22
Waitrose’s Vegan Fishless Fingers. However, they also contain wheat flour, durum wheat
semolina, corn barley flour, wheat gluten, and tapioca starch [40].
Furthermore, Good Catch’s company evaluated their own food additive for plant-
based products, which contains different sources of proteins, such as pea protein isolate,
soy protein concentrate, chickpea flour, faba protein, lentil protein, soy protein isolate, navy
bean powder [27]. Furthermore, to improve the texture of the fish sticks, some companies
use thickener-modified potato starch or xanthan gum, as in Paluszki a’la rybne [37] and
Good Catch’s Fish Sticks [27]. In addition, different sources of oils or fats (olive oil, rapeseed
oil, sunflower oil, and linseed oil) are essential to use in such products because fat is a
carrier of flavor and taste in plant-based analogs [18].
The next type of plant-based fish analog is fish burgers. In comparison to previously
described products, burgers are not as diverse when it comes to their composition. The
main ingredients are water and pea proteins. For example, Salmon Burgers Original and
Whitefish Burgers by Sophie’s Kitchen [36] are made from pea protein, sunflower oil, hemp
oil, potato starch, emulsifier, yeast extract, and spices.
In addition, researchers conducted studies to obtain high-quality products using
different food components. For example, shrimp analogs were obtained from sunflower
oil, alginate, egg white powder, sucrose, glycine, and CaCO3 . Furthermore, shrimp analogs
were incorporated with ethanolic extract of coconut husk as well as cluster bean extract to
extend the shelf-life of ready-to-eat vegan products from 12 days of refrigerated storage to
21 and 16 days, respectively [41].
Table 1. The plant-based fish products available on the market.
Type of Name of
Region Producer Ingredients Nutritional Value References
Product the Product
Rice. Water. Flour (wheat). Energy: 690 kJ/165 kcal;
Rapeseed oil. Salt. Thickener Fat: 6.8 g. of which
(methylcellulose). Yeast. Aroma. saturates: 0.5 g;
Breaded Fiber (sugar cane, pea). Buffered Carbohydrates: 19.7 g.
Fish fillets Europe Novish [28]
Fish Fillets vinegar powder (preservative of which sugars: 1.6 g;
ingredient). Modified starch Fibers: 6.6 g; Protein:
(oxidized starch). Food acid (citric 3.1 g; Sodium: 0.46 g;
acid). Spices (paprika powder). Salt: 1.2 g
Water. Breadcrumb Coating (Wheat
Flour. (Flour Calcium Carbonate.
Energy: 568 kJ/136 kcal;
Niacin. Iron. Thiamine). Rapeseed
Fat: 5.7 g. of which
Oil. Water. Salt. Yeast. Konjac
Breaded saturates: 0.4 g;
Flour. Tapioca Starch. Wheat
Fish fillets Fishless Europe Vbites Carbohydrate: 17.8 g. [30]
Starch. Salt. Natural Flavouring.
Steaks of which sugars: 1.1 g;
Sugar. Wheat Fibre. Yeast Extract.
Fibre: 2.7 g; Protein: 2 g;
Thickener: Carrageenan.
Salt: 1.2 g
Preservative: Potassium Sorbate.
Color: Titanium Dioxide.
Water. Soy Protein Concentrate. Fat: 9 g. of which
Canola Oil. Potato Starch. Corn saturates: 0.5 g.
Starch. Methylcellulose. Salt. polyunsaturates: 1.5 g.
Classic
Fish fillets Asia OmniFoods Natural Flavor. Cane Sugar. Yeast monounsaturates: 3 g; [26]
Fillet
Extract. Pea Protein. Rice Protein. Carbohydrate: 9 g.
Shiitake Mushroom Powder. Oats. of which sugars: 1 g;
Wheat Starch. Fiber: 3 g; Protein: 11 g;
Salt: 0.3 g
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 6 of 22
Table 1. Cont.
Type of Name of
Product the Product
Fillets [Water. Soy Protein
Concentrate. Canola Oil. Potato
Starch. Methylcellulose. Salt.
Natural Flavor. Cane Sugar. Yeast Energy: 670 kJ/160 kcal;
Extract. Pea Protein. Rice Protein. Fat: 10 g. of which
Shiitake Mushroom Powder. Oats]. saturates: 0.5 g.
Batter [Water. Enriched polyunsaturates: 1.5 g.
Golden
Fish fillets Asia OmniFoods Unbleached Wheat Flour (Flour. monounsaturates: 3 g; [42]
Fillet
Niacin. Reduced Iron. Thiamine Carbohydrate: 11 g.
Mononitrate. Riboflavin. Folic of which sugars: >1 g;
Acid). Wheat Starch. Cane Sugar. Fiber: 2 g; Protein: 6 g;
Salt. Baking Powder (Sodium Acid Salt: 0.3 g
Pyrophosphate. Sodium
Bicarbonate. Corn Starch.
Monocalcium Phosphate)].
Textured vegetable protein (pea
Energy: 180 kcal; Fat: 8 g.
protein, pea starch). Canola oil.
North of which saturates: 1 g;
Rice flakes (from brown rice).
Plant Based and Sophie’s Carbohydrate: 20 g.
Fish fillets Konjac powder. Seaweed powder. [36]
Fish Fillets South Kitchen of which sugars: 3 g;
Potato starch. Powdered cellulose.
America Protein: 8 g; Fiber: 4.6 g;
Organic agave nectar. Turmeric.
Salt: 0.4 g
White pepper. Sea salt. Ginger.
Water. Soy protein concentrate.
Rapeseed oil. Wheat flour.
Modified corn starch. Tapioca
starch. Potato starch. Wheat gluten.
Methylcellulose. Isolated soy Energy:870 kJ/208 kcal.
North protein. Maltodextrin. Natural Fat: 13.5 g. of which
and flavors. Corn flour. Sea salt. Salt. saturates: 1 g;
Fish fillets Fish Fillets Gardein [43]
South Spices. Onion powder. Yeast Carbohydrate: 12.5 g;
America extract. Yeast. Garlic powder. Soy Fiber: 2.1 g;
flour. Algae oil. Baking powder. Protein: 9.4 g; Salt: 0.4 g
Xanthan gum. Sugar. Seasoning.
Soybean oil. Cane sugar. Citric
acid. Color: Pea protein. Carrot
powder. Beet fiber.
Water. Good Catch 6-Plant Protein
Blend (pea protein isolate. Soy
protein concentrate. Chickpea flour.
Faba protein. Lentil protein. Soy
North protein isolate. Navy bean
Plant -Based saturates: 0.9 g;
and Good powder). Wheat flour. Sunflower
Fish fillets Breaded Carbohydrate: 12.4 g. [27]
South Catch oil. Corn starch. Natural flavors.
Fish Fillets of which sugars: 0.9 g;
America Methylcellulose. Yeast extracts.
Fiber: 0.9 g;
Sugar. Salt. Corn maltodextrin.
Protein: 10.6 g
Garlic powder. Onion powder.
Corn flour. Yeast. Spices. Xanthan
gum. Annatto extract. Acetic acid.
Wheat fiber. Soy fiber. Water. Soy
Fat: 17 g. of which
protein. Soy sauce (soy, wheat, salt,
saturates: 2.8 g;
Vegan Vantastic sugar). Tapioca starch. Sugar. Salt.
Fish fillets Europe Carbohydrate: 17.8 g. [44]
Salmon Foods White pepper. Color: Paprika
of which sugars: 1.1 g;
extract; Seaweed
Fiber: 2.7 g; Protein: 2 g;
(Laminaria japonica).
Salt: 1.2 g
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 7 of 22
Table 1. Cont.
Type of Name of
Product the Product
Vegan Soy protein. Wheat protein. Salt.
saturates: 0 g;
Fish fillets Salmon Asia May Wah Soy sauce. Canola oil. Five spice. [32]
Carbohydrate: 3 g. of
Fillet Pepper. Seaweed.
which sugars: 0.5 g;
Protein: 4 g; Salt: 0.3 g
Energy:1381 kJ/330 kcal;
Soybean Protein. Water. Modified Fat: 27 g. of which
TKC
TKC Potato Starch. Soybean Oil. saturates: 5 g;
Fish fillets Vegetarian Asia [33]
Food Seaweed. Sugar. Salt. Carbohydrate: 11 g. of
Cod Fillet
Spices. Seasoning. which sugars: 0 g;
Protein: 12 g; Salt: 0.7 g
Isolated soy protein. Textured soy
Vegan Cod saturates: 0.2 g;
Fish fillets Asia Ahimsa protein. Tapioca starch. Vegetable [45]
Fish Carbohydrate: 4 g;
oil. Salt. Sugar. Seaweed.
Protein: 10.5 g; Fiber:
12.2 g; Salt: 0.5 g
Isolated soy protein. Water. Soy. Energy: 812 kJ/194 kcal;
Vegetarian
Fish fillets Asia Everbest Modified tapioca starch. Yeast Protein: 13.2 g; Fat: 11 g; [34]
Goby Fish
extract. Seaweed. Carbohydrate: 11 g
Water. Rapeseed Oil. Soya Protein.
Thickeners: Carrageenan. Konjac
Smokey saturates: 0.8 g;
Flour. Potato Starch. Salt. Natural
Slices Salmon Europe VBites Carbohydrate: 5.1 g. of [46]
Flavouring. Onion Powder. Sugar.
Slices which sugars: 0.8 g;
Preservative: Potassium Sorbate;
Fiber: 1.7 g;
Color: Annatto. Iron Oxide.
Protein: 5.6 g; Salt: 1.9 g
Water. Pea protein. Vegetable oils
(rapeseed oil, linseed oil). Flavors. Energy: 401 kJ/96 kcal;
Gelling agent: calcium alginate; Fat: 5.4 g. of which
Revo
thickeners: carrageenan. Konjac; saturates: 0.8 g;
Slices Smoked Europe Revo [35]
Sea salt. Modified starch. Beetroot Carbohydrate: 5.1 g. of
Salmon
concentrate. Vitamins (vitamin B2, which sugars: 0.5 g;
vitamin B6, vitamin B12, vitamin Protein: 5.7 g; Salt: 3 g
D2). Smoke flavor. Color: carotene.
Water. Olive oil. Konjac powder.
Pea starch. Potato starch. Pea
North Fat: 4 g. of which
protein. Sea salt. Organic agave
Smoked and Sophie’s saturates: 0 g;
Slices nectar. Seaweed powder. [47]
Salmon South Kitchen Carbohydrate: 32 g;
Fenugreek. Alginate (from
America Fiber: 6 g; Protein: >2 g.
seaweed). Paprika.
Salt: 0.5 g
Calcium hydroxide.
Water. Breadcrumbs (water,
rapeseed oil, wheat flour, wheat
gluten, salt, corn flour, rice flour,
yeast, olive oil, paprika extract,
color: paprika extract). Wheat
saturates: 0.7 g;
Paluszki protein. Oil rapeseed. Isolated soy
Fish Sticks Europe Polsoja Carbohydrates: 21.3 g. of [37]
a’la rybne protein. Salt. Wheat starch. Flavors.
Wheat fiber. Thickener: Modified
Fiber: 3 g; Protein: 11.5 g;
potato starch. Emulsifier:
Salt: 1.6 g
Methylcellulose. Dried onion juice
concentrate. Dried vegetables
(garlic, carrot, parsley, onion).
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 8 of 22
Table 1. Cont.
Type of Name of
Product the Product
Rehydrated wheat protein. Wheat
flour. Sunflower oil. Water. Spirit Energy: 1029 kJ/245 kcal;
vinegar. Salt. Thickener: Fat: 9.3 g. of which
methylcellulose; natural flavorings. saturates: 1.1 g;
Sea Style Wheat starch. Wheat fibers. Herbs. Carbohydrate: 26 g. of
Fish Sticks Europe Veganz [38]
Sticks Spices. Linseed oil. Potato fibers. which sugars: 1.4 g;
Maltodextrin. Maize Starch. Protein: 13 g; Salt: 1.6 g;
Preservative: Sodium diacetate; Iron: 2.1 g;
Onion powder. Garlic powder. Iron Vitamin B12: 0.38 g
gluconate. Cyanocobalamin.
Tofu (water, soya beans). Water.
Fortified wheat flour (wheat flour,
calcium carbonate, iron, niacin, Energy: 918 kJ/220 kcal;
thiamin). Durum wheat semolina. Fat: 12.7 g. of which
Barley flour. Maize starch. saturates: 1.8 g;
Vegan
Seaweed. Salt. Sunflower oil. Carbohydrate: 13.1 g. of
Fish Sticks Fishless Europe Waitrose [40]
Wheat gluten. Tapioca starch. which sugars: 0.7 g;
Fingers
Lemon zest. Dill. Garlic powder. Fibre: 3.1 g;
Onion powder. Dextrose. Black Protein: 11.8 g;
pepper. Turmeric extract. Salt: 0.65 g
Flavoring. Paprika extract. Maize
maltodextrin. Lemon purée. Yeast.
Reconstituted wheat protein.
Breadcrumbs (wheat flour. Yeast,
salt, paprika powder). Sunflower Energy: 1029 kJ/245 kcal;
oil. Water. Wheat flour. Spirit Fat: 9.3 g. of which
vinegar. Thickener saturates: 1.1 g;
Vegan
(methylcellulose). Natural flavors. Carbohydrate: 26 g. of
Fish Sticks Crispy Europe Vivera [39]
Wheat starch. Wheat fiber. Salt. Sea which sugars: 1.4 g;
Sticks
salt. Linseed oil. Potato fiber. Fiber: 3.2 g; Protein: 13 g;
Maltodextrin. Corn starch. Herbs Salt: 1.6 g; Iron: 2.1 g;
and spices. Preservative (sodium Vitamin B12: 0.38 g
diacetate). Onion powder. Garlic
powder. Iron. Vitamin B12.
Water. Wheat flour. Good Catch
6-Plant protein blend (pea protein
isolate, soy protein concentrate,
chickpea flour, faba protein, lentil
North protein, soy protein isolate, navy
saturates: 0.9 g;
Breaded and Good bean powder). Sunflower oil. Corn
Fish Sticks Carbohydrate: 15 g. of [48]
Fish Sticks South Catch starch. Natural flavors.
America Methylcellulose. Yeast extracts.
Protein: 10.6 g;
Sugar. Corn maltodextrin. Salt.
Fiber: 0.9 g; Salt: 0.4 g
Onion powder. Yeast. Corn flour.
Garlic powder. Spices. Xanthan
gum. Annatto. Acetic acid.
Blend (pea protein isolate, soy protein
concentrate, chickpea flour, faba
North protein, lentil protein, soy protein
Fish saturates: 0.4 g;
and Good isolate, navy bean powder). Celery.
Burgers Burgers Carbohydrate: 7.9 g. of [49]
South Catch Green onions. Sunflower oil. Natural
Classic Style which sugars: 0.88 g;
America vegan flavors. Methylcellulose.
Protein: 18.6 g;
Lemon juice. Corn starch. Onion
powder. Salt. Yeast extract. Algal oil.
Garlic powder. Spice.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 9 of 22
Table 1. Cont.
Type of Name of
Product the Product
Water. Pea protein. Safflower oil.
Hempseed oil. Potato starch. Dill. Energy: 740 kJ/177 kcal;
North Contains or less methylcellulose. Fat: 8.8 g. of which
Whitefish and Sophie’s Pea protein isolate. Yeast extract. saturates: 0.9 g;
Burgers [50]
Burgers South Kitchen Salt. Organic cane sugar. Garlic Carbohydrate: 7.1 g. of
America powder. Parsley. Natural flavors. which sugars: 0.9 g;
Lemon juice concentrate. Protein: 16.8 g; Salt: 0.7 g
Lemon oil.
Blend (pea protein isolate, soy
protein concentrate, chickpea flour,
faba protein, lentil protein, soy
North protein isolate, navy bean powder).
Salmon saturates: 6.2 g;
and Good Coconut oil. Natural vegan flavors.
Burgers Burgers Carbohydrate: 8.8 g. of [51]
South Catch Sunflower oil. Methylcellulose.
Classic Style which sugars: 0.9 g;
America Yeast extract. Corn starch. Onion
Protein: 14.2 g;
powder. Salt. Lemon juice. Lemon.
Orange. Shallot. Spice. Sugar.
Garlic powder. Annatto extract.
Vegetable juice.
Water. Pea protein. Safflower oil.
Hempseed oil. Potato starch. Dill. Energy: 669 kJ/160 kcal;
North Contains or less methylcellulose. Fat: 4 g. of which
Salmon
and Sophie’s Pea protein isolate. Yeast extract. saturates:0.9 g;
Burgers Burgers [52]
South Kitchen Salt. Organic cane sugar. Garlic Carbohydrate: 7.1 g. of
Original
America powder. Vegetable juices (color). which sugars: 1.8 g;
Natural flavors. Lemon juice Protein: 15.9 g; Salt: 0.7 g
concentrate. Lemon oil.
Fish and plant-based analogs are designed to mimic the taste, texture, and appearance
of real fish. However, they differ in their functional properties from animal-origin products.
Fish flesh is composed of water (70–80%), proteins (15–20%), lipids (2–5%), carbohydrates
(2%), minerals, and vitamins [20,25]. Compared to animal-based proteins, plant-based
proteins are easier to produce, but most plant proteins are deficient in essential amino
acids, making them nutritionally incomplete [53]. Therefore, combining plant proteins
from various sources makes it feasible to attain a very high PDCAAS comparable to fish
protein [20]. Nevertheless, the nutritional value of the plant-based products on the market
is far from their animal origin [54]. Figure 3 presents the protein, fats, and carbohydrate
content of salmon and cod [55] and their chosen analogs. Companies try to produce
products that mimic the texture, appearance, and taste of the fish species; however, there is
still a long way to go to reach nutritional levels similar to those of fish species. For example,
salmon (Revo) fish analogs are characterized by low amounts of proteins and fat and high
amounts of carbohydrates. In contrast, cod analogs (TKC Veg Cod Fillet) contain higher
amounts of fats, carbohydrates, and lower protein than medium quantities in fish meat.
Furthermore, fish analogs made from plant-based proteins have higher levels of dietary
fiber. However, plant-based analogs may have lower levels of omega-3 fatty acids, which
are abundant in real fish [25]. Thus, the seafood substitutes are enriched in micronutrients,
such as omega-3 fatty acids and vitamins (A, B, and D), in order to ensure nutritional parity
with traditional seafood products [54].
(TKC Veg Cod Fillet) contain higher amounts of fats, carbohydrates, and lower protein
than medium quantities in fish meat. Furthermore, fish analogs made from plant-based
proteins have higher levels of dietary fiber. However, plant-based analogs may have lower
levels of omega-3 fatty acids, which are abundant in real fish [25]. Thus, the seafood
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 substitutes are enriched in micronutrients, such as omega-3 fatty acids and vitamins (A, 10 of 22
B, and D), in order to ensure nutritional parity with traditional seafood products [54].
Figure
Figure 3. Comparison
3. Comparison of fish
of fish andand
fishfish analogs
analogs (salmon
(salmon andand
codcod nutritional
nutritional value—[55],
value—[55], salmon
salmon
analog—Revo, CodCod
analog—Revo, analog—TKC
analog—TKC VegVeg
CodCod
Fillet).
Fillet).
FishFish analogs
analogs mademade from
from plant
plant proteins
proteins havehave a different
a different texture
texture thanthan
realreal
fishfish
duedue to to
the absence of muscle fibers [15]. Various techniques are being
the absence of muscle fibers [15]. Various techniques are being explored for obtaining explored for obtaining
goodgood texture
texture of the
of the plant-based
plant-based analogs;
analogs; however,
however, research
research is still
is still ongoing
ongoing [20].
[20]. Still,
Still, most most
products on the market do not replicate the structure and texture of fish or seafood butbut
products on the market do not replicate the structure and texture of fish or seafood
rather
rather reproduce
reproduce thethe sensory
sensory characteristics
characteristics of processed
of processed fishfish products,
products, including
including their their
appearance, texture, aroma, and flavor [25]. However, fish analogs
appearance, texture, aroma, and flavor [25]. However, fish analogs made from plant-based made from plant-based
proteins
proteins maymayhavehave a slightly
a slightly different
different tastetaste compared
compared to fish
to real real due
fish to
due
thetobitter
the bitter
taste of taste
of some plant-based proteins. Furthermore, the specific taste of the
some plant-based proteins. Furthermore, the specific taste of the plant-based proteins can plant-based proteins
can be masked
be masked and flavored
and flavored to mimictothemimic
tastethe taste of different
of different types
types of fish of Generally,
[53]. fish [53]. Generally,
plant-
based fish analogs and animal-origin products differ in their functional properties,properties,
plant-based fish analogs and animal-origin products differ in their functional which
which is currently
is currently under investigation.
under investigation.
3. The Possible Use of Various Ingredients to Produce Plant-Based Fish Analogs and
Their Characteristics
Separate nutrients such as proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and whole products such as
legumes can be used to produce plant-based fish alternatives. Fish are a valuable source of
polyunsaturated fatty acids, including omega-3 acids essential for the proper functioning
of the human body. Therefore, vegetable fats rich in omega-3 fatty acids should be used in
plant-based fish replacements. Fish are also characterized by high protein content, which
depends on the species, the conditions of existence, and the type of muscle—it is important
for proteins to be digestible and contain essential amino acids. Fish meat proteins are
distinguished by their high biological value due to the presence of essential amino acids
in a nutritionally favorable proportion. Conversely, vegetable proteins are considered
less valuable. However, proteins from cereals and legumes can be mixed to achieve an
appropriate essential amino acid profile. It is also worth mentioning that vegetable proteins
are usually characterized by good emulsifying, thickening, and foaming properties [15,56].
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 11 of 22
3.1. Soya
Soya (Glycine L.) is characterized by its high-fat content, including polyunsaturated
fatty acids. It is also distinguished by its high protein content, which accounts for up to
46% of grains’ total weight. The carbohydrate content, on the other hand, ranges from
approximately 22.8% to 27.9%, and lipids account for a maximum of 23% of the total
weight [57]. There are five principal fatty acids in soybean oil: palmitic (11%), stearic
(4%), oleic (23%), linoleic (54%), and linolenic (8%) [58]. Soy protein has a significant
amino acid composition as it complements cereal protein. Although soy is deficient in
methionine, it contains enough lysine to overcome the lysine deficiency in cereals [59].
For example, the composition of the essential amino acids in defatted soya seed flour
(g/100 g protein) is histidine 2.58; isoleucine 4.45; leucine 7.82; lysine 5.91; threonine 3.61;
tryptophan 0.33; valine 4.58 [60]. Soybean flour, concentrates, and isolates are characterized
by emulsification, fat absorption, viscosity, and water absorption [1]. The high amount of
soy β-conglycinin (7S) is responsible for moisturizing properties, including emulsifying
and foaming. There is a relationship between the proportion of soy glycinin (11S) and soy
β-conglycinin (7S) which affects the gel and foaming properties [61]. Soybean is one of the
leading food and oil crops, growing for over 5000 years. In 2018, the global soybean yield
was 397.9 million tons [62].
3.2. Wheat
Wheat (Triticum L.) is a widely grown cereal [63]. The predominant constituents in
wheat grains are carbohydrates, mainly starch, accounting for 58% of the grains’ dry matter.
The protein content is 11%, while lipids account for 2%. The proteins found in wheat can
be divided into four classes. Storage, metabolic, protective, and proteins have different
functions [64]. Due to its rheological and viscoelastic properties, wheat protein allows for
obtaining the consistency of muscle fibers. However, wheat proteins are allergenic, and
one of the main allergens is the globulin-1 S allele, a glycoprotein [63,65]. Wheat grains are
a valuable source of B vitamins, as well as vitamin E. They contain significant amounts of
potassium, phosphorus, magnesium, and calcium. In addition, they have a nutritionally
favorable ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 acids [64]. The amino acid composition of wheat
lacks essential amino acids such as lysine (1.1%), threonine (1.8%), and methionine (0.7%).
Newly introduced wheat varieties are characterized by increased lysine content [66,67]. In
2018, global wheat production was 762.2 million tons [68].
3.3. Legumes
There is a big group of different proteins based on legumes sources such as peas (Pisum
sativum L.), beans (Phaseolus spp.), chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.), lentils (Lens culinaris),
lupin (Lupinus albus L.), etc. [69].
The most common and available on the market are pea proteins, characterized by
their high nutritional value. Fresh pea seeds contain 20–50% starch, 17–22% of other car-
bohydrates, 6.2% to 6.5% protein, and 0.4% fat. Pea proteins have no allergenic effect
and are not genetically modified. Pea flour is marked by whipping ability, water, fat
binding, emulsification, gelling, texture property, and foaming [1,70]. Pea proteins are
divided into globulins, albumins, prolamins, and glutelins. Globulin accounts for 55 to
65% of the total protein content. During seed germination, globulin is degraded to legumin
and vicilin. Pea protein is characterized by a high lysine content (6.7 g/100 g protein).
Compared to grain proteins, pea protein is characterized by a high content of leucine
(7.6 g 100 g protein) and phenylalanine (5.7 g/100 g protein) but a lower content of methio-
nine (0.9 g/100 g protein) and cysteine (1.0 g/100 g protein). The content of individual
amino acids also differs between pea protein types. Pea globulin is characterized by a high
content of arginine, while pea albumin contains a high amount of threonine [71,72]. In
2017, the global pea protein market was valued at USD 32.09 million. World production of
dry seeds, according to 2019 FAOSTAT data was about 22 million tons and fresh peas were
about 14.5 million tons [73].
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 12 of 22
The common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is included in the legume group. It is an
important source of protein, as well as energy and dietary fiber. Raw (unprocessed) beans
contain 1.9% lipids, 21.7% protein, and 58.8% carbohydrates. The seeds of this species are
not oilseeds but have a high proportion of unsaturated fatty acids. The primary fatty acids
are linoleic and linolenic (62–83% of total acids). The high proportion of PUFAs in the beans
provides a favorable ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 acids [74]. Among all amino acids, beans
(regardless of the method of pretreatment: autoclaved at 103 kPa, freeze-dried, and also
ground) contain the highest amount of aspartic acid (10.6% in protein) and glutamic acid
(13.6% in protein), as well as significant amounts of essential amino acids, especially leucine
(7.2% in protein), lysine (6.2% in protein), and phenylalanine (5.4% in protein). The grains
also contain small amounts of sulfur amino acids (methionine 0.7% and cysteine 0.3% in
protein), characteristic of legumes. The flour of beans has the same functional properties as
pea flour. Production volume in 2016 in the United States was 140 million tons, of which
114 million tons were directed to consumption [1,60,75].
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum) is one of the most widely grown legumes sold as seeds,
flours, and canned foods. It is a good source of protein (17–22%) that can be extracted
wet and dry. Extruded chickpea protein is rich in essential amino acids such as lysine
(1.45% dry matter), leucine (1.75% dry matter), and phenylalanine (1.29% dry matter).
The limiting amino acid is tryptophan (0.23% dry matter) [76,77]. Chickpeas contain
40–60% low-digestible carbohydrates and 4–8% essential fats. Chickpeas have a higher fat
content than other legumes [78]. The fatty acid composition of chickpeas is 66% PUFA, 19%
MUFA, and 15% SFA. They contain the most linoleic acid (51.2%) and oleic acid (32.6%). In
2018 global chickpea production was 17.19 million tons, of which 27.53% of the crop was
produced in India [79].
Lentils are classed as legumes and are high in protein as well as low in fat. The seeds
of lentils can be black, orange, yellow, or green. The dry matter contains 20.6–31.4% protein.
Lentil proteins are categorized as having a high nutritional value and the right ratios of leucine
to isoleucine and leucine to lysine. These proteins are rich in lysine (6.7 ± 0.6 g/16 g N),
whereas the limiting amino acids are sulfur amino acids (methionine 0.9 ± 0.2 g/16 g N;
cysteine 1.1 ± 0.3 g/16 g N). The content of carbohydrates ranges from 43.4 to 69.9 g per
100 g of dry matter. Lentils also have a high amount of fiber, totaling as much as 26.9 g per
100 g of dry matter. Lentil flour is characterized by similar properties to the flour of peas or
beans. The global production of lentil grains was 63.15 billion tons in 2021 [1,80–82].
Lupin seed has a protein content of 44%. It contains most of the essential amino acids,
with lysine (2.1%) being the most abundant. Lupin seeds are nearly devoid of starch but
contain oligosaccharides, such as raffinose, stachyose, and polysaccharides [66,83]. Lupin
has a relatively low oil content of 18%. The most abundant fatty acids are oleic, palmitic,
linolenic, and erucic acids [70].
3.4. Rice
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is a cereal rich in carbohydrates, mainly starch. The grain of rice
is characterized by starch amounts to 75–80%. The content of water is 12%, and the content
of protein is only 7%. Still, it is worth mentioning that this protein is highly digestible
and has a high biological value due to its lysine content (about 4%). Rice bran has extra
nutritional compounds, including cellulose, pectin, hemicellulose, lignin, polyphenolics,
vitamin B9, and vitamin E isoforms [84]. Rice is characterized by a low lipid content. Oil
consists mainly of bran, and rice bran oil consists of 36% oleic acid and 37% linoleic acid.
In addition, the content of palmitic acid is considerable and amounts to 18% [85]. Paddy
rice which is hulled, is known as brown rice, whereas white rice is obtained after milling
and polishing. In 2017, rice production totaled about 693 million tons in Asia alone, and
worldwide production was about 770 million tons [86].
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 13 of 22
3.5. Corn
Corn (Zea mays, maize) is one of the most important cereal crops in the world. It
exhibits high tolerance to weather conditions. It can be grown in both tropical and temperate
climates. Corn cob is used as a vegetable, and its grains are used as animal feed [87,88]—the
fat content of corn averages 4%. Corn oil contains a high content of linoleic acid. The other
primary fatty acid in corn is oleic acid, which ranges in some corn varieties, like the amount
of linoleic acid [89]. Corn grains contain an average of 7.3% protein. Corn protein–zein
which is one of the primary storage proteins—contains alanine (10%), proline (10%), and
leucine (20%) in the highest amounts [88–90]. Each year, global corn production exceeds 1
billion tons, thus overtaking rice and wheat production by 25%. About 17% of the world’s
corn production undergoes bioconversion to ethanol [91].
3.6. Potato Proteins

Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is the world’s most important food crop, next to wheat,
rice, and corn [92]. The nutritional profile of raw potatoes is 83.4% water, 13.6% carbo-
hydrate, 2.1% protein, 0.9% lipid, and 0.9% ash. The key industrial use of potatoes is for
starch extraction. During this process, a diluted by-product, called potato fruit juice, is
produced [93]. It is worth noting that around 8 million tons of potatoes are processed
into starch in the EU annually, generating approximately 6 million m3 of potato fruit juice.
Therefore, despite containing only around 1–2% of crude protein, potato fruit juice may be
a source of protein preparations. Furthermore, properly isolated potato protein may enrich
highly processed foods due to its nutritional, functional, and antimicrobial properties
(antibacterial as well as antifungal [94,95]). The potato protein is recognized as one of
the most valuable non-animal proteins comparable to egg white and milk proteins due
to amino acids’ profile and digestibility [96]. It has in its composition all the essential
amino acids (based on the total amino acid content): leucine 10.1%; lysine 7.7%; valine
6.7%; phenylalanine 6.3%; isoleucine 5.6%; threonine 5.3%; histidine 2.1%; methionine
2.1%; and tryptophan 1.2%, and it also contains nonessential amino acids: tyrosine 5.3%;
arginine 5.2%; proline 4.9%; glycine 4.7%; serine 4.2%; cystine 1.4%; alanine; aspartic acid;
and glutamic acid [93]. Furthermore, potato protein is considered a non-allergic and GRAS
component with high antioxidant activity and good solubility, gel-forming, foaming, and
emulsifying properties [97]. Due to these characteristics, the global potato protein market is
expected to grow from USD 73.78 billion in 2021 to USD 115.44 billion by 2030, at a CAGR
of 5.10% during the forecast period 2022–2030, according to the report published by The
Brainy Insights [98].
3.7. Other Sources of Proteins

In addition to the previously mentioned protein sources, other sources of proteins are
also used, e.g., seaweeds, sunflower proteins, rapeseed proteins, etc. Seaweeds (macroalgae)
are plant-like organisms that live in the water of oceans. They are rich in minerals, vitamins,
and polysaccharides; some contain high concentrations of amino acids, proteins, and
fatty acids [99]. There is a relationship between the concentration of free amino acids in
seaweed and the flavor of seaweed [100]. Umami is based on monosodium L-glutamate and
L-aspartate but can also be the result of the synergistic effect of 50 -nucleotides, guanosine-50 -
monophosphate, and inosine-50 -monophosphate [101]. In brown algae, the protein content
ranges from 5.02 to 19.66%, in red algae from 0.67 to 45%, and in green algae from 3.42 to
29.8%. Seaweeds are a source of lysine [102]. The polysaccharides content ranges from 4 to
76% (about total dry weight), depending on the species [103]. In 2018 the world production
of brown and red seaweeds amounted to 31.3 billion tons of fresh weight with a value of
12.4 billion USD [104].
The next source of proteins is raw sunflower seeds. The protein content of sunflower
seeds varies between 45% and 50%. Some essential amino acids are present in sunflower
seeds: aspartic acid, glutamic acid, serine, histidine, glycine, threonine, arginine, alanine,
tyrosine, cysteine, valine, methionine, phenylalanine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, and proline.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 14 of 22
Generally, sunflower seeds also contain around 25% oil, but the content has increased to
40% through plant breeding. The main constituents of sunflower oil are linoleic and oleic
acids. The differences in the fatty acid content of sunflower oil are due to the heat treatment
used in its production. It contains approximately 5% palmitic acid, 6% stearic acid, 30%
oleic acid, and 59% linoleic acid. Sunflower seeds that are processed are characterized
by their low carbohydrate content. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that sunflower
flour can absorb oil, make emulsions, and is characterized by foaming properties and
whipping—but the last property is only as the flour is without chlorogenic acid. In 2018/19,
global sunflower oil production was 51.46 billion tons [1,105].
Rapeseed is another source of protein and contains about 45% protein as well as
around 42.8% fat. Compared to soya and other legumes, rapeseed protein has an excellent
balance of essential amino acids. It is characterized by high levels of sulfur-containing
amino acids, including cysteine and methionine [106]. In turn, the fatty acid profile is as
follows: 12% oleic acid, 13% linoleic acid, 8–9% linolenic acid, 8–9% eicosenoic acid, and
50–51% erucic acid [107]. Rapeseed flour has the same properties as the flour of sunflow-
ers [1]. World rapeseed production in 2018/19 was 70.91 billion tons [105].
4. Technologies Used for Plant-Based Fish and Meat Analogs Production

Various technological processes are employed to obtain fish and meat analogs. The
most commonly used are textured vegetable proteins, produced in the extrusion process,
and have a fibrous, meat-like structure. Other techniques used in the food industry are
3D and 4D printing. These technologies are much more expensive and time-consuming
processes, but they allow for personalized products. The less popular techniques that may
only be introduced in the food industry for the production of analogs of animal products
include electrospinning, wet spinning, directional freezing, and shear cell.
4.1. Texturization of Vegetable Protein (TVP)

One method of producing meat- and fish-like products is extruding cooking plant
materials for texturing fibrous substitutes for animal products. Textured vegetable proteins
(TVP) are products used as substitutes for beef, poultry, or fish, which resemble these
products not only in appearance but also in structure, color, and taste. They are available
as powder, granules, or cubes [108]. Extrusion cooking is a popular food processing
technique carried out at high temperatures for a short time. It is used to make fiber-rich
products. This is how moistened, starchy, and protein-rich raw materials are plasticized
and cooked in a tube by combining moisture, pressure, temperature, and mechanical shear
through chemical reactions [18,109]. Textured proteins can be obtained by two methods
of extrusion—wet and dry. Extrusion with a feed moisture content below 40% is called
low-moisture extrusion (LME), while extrusion performed with a feed moisture content
above 40% is considered high-moisture extrusion (HME). The products obtained in the
LME technology are characterized by low sensory acceptability and are not used in the
production of fish analogs. HME makes it possible to obtain unexpanded fiber products
that mimic the texture and taste of meat products [7,110].
Textured vegetable proteins find use in the production of nutritionally balanced
or fortified products, as well as dietary products and animal product substitutes [109].
They are mainly made of skimmed soy flakes or soy flour. TVP contains very little fat,
cholesterol, and a minimal amount of carbohydrates while being high in protein and fiber
and, therefore, rich in amino acids. Textured soy protein is the most common, although
textured wheat protein is also available [108]. However, soy protein use is limited due to the
negative perception of soy products by consumers related to potential health hazards [111].
Therefore, the production of TVP also uses unconventional raw materials such as mucuna
bean flour, faba bean, cotton, corn, pea and lupine, lima bean and African oil bean seed, oat
protein, hemp, and lentils [7,109,110].
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 15 of 22
4.2. 3D and 4D Printing

A problematic aspect when obtaining plant analogs of animal products is providing
them with an appropriate texture. Therefore, there is a need to find solutions that allow
obtaining analogs with similar taste or nutritional properties and an appropriate structure,
e.g., fish fillets. One way to achieve the right structure is to use 3D or 4D printing. Using
3D food printing enables the preparation of personalized food, with a complex structure,
obtained layer by layer, according to programmed digital models created using computer-
aided design/production software (CAD/CAM) [16,112,113]. Various 3D food printing
techniques have been developed for creating stable three-dimensional products, such as
extrusion-based printing, inkjet printing, bioprinting, and powder bed printing [113,114].
However, the most commonly used in producing high-protein foods, i.e., meat and fish
analogs, is extrusion-based printing, a fairly long-lasting food printing process, wherein
fibrous meat or analog materials are extruded from a nozzle in order to form 3D struc-
tures [112,115]. In the syringe injection process, the highly viscous protein solution is
extruded through the moving nozzle of a thin syringe layer by layer to form a 3D product,
e.g., a muscle-like structure [25]. Although bioprinting is under development, it is also
accomplished through the usual three primary methods—jetting, lasers, and extrusion [116].
Research is underway using the binder jet technique, a powder printing technology in
which a liquid binder is precisely deposited to agglomerate adjacent powder particles to
build a 3D-printed structure. However, it is a difficult technique due to the swelling of
protein raw materials during the process [112]. Swelling of the powder particles impairs
the printing process. The wet layer appears above the surface, causing misalignment
and breakage of structures upon application of the next layer of powder [117]. Research
conducted by Zhu et al. [112] showed that the increasing binder content in printed food
products resulted in greater sample consistency and that the protein content of dry powder
blends had a significant impact on the elasticity of the final product. By adjusting the
amount of binder deposited, as well as the addition of calcium caseinate to the dry powder
mixtures, a wide range of textures was achieved, such as textures similar to crushed dough
or elastic gum.
It has been suggested that 3D printing can potentially reduce waste and energy in the
food industry. For the production of meat and fish analogs with 3D printing technology,
materials derived mainly from insects, plants, and cell cultures are used, which are tested for
technological feasibility, environmental impact, and consumer acceptance. It is also possible
to use industrial waste [113]. The 3D printing technology can be used not only to eliminate
the sensory differences between meat from vegetable protein and real meat but also to
adapt plant analogs to consumers’ different preferences and needs. In addition, the printed
3D model should be durable and resistant to thermal cooking processes after printing. This
is due to the need for heat treatment of finished products before consumption. Examples of
3D-printed products are steak analogs, fish fillets, or protein-rich snacks [112,118–120].
An emerging and relatively unknown technology in the realm of food technology
is 4D printing. The use of 4D printing is an additive manufacturing technique and is an
extension of 3D printing. Furthermore, 4D printing is similar to 3D printing in design
development and printing structures with a 3D printer [121,122]. The main differences
between 4D and 3D printing are smart design and smart materials, as 4D printed structures
can change shape or function [123]. Food can change color, texture, flavor, and shape when
influenced by various stimulants such as temperature and pH. Therefore, it saves space in
the transport process or adjusting the printed materials to the customers’ needs. Although
this technology is still at the research stage, there are attempts to use vegetable proteins
(e.g., soy protein isolate) to design food with a specific smell or color [122].
4.3. Other Technologies

Electrospinning is a technique that allows the production of very thin fibrils with a
high aspect ratio. In the spinning process, placing a high voltage over a polymer solution
produces fibrils. The protein solution is pushed through the nozzle and electrically acceler-
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 16 of 22
ated by the electric potential gradient from the ground electrode. Consequently, the fine
stream exiting the nozzle, shaped like a Tylor cone, becomes a fine fiber. At the same time,
the solvent evaporates and is finally collected on the manifold connected to the electrode.
For electrospinning to occur, the spun proteins must be in an unfolded conformation or
internally unstructured. Vegetable proteins are usually spherical in their native state, so
they should be unfolded (usually using heating) prior to electrospinning, avoiding the
formation of insoluble aggregates. In order to obtain structures resembling animal proteins,
an acidic solution of spirulina protein [18,25,124].
One of the new technologies that can find industrial application in producing meat
and fish analogs is wet spinning [18]. In this process, the protein solution is forced into a
coagulation bath containing a solvent that lowers the solubility of the protein or promotes
cross-linking and fiber formation. The solvent can cause the protein to precipitate, and
with the force of the nozzle, they align the proteins, forming fibers. Binders, e.g., Ca2+ , are
added to the solvent to allow the proteins to cross-link. It is also possible to change the
acidity of the solution, which favors the formation of inter- and intra-molecular chemical
bonds between the protein chains. The products obtained this way are then purified from
the solvent [25,125]. For this technology to be introduced to the food industry, new solvents
are constantly being sought that will be safe for both products and the environment [126].
Therefore, the production of wet spinning fibers also uses raw materials such as soy, wheat,
okra protein, and zein [125].
Directional freezing is based on the use of the freezing process to obtain multilayer
protein structures. The process involves producing microstructures from two-phase systems
(aqueous or organic solutions, suspensions, and slurries). Variable solution concentrations
and the directional freezing rate regulate the shape of the protein structures. In this method,
soy proteins can be used to prepare protein products [127,128].
The shear cell technology is another technique in which a combination of shear and
heat is used to form plant-based meat and fish analogs with layered fibrous structures that
resemble the mouthfeel and texture of real animal products [36]. The shear device used
in this technology is called a shear chamber, where intense shear can be applied. There
are two types of shear cells: conical cells based on cone-plate rheometer and cylindrical
shape—Couette cells, which can be used on an industrial scale. The shear cell technology is
characterized by a lower variation in product quality compared to extrusion. Examples
of proteins that can be subjected to this process are dairy proteins (calcium caseinate), soy
protein isolate, and vital wheat gluten [85,129–131].
5. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

Consumer interest, ethical concerns, and environmental issues have increased the
demand for plant-based products, including fish analogs. Many plant-based products cur-
rently exist on the market, and this category continues to grow at a rapid pace. Companies
compete to create new products, but many plant substitutes often fail to match their animal
counterparts. The problematic issues related to nutritional content must not be missed.
Various sources of protein, including soya, wheat, legumes, rice, corn, potato, seaweed,
sunflower seeds, rapeseed, etc., can be used to develop fish analog plant products [131–133].
However, it is worth mentioning that fish analog plant products are mainly based on
readily available soy and wheat proteins, but both are allergens. This means that people
with allergies cannot consume many plant-based products. Furthermore, soybeans are
usually associated with GMO crops, which are negatively perceived, especially in European
countries. Additionally, appropriately selected technology from among texturization of
vegetable protein, 3D printing, as well as less popular techniques which nowadays are
rapidly developed like electrospinning, wet spinning, directional freezing, and shear cell,
is one of the key aspects in obtaining an appropriate texture which resembles the texture of
animal origin.
In future years it will be necessary to focus more on the nutritional value and the
physical and technological properties of fish analogs. In addition, the different sources of
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 17 of 22
plant proteins and other compounds, e.g., oleogels, algae, or fungus, may be used in fish
analogs and affect their quality.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.N., M.T. and K.P.; writing—original draft preparation,
M.N., M.T., P.C., A.P., K.W., A.W., J.P., K.R. and K.P.; writing—review and editing, M.N., M.T. and
K.P.; visualization, M.N.; supervision, M.N.; project administration, M.N. and K.P. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This study was supported by the Ministry of Education and Science (Poland) from the state
budget within the program “Student research clubs create innovations” in the years 2022–2023 (grant
number SKN/SP/534683/2022).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Akharume, F.U.; Aluko, R.E.; Adedeji, A.A. Modification of plant proteins for improved functionality: A review. Compr. Rev. Food
Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 20, 198–224. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Soni, M.; Maurya, A.; Das, S.; Prasad, J.; Yadav, A.; Singh, V.K.; Singh, B.K.; Dubey, N.K.; Dwivedy, A.K. Nanoencapsulation strate-
gies for improving nutritional functionality, safety and delivery of plant-based foods: Recent updates and future opportunities.
Plant Nano Biol. 2022, 1, 100004. [CrossRef]
3. Vegan Food Market Report, 2022: Vegan Food Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report by Product (Meat & Seafood, Creamer,
Yogurt, Meals, Cheese, Butter), by Distribution Channel (Offline, Online), by Region, and Segment Forecasts, 2022–2030. Available
online: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5665126/ (accessed on 19 March 2023).
4. Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Gantriis, R.F.; Fraga, P.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A. Plant-based food and protein trend from a business perspective:
Markets, consumers, and the challenges and opportunities in the future. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 61, 3119–3128. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
5. Mintel Report, 2017. Innovation vs. Health. Opportunities for Food Brands. Available online: https://reports.mintel.com/
display/787865/ (accessed on 29 March 2023).
6. Good Food Institute Report, 2021: 2021 Industry Update, Alternative Seafood. Available online: https://gfi.org/resource/
alternative-seafood-state-of-the-industry-report/ (accessed on 19 March 2023).
7. Kurek, M.A.; Onopiuk, A.; Pogorzelska-Nowicka, E.; Szpicer, A.; Zalewska, M.; Półtorak, A. Novel Protein Sources for Applica-
tions in Meat-Alternative Products—Insight and Challenges. Foods 2022, 11, 957. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Ran, X.; Lou, X.; Zheng, H.; Gu, Q.; Yang, H. Improving the texture and rheological qualities of a plant-based fishball analogue by
using konjac glucomannan to enhance crosslinks with soy protein. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2022, 75, 102910. [CrossRef]
9. Bhuyan, S. Effects of Microplastics on Fish and in Human Health. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 827289. [CrossRef]
10. Thiele, C.J.; Hudson, M.D.; Russell, A.E.; Saluveer, M.; Sidaoui-Haddad, G. Microplastics in fish and fishmeal: An emerging
environmental challenge? Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 2045. [CrossRef]
11. De Boer, J.; Schösler, H.; Aiking, H. Fish as an alternative protein—A consumer-oriented perspective on its role in a transition
towards more healthy and sustainable diets. Appetite 2020, 152, 104721. [CrossRef]
12. Mahaffey, K.R.; Sunderland, E.M.; Chan, H.M.; Choi, A.L.; Grandjean, P.; Mariën, K.; Oken, E.; Sakamoto, M.; Schoeny, R.; Weihe,
P.; et al. Balancing the benefits of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and the risks of methylmercury exposure from fish consumption.
Nutr. Rev. 2011, 69, 493–508. [CrossRef]
13. Pandey, G.; Madhuri, S.; Shrivastav, A.B. Contamination of mercury in fish and its toxicity to both fish and humans: An overview.
Int. Res. J. Pharm. 2012, 3, 44–47.
14. Fact.MR, 2021: Plant-based Fish Market Segmentation by Fish (Plant-Based Tuna Products, Crab Products, Shrimp Products), by
Product (Plant-Based Fish Cutlets, Fish Fillets, Fish Cutlets), by Source (Soy-Based, Canola-Based, Wheat-Based Fish Products),
by Distribution Channel & Regional Forecast—2031. Available online: https://www.factmr.com/report/plant-based-fish-market
(accessed on 25 October 2022).
15. McClements, D.J.; Grossmann, L. A brief review of the science behind the design of healthy and sustainable plant-based foods.
npj Sci. Food 2021, 5, 17. [CrossRef]
16. Lima, M.; Costa, R.; Rodrigues, I.; Lameiras, J.; Botelho, G. A Narrative Review of Alternative Protein Sources: Highlights on
Meat, Fish, Egg and Dairy Analogues. Foods 2022, 11, 2053. [CrossRef]
17. Alcorta, A.; Porta, A.; Tárrega, A.; Alvarez, M.D.; Vaquero, M.P. Foods for Plant-Based Diets: Challenges and Innovations. Foods
2021, 10, 293. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 18 of 22
18. Kyriakopoulou, K.; Dekkers, B.; van der Goot, A.J. Chapter 6—Plant-Based Meat Analogues. In Sustainable Meat Production and
Processing; Galanakis, C.M., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 103–126. [CrossRef]
19. Tóth, A.J.; Dunay, A.; Battay, M.; Illés, C.B.; Bittsánszky, A.; Süth, M. Microbial Spoilage of Plant-Based Meat Analogues. Appl. Sci.
2021, 11, 8309. [CrossRef]
20. Zhong, C.; Feng, Y.; Xu, Y. Production of Fish Analogues from Plant Proteins: Potential Strategies, Challenges, and Outlook. Foods
2023, 12, 614. [CrossRef]
21. Fu, Y.; Chen, T.; Chen, S.H.Y.; Liu, B.; Sun, P.; Sun, H.; Chen, F.F. The potentials and challenges of using microalgae as an ingredient
to produce meat analogues. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 112, 188–200. [CrossRef]
22. Zhang, K.; Zang, M.; Wang, S.; Zhang, Z.; Li, D.; Li, X. Development of meat analogs: Focus on the current status and challenges
of regulatory legislation. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2023, 22, 1006–1029. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Priyadarshini, M.B.; Majumder, R.K.; Maurya, P. Effect of vacuum packaging on the shelf-life of shrimp analog prepared from
Pangasionodon hypophthalmus surimi during refrigerated storage. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2022, 46, e16369. [CrossRef]
24. Kołodziejczak, K.; Onopiuk, A.; Szpicer, A.; Poltorak, A. Meat analogues in the perspective of recent scientific research: A review.
Foods 2021, 11, 105. [CrossRef]
25. Kazir, M.; Livney, Y.D. Plant-Based Seafood Analogs. Molecules 2021, 26, 1559. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. OMNI. Available online: https://omnifoods.co/us/product/27 (accessed on 9 September 2022).
27. Vegan Essentials. Available online: https://veganessentials.com/products/good-catch-plant-based-breaded-fish-fillets (accessed
on 9 September 2022).
28. NOVISH. Available online: https://www.novish.eu/en/vish_product/breaded-vish-filets/ (accessed on 18 September 2022).
29. Matsuo, A.; Matsushita, K.; Fukuzumi, A.; Tokumasu, N.; Yano, E.; Zaima, N.; Moriyama, T. Comparison of Various Soybean
Allergen Levels in Genetically and Non-Genetically Modified Soybeans. Foods 2020, 9, 522. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. THE VEGAN KIND. Available online: https://thevegankind.com/p/vbites-making-waves-fish-style-steaks-200g?objectID=36
217003022 (accessed on 18 September 2022).
31. Jach, M.E.; Serefko, A.; Ziaja, M.; Kieliszek, M. Yeast Protein as an Easily Accessible Food Source. Metabolites 2022, 12, 63.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Lily’s Vegan Pantry. Available online: https://www.lilysveganpantry.com/product_p/r007.htm (accessed on 23 September 2022).
33. Lotus V. Available online: https://www.lotusvstore.co.uk/product-page/tkc-veg-cod-fillet-250g (accessed on 18 Septem-
ber 2022).
34. FairPrice. Available online: https://www.fairprice.com.sg/product/everbest-vegetarian-goby-fish-500-g-90095943 (accessed on
23 September 2022).
35. Velivery. Available online: https://www.velivery.com/de/vegane-lebensmittel/fisch-alternativen/revo-lachs-aus-pflanzen-
80g?info=relaunch (accessed on 23 September 2022).
36. SophiesKITCHEN. Available online: https://www.sophieskitchen.com/fish-fillets (accessed on 23 September 2022).
37. Terra Vege. Available online: https://terravege24.pl/pl/p/Paluszki-roslinne-ala-rybne-190g-Polsoja/4225 (accessed on
9 September 2022).
38. Ecomarkt. Available online: https://ekomarkt.de/Veganz-Sea-Style-Sticks-210g (accessed on 18 September 2022).
39. Vivera. Available online: https://vivera.com/pl/produkty/roslinne-pauluszki/ (accessed on 18 September 2022).
40. WAITROSE & PARTNERS. Available online: https://www.waitrose.com/ecom/products/waitrose-ve-fishless-fingers/809255-6
72983-672984 (accessed on 9 September 2022).
41. Priyadarshini, M.B.; Xavier, K.A.M.; Dhanabalan, V.; Nayak, B.B.; Balange, A.K. Development of ready-to-cook shrimp analogue
from surimi: Effect of natural plant extracts on the chemical quality during refrigerated storage. LWT 2020, 135, 110239. [CrossRef]
42. OMNI. Available online: https://omnifoods.co/us/product/28 (accessed on 9 September 2022).
43. GARDEIN. Available online: https://www.gardein.com/fishless/fsh-filets (accessed on 9 September 2022).
44. SPOŻYVCZAK. Available online: https://spozyvczak.com/pl/p/Weganski-losos%2C-Vantastic-Foods%2C-300g/218 (accessed
on 23 September 2022).
45. VegetarianWorldFoods. Available online: https://vegetarianworldfoods.com/product/vegan-cod-fish/ (accessed on 9 Septem-
ber 2022).
46. THE VEGAN KIND. Available online: https://thevegankind.com/p/vbites-making-waves-smoked-salmon-style-slices-100g?
collection=meat-seafood-seafood-salmon&queryID=56a39af50a7b35f2813f4fd781f15f2c&objectID=35525315470 (accessed on
18 September 2022).
47. SophiesKITCHEN. Available online: https://www.sophieskitchen.com/smoked-salmon (accessed on 23 September 2022).
48. GTFO It’s Vegan. Available online: https://gtfoitsvegan.com/product/breaded-fish-sticks-by-good-catch/ (accessed on
9 September 2022).
49. Vegan Essentials. Available online: https://veganessentials.com/products/good-catch-plant-based-classic-style-fish-burgers
(accessed on 9 September 2022).
50. SophiesKITCHEN. Available online: https://www.sophieskitchen.com/copy-of-mediterranean-whitefish-bu (accessed on
23 September 2022).
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 19 of 22
51. Vegan Essentials. Available online: https://veganessentials.com/products/good-catch-plant-based-salmon-burgers-classic-style

(accessed on 9 September 2022).
52. SophiesKITCHEN. Available online: https://www.sophieskitchen.com/copy-of-crab-cakes?fbclid=IwAR1q2lPdDXBtvqMe0
nG7rq4INTKlBsdZFkGwGMStVbQygD-Wx3_v3Vue5Xw (accessed on 23 September 2022).
53. Langyan, S.; Yadava, P.; Khan, F.N.; Dar, Z.A.; Singh, R.; Kumar, A. Sustaining Protein Nutrition Through Plant-Based Foods.
Front. Nutr. 2022, 8, 772573. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Boukid, F.; Baune, M.C.; Gagaoua, M.; Castellari, M. Seafood alternatives: Assessing the nutritional profile of products sold in the
global market. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2022, 248, 1777–1786. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Berk, Z. Food Process Engineering and Technology, 3rd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. Available online:
https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/toc/id:kpFPETE002/food-process-engineering/food-process-engineering (accessed on
29 March 2023).
56. Pal, J.; Shukla, B.N.; Maurya, A.K.; Verma, H.O.; Pandey, G.; Amitha, A. A review on role of fish in human nutrition with special
emphasis to essential fatty acid. Int. J. Fish. Aquat. Stud. 2018, 6, 427–430.
57. Agume, A.S.N.; Njintang, N.Y.; Mbofung, C.M.F. Effect of soaking and roasting on the physicochemical and pasting properties of
soybean flour. Foods 2017, 6, 12. [CrossRef]
58. Gaskin, E.L.; Carrero-Colón, M.; Hudson, K.A. Combination of the elevated stearic acid trait with other fatty acid traits in soybean.
J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 2021, 98, 221–226. [CrossRef]
59. Verduci, E.; Di Profio, E.; Cerrato, L.; Nuzzi, G.; Riva, L.; Vizzari, G.; D’Auria, E.; Giannì, M.L.; Zuccotti, G.; Peroni, D.G. Use of
Soy-Based Formulas and Cow’s Milk Allergy: Lights and Shadows. Front. Pediatr. 2022, 8, 591988. [CrossRef]
60. Sá, A.G.A.; Moreno, Y.M.F.; Carciofi, B.A.M. Plant proteins as high-quality nutritional source for human diet. Trends Food Sci.
Technol. 2020, 97, 170–184. [CrossRef]
61. Lyu, B.; Li, J.; Meng, X.; Fu, H.; Wang, W.; Ji, L.; Wang, Y.; Guo, Z.; Yu, H. The Protein Composition Changed the Quality
Characteristics of Plant-Based Meat Analogues Produced by a Single-Screw Extruder: Four Main Soybean Varieties in China as
Representatives. Foods 2022, 11, 1112. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Singer, W.M.; Zhang, B.; Mian, M.B.; Huang, H. Soybean Amino Acids in Health, Genetics, and Evaluation; Soybean for Human
Consumption and Animal Feed: London, UK, 2019. [CrossRef]
63. Zhu, C.; Wang, C.; Zhou, J.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Q.; Fu, L. Purification and identification of globulin-1 S allele as a novel allergen with
N-glycans in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Food Chem. 2022, 390, 133189. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Wieser, H.; Koehler, P.; Scherf, K.A. Wheat—An Exceptional Crop Botanical Features, Chemistry, Utilization, Nutritional and Health
Aspects, Chemical Composition; Woodhead Publishing: Thorston, UK, 2020; pp. 13–45. [CrossRef]
65. Yuliarti, O.; Kovis, T.J.K.; Yi, N.J. Structuring the meat analogue by using plant-based derived composites. J. Food Eng. 2021,
288, 110138. [CrossRef]
66. Gorissen, S.H.M.; Crombag, J.J.R.; Senden, J.M.G.; Waterval, W.A.H.; Bierau, J.; Verdijk, L.B.; van Loon, L.J.C. Protein content
and amino acid composition of commercially available plantbased protein isolates. Amino Acids 2018, 50, 1685–1695. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
67. Siddiqi, R.A.; Singh, T.P.; Rani, M.; Sogi, D.S.; Bhat, M.A. Diversity in Grain, Flour, Amino Acid Composition, Protein Profiling,
and Proportion of Total Flour Proteins of Different Wheat Cultivars of North India. Front. Nutr. 2020, 7, 141. [CrossRef]
68. Sherzod, D.D.; Sherzod, S.S.; Jaloliddin, R.A.; Azizbek, S.H.; Sarvar, O.M.J. Selection of large seed and high yielding lines of bread
wheat for drought conditions. Int. Multidiscip. Res. J. 2021, 11, 4.
69. Bou, R.; Navarro-Vozmediano, P.; Domínguez, R.; López-Gómez, M.; Pinent, M.; Ribas-Agustí, A.; Benedito, J.J.; Lorenzo,
J.M.; Terra, X.; García-Pérez, J.V.; et al. Application of emerging technologies to obtain legume protein isolates with improved
techno-functional properties and health effects. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2021, 21, 2200–2232. [CrossRef]
70. Calvano, C.D.; Bianco, M.; Ventura, G.; Losito, I.; Palmisano, F.; Cataldi, T.R.I. Analysis of Phospholipids, Lysophospholipids,
and Their Linked Fatty Acyl Chains in Yellow Lupin Seeds (Lupinus luteus L.) by Liquid Chromatography and Tandem Mass
Spectrometry. Molecules 2020, 25, 805. [CrossRef]
71. Liu, J.; Klebach, M.; Visser, M.; Hofman, Z. Amino Acid Availability of a Dairy and Vegetable Protein Blend Compared to Single
Casein, Whey, Soy, and Pea Proteins: A Double-Blind, Cross-Over Trial. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2613. [CrossRef]
72. Lu, Z.X.; He, J.F.; Zhang, Y.C.; Bing, D.J. Composition, physicochemical properties of pea protein and its application in functional
foods. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 60, 2593–2605. [CrossRef]
73. Sable, K. 2018. Pea Protein Market by Type (Pea Protein Isolate, Pea Protein Concentrate, and Textured Pea Protein), Form
(Dry and Liquid), Application (Dietary Supplemnet, Bakery & Confectionery Good, Meat Product & Alternative, Beverage, and
Others)-Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast. Allied Market Research, March 2022; pp. 1–198. Available online:
https://www.marketresearch.com/Meticulous-Research-v4061/Pea-Protein-Type-Isolate-Concentrate-30992020/ (accessed on
20 February 2023).
74. Los, F.G.B.; Zielinski, A.F.; Wojeicchowski, J.P.; Npgueira, A.; Demiate, I.M. Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.): Whole seeds with
complex chemical composition. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2018, 19, 63–71. [CrossRef]
75. Hojilla-Evangelista, M.P.; Suitivisedsak, N.; Evangelista, R.L.; Cheng, H.N.; Biswas, A. Composition and Functional Properties of
Saline-Soluble Protein Concentrates Prepared from Four Common Dry Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J. Am. Oli Chem. Soc. 2018, 98,
1001–1012. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 20 of 22
76. Bukid, F. Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) protein as a prospective plant-based ingredient: A review. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 56,
5435–5444. [CrossRef]
77. Nosworthy, M.G.; Medina, G.; Franczyk, A.J.; Neufeld, J.; Appah, P.; Utioh, A.; Frohlich, P.; Tar’an, B.; House, J.D. Thermal
processing methods differentially affect the protein quality of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 8, 2950–2958.
[CrossRef]
78. Madurapperumage, A.; Tang, L.; Thavarajah, P.; Bridges, W.; Shipe, E.; Vandemark, G.; Thavarajah, D. Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
as a Source of Essential Fatty Acids—A Biofortification Approach. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 734980. [CrossRef]
79. Kaur, R.; Prasas, K. Technological, processing and nutritional aspects od chickpea (Cicer arietinum)—A review. Trends Food Sci.
Technol. 2021, 109, 448–463. [CrossRef]
80. Choudhary, M.; Sharma, A. A review on breeding, global production and utilization of lentil. Pharma Innov. J. 2022, SP-11,
1303–1310. [CrossRef]
81. Joehnke, M.S.; Jeske, S.; Ispiryan, L.; Zannini, E.; Arendt, E.K.; Bez, J.; Sørensen, J.C.; Petersen, I.L. Nutritional and anti-nutritional
properties of lentil (Lens culinaris) protein isolates prepared by pilot-scale processing. Food Chem. X 2021, 9, 100112. [CrossRef]
82. Khazaei, H.; Subedi, M.; Nickerson, M.; Martínez-Villaluenga, C.; Frias, J.; Vandenberg, A. Seed Protein of Lentils: Current Status,
Progress, and Food Applications. Foods 2019, 8, 391. [CrossRef]
83. Gulisano, A.; Alves, S.; Neves Martins, J.; Trindade, L.M. Genetics and Breeding of Lupinus mutabilis: An Emerging Protein Crop.
Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1385. [CrossRef]
84. Verma, D.K.; Srivastav, P.P. Bioactive compounds of rice (Oryza sativa L.): Review on paradigm and its potential benefit in human
health. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 97, 355–365. [CrossRef]
85. Chen, C.; Yang, J.; Tong, H.; Li, T.; Wang, L.; Chen, H. Genome-wide analysis of fatty acid desaturase genes in rice (Oryza sativa L.).
Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 19445. [CrossRef]
86. Tan, B.L.; Norhaizan, M.E. Rice By-Products: Phytochemicals and Food Products Application; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020.
87. Ali, S.; Isaacson, J.; Kroner, J.; Saldias, S.; Kandasamy, S.; Lazarovits, G. Corn sap bacterial endophytes and their potential in plant
growth-promotion. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 1, 341–355. [CrossRef]
88. Tripathy, S.K. Quality protein maize (QPM): A way forward for food and nutrional security. Genom. Appl. Biol. 2019, 10, 10–19.
[CrossRef]
89. Barrera-Arellano, D.; Badan-Ribeiro, A.P.; Serna-Saldivar, S.O. Chapter 21—Corn Oil: Composition, Processing, and Utilization.
In Corn, 3rd ed.; Serna-Saldivar, S.O., Ed.; AACC International Press: Eagan, MN, USA, 2019; pp. 593–613. [CrossRef]
90. Acosta, J.P.; Espinosa, C.D.; Jaworski, N.W.; Stein, H.H. Corn protein has greater concentrations of digestible amino acids and
energy than low-oil corn distillers dried grains with solubles when fed to pigs but does not affect the growth performance of
weanling pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 2021, 99, 7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
91. García-Lara, S.; Serna-Saldivar, S.O. Chapter 1—Corn History and Culture. In Corn, 3rd ed.; Serna-Saldivar, S.O., Ed.; AACC
International Press: Eagan, MN, USA, 2019; pp. 1–18. [CrossRef]
92. Fu, Y.; Liu, W.N.; Soladoye, O.P. Towards potato protein utilisation: Insights into separation, functionality and bioactivity of
patatin. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 55, 2314–2322. [CrossRef]
93. Galves, C.; Galli, G.; Kurozawa, L. Potato protein: Current review of structure, technological properties, and potential application
on spray drying microencapsulation. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 2022, 2036093. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
94. Bártová, V.; Bárta, J.; Jarošová, M. Antifungal and antimicrobial proteins and peptides of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) tubers and
their applications. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2019, 103, 5533–5547. [CrossRef]
95. Gebrechristos, H.Y.; Ma, X.; Xiao, F.; He, Y.; Zheng, S.; Oyungerel, G.; Chen, W. Potato peel extracts as an antimicrobial and
potential antioxidant in active edible film. Food Sci Nutr. 2020, 13, 6338–6345. [CrossRef]
96. Peksa, A.; Miedzianka, J. Potato Industry By-Products as a Source of Protein with Beneficial Nutritional, Functional, Health-
Promoting and Antimicrobial Properties. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 3497. [CrossRef]
97. Hussain, M.; Qayum, A.; Xiuxiu, Z.; Liu, L.; Hussain, K.; Yue, P.; Yue, S.; Koko, M.Y.F.; Hussain, A.; Li, X. Potato protein:
An emerging source of high quality and allergy free protein, and its possible future based products. Food Res. Int. 2021,
148, 110583. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
98. The Brainy Insights. Potato Protein Market Size by Application (Meat, Supplements, Bakery & Confectionery, Animal Feed, and
Others), Type (Concentrate, Hydrolyzed and Isolate), Regions, Global Industry Analysis, Share, Growth, Trends, and Forecast.
2022. Available online: https://www.thebrainyinsights.com/report/potato-protein-market-12907 (accessed on 29 March 2023).
99. Vincent, A.; Stanley, A.; Ring, J. Hidden champion of the ocean. In Seaweed as a Growth Engine for a Sustainable European Future;
ASFA Monographs: London, UK, 2021.
100. Moerdijk-Poortvliet, T.C.W.; de Jong, D.L.C.; Fremouw, R.; de Reu, S.; de Winter, J.M.; Timmermans, K.; Mol, G.; Reuter, N.;
Derksen, G.C.H. Extraction and analysis of free amino acids and 50 -nucleotides, the key contributors to the umami taste of
seaweed. Food Chem. 2022, 370, 131352. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
101. Milinovic, J.; Campos, B.; Mata, P.; Diniz, M.; Noronha, J.P. Umami free amino acids in edible green, red, and brown seaweeds
from the Portuguese seashore. J. Appl. Phycol. 2020, 32, 3331–3339. [CrossRef]
102. Cherry, P.; O’Hara, C.; Magee, P.J.; McSorley, E.M.; Allsopp, P.J. Risks and benefits of consuming edible seaweeds. Nutr. Rev. 2019,
77, 307–329. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 21 of 22
103. Mendes, M.C.; Navalho, S.; Ferreira, A.; Paulino, C.; Figueiredo, D.; Silva, D.; Gao, F.; Gama, F.; Bombo, G.; Jacinto, R.; et al. Algae
as Food in Europe: An Overview of Species Diversity and Their Application. Foods 2022, 11, 1871. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
104. Brakel, J.; Sibonga, R.C.; Dumilag, R.V.; Montalescot, V.; Campbell, I.; Cottier-Cook, E.J.; Ward, G.; Le Masson, V.; Liu, T.; Msuya,
F.E.; et al. Exploring, harnessing and conserving marine genetic resources towards a sustainable seaweed aquaculture. Plants
People Planet 2021, 3, 337–349. [CrossRef]
105. Adeleke, B.S.; Babalola, O.O. Oilseed crop sunflower (Helianthus annuus) as a source of food: Nutritional and health benefits. Food
Sci. Nutr. 2020, 8, 4666–4684. [CrossRef]
106. Jia, W.; Rodriguez-Alonso, E.; Bianeis, M.; Keppler, J.K.; van der Goot, A.J. Assessing functional properties of rapeseed protein
concentrate versus isolate for food applications. Technologies 2021, 68, 102636. [CrossRef]
107. Cartea, E.; De Haro-Bailón, A.; Padilla, G.; Obregón-Cano, S.; del Rio-Celestino, M.; Ordás, A. Seed Oil Quality of Brassica napus
and Brassica rapa Germplasm from Northwestern Spain. Foods 2019, 8, 292. [CrossRef]
108. Maung, T.T.; Gu, B.Y.; Kim, M.H.; Ryu, G.H. Fermentation of texturized vegetable proteins extruded at different moisture contents:
Effect on physicochemical, structural, and microbial properties. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2020, 29, 897–907. [CrossRef]
109. Omohimi, C.I.; Sobukola, O.P.; Sarafadeen, K.O.; Sanni, L.O. Effect of Thermo-extrusion Process Parameters on Selected Quality
Attributes of Meat Analogue from Mucuna Bean Seed Flour. Niger. Food J. 2014, 32, 21–30. [CrossRef]
110. Saldanha do Carmo, C.; Knutsen, S.H.; Malizia, G.; Dessev, T.; Geny, A.; Zobel, H.; Myhrer, K.S.; Varela, P.; Sahlstrøma, S. Meat
analogues from a faba bean concentrate can be generated by high moisture extrusion. Future Foods 2021, 3, 100014. [CrossRef]
111. Sukalingam, K.; Ganesan, K.; Das, S.; Thent, Z.C. An insight into the harmful effects of soy protein: A review. Clin. Ter. 2015, 166,
131–139. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
112. Zhu, S.; Ramos, P.V.; Heckert, O.F.; Stieger, M.; van der Goot, A.J.; Schutyser, M. Creating protein-rich snack foods using binder
jet 3D printing. J. Food Eng. 2022, 332, 111124. [CrossRef]
113. Ramachandraiah, K. Potential Development of Sustainable 3D-Printed Meat Analogues: A Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 938.
[CrossRef]
114. Godoi, F.C.; Prakash, S.; Bhandari, B.R. 3D printing technologies applied for food design: Status and prospects. J. Food Eng. 2016,
179, 44–54. [CrossRef]
115. Dick, A.; Bhandari, B.; Prakash, S. 3D printing of meat. Meat Sci. 2019, 153, 35–44. [CrossRef]
116. Min, S.; Ko, I.K.; Yoo, J.J. State-of-the-Art Strategies for the Vascularization of Three-Dimensional Engineered Organs. Vasc. Spec.
Int. 2019, 35, 77–89. [CrossRef]
117. Holland, S.; Foster, T.; Tuck, C. Chapter 9—Creation of Food Structures Through Binder Jetting. In Fundamentals of 3D Food
Printing and Applications; Godoi, F.C., Bhandari, B.R., Prakash, S., Zhang, M., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019;
pp. 257–288. [CrossRef]
118. Bhat, Z.F.; Morton, J.D.; Kumar, S.; Bhat, H.F.; Aadil, R.M.; Bekhit, A.E.-D.A. 3D printing: Development of animal products and
special foods. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 118, 87–105. [CrossRef]
119. Chen, Y.; Zhang, M.; Bhandari, B. 3D Printing of Steak-like Foods Based on Textured Soybean Protein. Foods 2021, 10, 2011.
[CrossRef]
120. Wang, T.; Kaur, L.; Furuhata, Y.; Aoyama, H.; Singh, J. 3D Printing of Textured Soft Hybrid Meat Analogues. Foods 2022, 11, 478.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
121. Choi, J.; Kwon, O.-C.; Jo, W.; Lee, H.J.; Moon, M.-W. 4D Printing Technology: A Review. 3d Print. Addit. Manuf. 2015, 2, 159–167.
[CrossRef]
122. Navaf, M.; Sunooj, K.V.; Aaliya, B.; Akhila, P.P.; Sudheesh, C.; Mir, S.A.; George, J. 4D printing: A new approach for food printing;
effect of various stimuli on 4D printed food properties. A comprehensive review. Appl. Food Res. 2022, 2, 100150. [CrossRef]
123. Pei, E.; Loh, G.H. Technological considerations for 4D printing: An overview. Prog. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 3, 95–107. [CrossRef]
124. Nieuwland, M.; Geerdink, P.; Brier, P.; van den Eijnden, P.; Henket, J.T.M.M.; Langelaan, M.L.P.; Stroeks, N.; van Deventer, H.C.;
Martin, A.H. Food-grade electrospinning of proteins. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2013, 20, 269–275. [CrossRef]
125. Chen, D.; Jones, O.G.; Campanella, O.H. Plant protein-based fibers: Fabrication, characterization, and potential food applications.
Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 2021, 2004991. [CrossRef]
126. Cui, B.; Liang, H.; Li, J.; Zhou, B.; Chen, W.; Liu, J.; Li, B. Development and characterization of edible plant-based fibers using a
wet-spinning technique. Food Hydrocoll. 2022, 133, 107965. [CrossRef]
127. Guan, J.; Porter, D.; Tian, K.; Shao, Z.; Chen, X. Morphology and mechanical properties of soy protein scaffolds made by
directional freezing. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2010, 118, 1658–1665. [CrossRef]
128. Chantanuson, R.; Nagamine, S.; Kobayashi, T.; Nakagawa, K. Preparation of soy protein-based food gels and control of fibrous
structure and rheological property by freezing. Food Struct. 2022, 32, 100258. [CrossRef]
129. Ismail, B.P.; Senaratne-Lenagala, L.; Stube, A.; Brackenridge, A. Protein demand: Review of plant and animal proteins used in
alternative protein product development and production. Anim. Front. 2020, 10, 53–63. [CrossRef]
130. Nowacka, M.; Trusinska, M.; Chraniuk, P.; Drudi, F.; Lukasiewicz, J.; Nguyen, N.P.; Przybyszewska, A.; Pobiega, K.; Tappi, S.;
Tylewicz, U.; et al. Developments in Plant Proteins Production for Meat and Fish Analogues. Molecules 2023, 28, 2966. [CrossRef]
131. Krintiras, G.A.; Göbel, J.; van der Goot, A.J.; Stefanidis, G.D. Production of structured soy-based meat analogues using simple
shear and heat in a Couette Cell. J. Food Eng. 2015, 160, 34–41. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509 22 of 22
132. Kumari, T.; Deka, S.C. Potential health benefits of garden pea seeds and pods: A review. Legume Sci. 2021, 3, e82. [CrossRef]
133. Simonin, M.; Dasilva, C.; Terzi, V.; Ngonkeu, E.L.M.; Diouf, D.; Kane, A.; Béna, G.; Moulin, L. Influence of plant genotype and soil
on the wheat rhizosphere microbiome: Evidences for a core microbiome across eight African and European soils. FEMS Microbiol.
Ecol. 2020, 96, 6. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Plant-Based Fish Analogs-A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plant-Based Fish Analogs-A Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plant-Based Fish Analogs-A Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

applied

Citation: Nowacka, M.; Trusinska,

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13074509 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

2. Fish Alternative Products Market Review

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 4509

Figure 2. Types of plant-based analogs available on the market.

Table 1. The plant-based fish products available on the market.

3.6. Potato Proteins

3.7. Other Sources of Proteins

4. Technologies Used for Plant-Based Fish and Meat Analogs Production

4.1. Texturization of Vegetable Protein (TVP)

4.2. 3D and 4D Printing

4.3. Other Technologies

5. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

51. Vegan Essentials. Available online: https://veganessentials.com/products/good-catch-plant-based-salmon-burgers-classic-style

You might also like