부산대학교 도서관

The article “Water Footprint of Meat Analogs: Selected Indicators According to Life Cycle Assessment,” Water 2019 11: 728 by Fresán et al. analyzes the water footprints (WFs) of 39 meat analogs and their associated eutrophication and ecotoxicity potential. We have several questions and concerns about the WFs presented in this study, which in some cases are an order of magnitude larger than those reported for similar products in other published works. Additionally, at least some of the WFs of other meat analogs and conventional meats—to which the authors compare their results—appear to misrepresent the cited literature. We encourage the authors to provide clarification on how the WF values for meat analogs are so much higher than those reported in other studies and to verify the comparison values reported from other sources.