The infectious disease trap of animal agriculture
Abstract
Infectious diseases originating from animals (zoonotic diseases) have emerged following deforestation from agriculture. Agriculture can reduce its land use through intensification, i.e., improving resource use efficiency. However, intensive management often confines animals and their wastes, which also fosters disease emergence. Therefore, rising demand for animal-sourced foods creates a “trap” of zoonotic disease risks: extensive land use on one hand or intensive animal management on the other. Not all intensification poses disease risks; some methods avoid confinement and improve animal health. However, these “win-win” improvements alone cannot satisfy rising meat demand, particularly for chicken and pork. Intensive poultry and pig production entails greater antibiotic use, confinement, and animal populations than beef production. Shifting from beef to chicken consumption mitigates climate emissions, but this common strategy neglects zoonotic disease risks. Preventing zoonotic diseases requires international coordination to reduce the high demand for animal-sourced foods, improve forest conservation governance, and selectively intensify the lowest-producing ruminant animal systems without confinement.
INTRODUCTION: FOOD PRODUCTION DRIVES ZOONOSIS EMERGENCE
Despite global advances in prosperity, nutrition, and medical care, infectious diseases are rising in prevalence (1, 2). In the past four decades, emerging infectious diseases have increased at more than four times the rate of prior decades (3), most of which have nonhuman animal (zoonotic) origins.
Since 1940, an estimated 50% of zoonotic disease emergence has been associated with agriculture (1–3). This estimate, however, is necessarily conservative because only direct agricultural drivers are considered in the epidemiological literature, i.e., within the farm gate. Food systems have environmental impacts before and after the farm gate (4), such as land clearing, food processing, and waste disposal. Food systems therefore affect zoonotic disease emergence indirectly. The true contributions of food systems to recently emerged zoonotic diseases remain poorly characterized.
The increase in zoonosis emergence has been partially attributed to ongoing deforestation, particularly in the tropics (2, 5, 6). The largest driver of deforestation is pasture expansion for ruminants (e.g., cattle) with another substantial fraction of forest and savanna clearing for producing feed crops like soy, predominantly fed to monogastrics (e.g., pigs and chickens) for domestic and export markets (7), with ongoing debate as to the precise proportions (8). Land clearing is expected to continue through 2050 due to further increased meat and dairy demand (9–12). Deforestation and conversion to human-dominated systems drive the loss, turnover, and homogenization of biodiversity and expose adjacent human communities to wildlife harboring microbes that can become zoonotic pathogens with pandemic potential (5).
To meet the rising global demand for animal-sourced foods, the most commonly recommended development strategy in the environmental literature is “sustainable intensification,” which refers to increasing production while managing inputs more judiciously (13, 14). Experts recommend this strategy for virtually all low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). By improving resource use efficiency, sustainable intensification strategies for animal agriculture can reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and deforestation (15–17), thereby also reducing zoonotic disease risks.
However, the intensification of animal agricultural production, in its most common forms, entails the concentration and confinement of animal bodies and their wastes, trading off deforestation for other multiple well-documented and potentially cascading risks for zoonotic disease emergence. This creates a paradox for intensification that remains unaddressed in the scientific literature: Intensified animal production, while decreasing marginal land use change and GHG emissions, can often increase other zoonotic disease risks. The risks of zoonotic disease emergence from intensive animal agriculture could therefore undermine the “sustainable” nature of sustainable intensification.
This review examines the zoonotic disease paradox inherent to the sustainable intensification of animal agriculture, exploring whether food systems can circumvent a “trap” of zoonotic disease risks as they further develop. The review first aims to characterize interactions between intensification and deforestation while examining ways that they both contribute to zoonotic disease risk. On the basis of these interactions, this review provides recommendations to reduce the likelihood of zoonotic disease emergence, including (i) selectively intensifying the least productive regions, namely, LMICs, without resorting to confinement and other common high-risk intensive management techniques; (ii) strengthening and improving conservation regulations with effective community governance; and (iii) curbing the high and rising demand for animal-sourced food products. These three strategies are most likely to succeed if implemented in tandem and via regional and international coordination to avoid leakage and rebound effects.
INTENSIFICATION—RISKS, OPPORTUNITIES, AND LIMITS FOR STEMMING ZOONOTIC DISEASE
A number of intensive animal production methods have been implicated in zoonotic disease emergence in the literature (Table 1). The intensification of animal agriculture through confinement and industrialization has directly led to the emergence of viruses including Nipah and H5N1 influenza (“swine flu”) (18) and antibiotic-resistant infectious bacteria including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli (19, 20).
| Elevated risks | Evidence of zoonotic disease emergence |
|---|---|
| All farmed animal species | |
| Indoor production and confinement | (83–85) |
| Genetic homogenization | (86, 87) |
| Subtherapeutic and growth- promoting antibiotic use | (19, 20, 25, 74, 88–90) |
| Long-distance transportation | (91, 92) |
| Physiological stress from crowding, confinement, and conflicts (e.g., gestation crates, veal crates, and battery cages) | (22, 23, 26, 93) |
| Temporary/seasonal and transient human labor | (83, 94) |
| Concentrated animal wastes | (88, 95) |
| Neutral or reduced risks | Evidence of reduced land and resource needs |
| All farmed animal species | |
| Improving veterinary care and reducing mortality | (15) |
| Improving animal husbandry management (e.g., lower reproductive age) | (15, 96) |
| Integrating crop and livestock production | (97–99) |
| Ruminant species only | |
| Optimizing grazing densities | (100, 101) |
| Improving forage quality | (15, 102) |
| Amending and restoring degraded pastures | (15, 102–104) |
Intensified animal agriculture is often, but not always, characterized by a shift toward “landless” or “industrialized” systems (as defined by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization). These systems typically restrict animal movement and are oriented toward rapid weight gain and productivity (21). Monogastric animals like pigs and chickens are raised indoors in sheds, each animal with less than twice the space that their bodies occupy, with little or no room to express natural behaviors (22, 23). Many beef cattle spend the latter part of their lives being “finished” or rapidly fattened to reach their final market weights on enriched feeds in feedlots, with stocking densities for cattle on outdoor feedlots of less than 4 m2 per steer/heifer (24). These environments entail physiological and mental stress, close proximity to each other and wastes, and the routine administration of subtherapeutic (infection-preventing) and growth-promoting antibiotics (Table 1). Zoonotic diseases from aquatic animals are relatively less common and are predominantly caused by bacteria rather than viruses (25). However, aquatic animal bacteria are expected to become more prominent and potentially infectious among humans as finfish aquaculture continues to grow to produce a larger share of aquatic foods globally, and with it are confinement, stress, and antibiotic use, potentially leading to spillover into humans (26). These intensive systems are predominant in developed, industrialized countries but are rapidly proliferating in developing regions (27), with encouragement and financing from international development organizations including the World Bank (28).
Relatively more extensive systems include pastoralism, extensive grazing, and mixed crop-livestock grazing. Extensive systems are used almost exclusively in developing regions, namely, through the tropics and semitropics, and among predominantly ruminant livestock (e.g., cows, buffalo, sheep, and goats).
Intensification methods sit on a spectrum, with poles of landless, industrialized production on the high end and highly extensive pastoralist grazing on the lowest. The most extensive and inefficient systems have the potential to be improved using “win-win” forms of intensification that do not entail a fully industrialized or landless kind of confined intensification (Table 1), but rather a kind of “meeting in the middle” for the lowest, least productive systems to improve their performance (15). Thus, intensifying low-production ruminant systems in a selective manner could confer a neutral or decreased risk of zoonosis emergence while improving meat and dairy productivity in the most marginal contexts.
However, there are limitations to this form of intensification. First, the number of animals raised in extensive systems is already decreasing while being supplanted by highly industrialized/landless systems throughout developing regions (11, 21). Therefore, there are regional and global limitations to how much additional food “semi-intensive” systems can provide. Second, shifts downward from more highly intensive forms would compromise food production or lead to net agricultural expansion. For instance, eliminating feedlot beef cattle systems in the United States by shifting to intensive grazing would require 64 to 270% greater land use (29), while eliminating confined indoor broiler chicken systems by shifting to minimal pasture would require 43.8 to 60.1% greater land use (30). Industrialized systems are often more productive and resource efficient than semi-intensive methods. Shifting away from industrialized systems therefore entails a GHG and land use penalty or “sustainability gap” (30). Last, production systems for monogastric animals, which produce two-thirds of meat globally, lack common semi-intensive commercial methods (21). Global production and consumption of beef, pork, and chicken are expected to rise by 39, 55, and 58%, respectively, by 2050, with the majority of additional production expected to be achieved through intensification systems (industrial, in the case of monogastrics) (11). Therefore, additional food system strategies beyond intensification are needed to safely feed a rising and more affluent global population.
INTERACTIONS BETWEEN INTENSIFICATION AND DEFORESTATION
Intensification tends to reduce deforestation directly
Intensification, which aims to make agricultural production more efficient, is commonly understood to decrease the pressure for deforestation within the environmental literature (13, 31, 32). However, in many developing tropical regions, both intensification and deforestation are occurring simultaneously because they share underlying drivers (i.e., confounding causes): rising populations, incomes, and demand for animal-sourced foods (Fig. 1). Because the two are visibly correlated, the epidemiological literature on zoonotic disease often erroneously links intensification directly to deforestation. A number of recent high-profile synthesis reports on zoonoses discuss intensification and deforestation synonymously and interchangeably (6, 33, 34), sometimes directly implicating intensification as causing the ongoing deforestation, although the environmental literature predominantly concludes the opposite. Intensification can lead directly to reduced deforestation in agriculture-forest frontiers (35, 36).
Fig. 1. Higher incomes are associated with high meat demand that must be met through intensification or deforestation (or both).
Intensification can trigger higher meat demand through lower prices, because meat demand is elastic with respect to its cost. Intensification and deforestation are highlighted in orange, as both have caused recent zoonotic disease emergence and are predicted to continue doing so. Intensification is colored by a gradient to indicate that intensification strategies lie on a gradient of helpful/neutral to harmful with respect to zoonosis risks.
Intensification can indirectly trigger more deforestation
Intensification reduces the marginal resource requirements of animal-sourced food production; it thus can potentially reduce pressures for deforestation, a finding that is widely accepted and uncontroversial. However, after achieving higher efficiency, intensification can lower the costs of production and sale prices of final goods, inducing higher demand and production (Fig. 1). This greater demand can then incentivize additional deforestation (37), negating some or all of the original efficiency improvements. This trade-off is known as Jevons’ paradox (36, 38, 39) or “rebound effects,” more commonly.
The occurrence and magnitude of rebound effects in animal-sourced food production are difficult and controversial to identify because of confounding factors (40–42), leading to ongoing debates (similarly reflected in the “land sparing versus land sharing” debate regarding agricultural efficiency). However, some trends and investigations are illuminating. In Sweden and the United States, an increased consumption of chicken over the past two decades, due to lower prices, resulted in greater aggregate GHG emissions despite marginal efficiency gains over the same period (43, 44). In South America, beef intensification has triggered further deforestation due to lower production costs (35, 37, 45). Sustainable intensification can thus spur greater environmental impacts, undermining its sustainable aims (46, 47). Intensification is necessary but insufficient to reduce pressures for agriculture expansion and land clearing. Escaping this “damned if we do, damned if we don’t” trap of intensification (Fig. 1) requires a more multipronged approach.
Effective forest conservation occurs in tandem with other strategies
Intensification alone is an insufficient strategy for reducing zoonotic disease risk (see the “Intensification—Risks, opportunities, and limits for stemming zoonotic disease” section) and for mitigating and reversing deforestation (see the previous section). Direct forest conservation policies and incentives are widely recommended in environmental and epidemiological literature, e.g., (6, 18, 33). However, known trade-offs and pratfalls exist. First, forest and wildlife habitat conservation policies that are not appropriately designed and enforced with the involvement of local cultures have backfired (36, 48–50). Second, conservation may lead to “leakage” effects: Globalization allows production to relocate, along with its deforestation, to countries where conservation policies are insufficiently adopted or enforced (51, 52). Last, effective forest conservation policies in the short term can boost intensification but lead to further deforestation in the long term and across wider regions (Fig. 1) (39). These effects can vary over space and time, changing with local livelihoods and culture, price elasticities for agricultural goods, and how connected production regions are to global markets (37).
Conservation policies should be culturally sensitive, rigorously enforced, and have long-term community buy-in. However, a well-crafted conservation policy is still insufficient to spare land from agricultural pressures; additional land for rising populations and diets richer in animal-sourced foods must come at the expense of clearing native habitats somewhere (11, 53).
MEAT DEMAND AT THE NEXUS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The largest increases in meat demand and production are occurring in developing, tropical regions (16). Meat consumption exceeds the dietary requirements in high-income countries and among increasingly urban and middle-class populations of most middle-income countries (54–56). As demand rises along with affluence in the coming decades in LMICs and high-income countries continue to sustain high levels of consumption and exports, additional land clearing and GHG emissions will occur even with ambitious levels of intensification (9, 12).
Shifting to plant-rich diets mitigates environmental and zoonotic disease risks
Decreasing meat consumption has cobenefits for environmental protection and zoonotic disease risks. Global dietary changes are theoretically sufficient to reverse ongoing deforestation trends, providing 5 to 11 GtCO2 per year of natural carbon removal across 5 to 12 million km2, sequestering approximately a decade worth of anthropogenic emissions by 2050 in natural vegetation (9, 57–59), which would also conserve and restore a substantial fraction of lost biodiversity (53, 60). Shifts to plant-rich diets in high-income countries alone would remove approximately 3 million km2 from agricultural production, including 1 million km2 of natively forested areas (9, 56).
To address the emerging zoonotic disease risks of animal agriculture, a multipillared approach is required (Fig. 2). This approach includes reducing demand for animal-sourced foods, semi-intensification (see the “Intensification—Risks, opportunities, and limits for stemming zoonotic disease” section and Table 1), and direct forest conservation (see the “Effective forest conservation occurs in tandem with other strategies” section). Under business-as-usual conditions of rising demand for animal-sourced food, increased land clearing is inevitable (57, 61). Reducing demand can therefore avoid leakage and rebound effects from focusing exclusively on supply-side protections like semi-intensification and forest conservation (Figs. 1 and 2).
Fig. 2. A three-pillar approach for preventing zoonotic disease emergence and reducing environmental impacts from animal agriculture (center).
Within individual circles and the intersections between the two, limitations of adopting only one or two strategies are described.
The zoonotic disease risks of rising animal-sourced food production and consumption have been underscored by a number of recent major environmental epidemiology synthesis reports (6, 33, 62). These reports imply or outright state that high future demand for animal-sourced foods is an immutable consequence of rising incomes, treating this trend as fait accompli rather than a decision point for policy interventions. This fatalism contradicts behavioral science research on reducing the consumption of meat and other products with harmful public health impacts (e.g., tobacco and sugar).
To meaningfully flatten the rising curve of animal-sourced foods, demand-side interventions should be implemented, tested, and scaled ambitiously (63). Even gentle changes to dining options and presentation can create large effects (64). Effective interventions range from these subtle “nudges” to more blatant rewards and incentives, as well as stringent regulations and restrictions (16, 55). This spectrum has been described using the Nuffield intervention ladder, with lower rungs of “soft” methods or “carrots” (e.g., guidance, suggestions, education, and nudging) to higher rungs of increasingly forceful “hard” interventions or “sticks” at the top (e.g., taxes and bans) (65).
Countries lack healthy and sustainable food consumption policies that are comprehensive and synergistic; most countries only have education policies (e.g., dietary recommendations), with higher rungs on the Nuffield ladder—including guiding choices through changing incentives and defaults or disincentivizing options—completely missing (66). Promising local policies and corporate initiatives, meanwhile, are aiming to guide consumers toward more sustainable options using methods of monitoring, goal setting, and verification in combination with multiple soft behavioral interventions to motivate change (67).
More targeted dietary change interventions are needed; recommendations for dietary change policies across most scientific literature are general and vague (16, 55). Policies can leverage social, behavioral, and organizational sciences to change the underlying motivations and choice environments that drive consumer decisions (64, 67). Small successes should also be better communicated to decision-makers and ambitiously scaled to large populations with help from community-based advocacy and organizing (68).
Differentiating risks across food animals
Shifting production and consumption from beef to poultry is a common recommendation in the literature. Such shifts would accomplish most of the GHG emission mitigation as reducing or eliminating all meat (69–71). These recommendations have shaped national climate policies: Ethiopia stated plans to shift 30% of their beef production to poultry in their 2021 Nationally Determined Contribution to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (72). However, such shifts could maintain or even increase zoonotic disease risks.
Beef has higher land use and is associated with more tropical deforestation than any other commodity (73). However, monogastric animals, including pigs and chickens, require higher antibiotic use and higher animal populations to produce the same quantity of meat as ruminants such as cattle (Fig. 3). Pigs and chickens are fed more than three times the antibiotics than cattle in intensive systems (74) due to close confinement of animals and their wastes. It takes three pigs or 170 chickens to produce the meat of one steer. Intensive methods of monogastric animal production entail more marked confinement, including hen laying and pig gestation systems wherein animals are confined without enough space to spread their wings or turn around. Now, there are more than 33 billion chickens on Earth, representing more than 70% of global avian biomass (75). Shifts from beef to even greater chicken consumption would entail greater confinement and subtherapeutic antibiotic use for a larger number of animals, elevating multiple risks for zoonotic disease emergence.
Fig. 3. Requirements to produce 1 metric ton of meat (dressed carcass weight), averaged among all OECD countries and weighted by production quantity, base year 2010.
(A) Hectares required for the production of animal feed (crops, pastures, and forages) in natively forested areas, calculated by the author from geospatial potential vegetation data and agricultural production data in (9) and sources therein. (B) Grams of antibiotics used, derived from (74). (C) Number of animals required for slaughter, from United Nations FAOSTAT (105). OECD, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
The precise zoonotic disease risks of individual foods and whole dietary patterns have not previously been quantified. Statistical analyses are challenging because any predictive metrics would entail creating robust models from only a few (but highly costly) zoonotic disease spillover events and outbreaks that have emerged from agricultural production, often from diverse pathogens and with sometimes ambiguous origins. The lack of quantitative disease analyses remains a hurdle to assessing the full costs, benefits, and trade-offs of food system transitions. Despite this, plant-rich diets entail cost-saving cobenefits (76, 77), including environmental outcomes, human nutrition, and animal welfare, which have been quantified robustly in previous work (78–80).
INTERNATIONAL COORDINATION FOR PRIMARY PREVENTION OF PANDEMICS
The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has increased the vigilance of the global community in identifying and monitoring the potential sources of the next zoonotic disease outbreak. Well-trodden prevention strategies include suppressing disease in vulnerable animals, monitoring transmission and spillover events of pathogens with pandemic potential, and stopping detected outbreaks in domesticated animals through culling (81). These decade-long pursuits have only tackled pathogens of concern after some initial emergence or spillover. They do not address root causes of transmission, mutation, spillover, and proliferation of emerging infectious zoonotic pathogens. The high and increasing demand for animal-sourced foods is one such root cause.
Strategies that prevent infectious diseases at their root sources are called primary prevention (6, 18, 33). This work outlines three pillars for primary prevention that, when combined, constitute stronger protection against zoonotic diseases from animal agriculture than any one pillar in isolation (Fig 2). National governments should coordinate their support for a wide range of policies and activities that support these pillars, including expanding veterinary and extension services for improved animal care in LMICs (18), phasing out and banning subtherapeutic and growth-promoting antibiotic uses (82), forming multilateral commitments among countries importing and exporting tropical commodities linked to deforestation (73), ambitiously scaling community-based approaches to popularizing plant-rich diets (68), supporting open and public alternative protein research (77), and facilitating sustainable and just transitions for producers. Commitments should also set quantifiable science-based goals and fund ongoing research to monitor and accelerate progress. Together, the three pillars of primary prevention can guide and empower decision-makers to escape the zoonotic disease trap of business-as-usual animal agriculture.
Acknowledgments
I thank B. Franks, J. Sebo, D. Jamieson, W. Alonso, and N. Mueller as well as the anonymous reviewers for helpful input regarding the contents and direction of this article.
Funding: The authors acknowledge that they received no funding in support of this research.
Author contributions: M.N.H. authored this report, including all drafts and revisions, performed the data analysis, and created and designed all figures contained therein.
Competing interests: The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Data and materials availability: All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper, with the exception of data in Fig. 3, the online sources of which are cited in the caption.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1
E. H. Loh, C. Zambrana-Torrelio, K. J. Olival, T. L. Bogich, C. K. Johnson, J. A. K. Mazet, W. Karesh, P. Daszak, Targeting transmission pathways for emerging zoonotic disease surveillance and control. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 15, 432–437 (2015).
2
J. R. Rohr, C. B. Barrett, D. J. Civitello, M. E. Craft, B. Delius, G. A. DeLeo, P. J. Hudson, N. Jouanard, K. H. Nguyen, R. S. Ostfeld, J. V. Remais, G. Riveau, S. H. Sokolow, D. Tilman, Emerging human infectious diseases and the links to global food production. Nat. Sustain. 2, 445–456 (2019).
3
K. E. Jones, N. G. Patel, M. A. Levy, A. Storeygard, D. Balk, J. L. Gittleman, P. Daszak, Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature 451, 990–993 (2008).
4
F. N. Tubiello, C. Rosenzweig, G. Conchedda, K. Karl, J. Gütschow, P. Xueyao, G. Obli-Laryea, N. Wanner, S. Y. Qiu, J. De Barros, A. Flammini, E. Mencos-Contreras, L. Souza, R. Quadrelli, H. H. Heiðarsdóttir, P. Benoit, M. Hayek, D. Sandalow, Greenhouse gas emissions from food systems: Building the evidence base. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 065007 (2021).
5
R. Gibb, D. W. Redding, K. Q. Chin, C. A. Donnelly, T. M. Blackburn, T. Newbold, K. E. Jones, Zoonotic host diversity increases in human-dominated ecosystems. Nature 584, 398–402 (2020).
6
Workshop Report on Biodiversity and Pandemics of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), Bonn, Germany, 27 to 31 July 2020.
7
F. Pendrill, U. M. Persson, J. Godar, T. Kastner, Deforestation displaced: Trade in forest-risk commodities and the prospects for a global forest transition. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 055003 (2019).
8
E. Barona, N. Ramankutty, G. Hyman, O. T. Coomes, The role of pasture and soybean in deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon. Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 024002 (2010).
9
M. N. Hayek, H. Harwatt, W. J. Ripple, N. D. Mueller, The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land. Nat. Sustain. 4, 21–24 (2021).
10
N. Alexandratos, J. Bruinsma, “World agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 revision,” ESA Working paper, FAO, Rome, June 2012.
11
FAO, “The future of food and agriculture—Alternative pathways to 2050” (Rome, 2018); www.fao.org/3/I8429EN/i8429en.pdf.
12
D. Tilman, M. Clark, Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518–522 (2014).
13
H. C. J. Godfray, J. R. Beddington, I. R. Crute, L. Haddad, D. Lawrence, J. F. Muir, J. Pretty, S. Robinson, S. M. Thomas, C. Toulmin, Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818 (2010).
14
P. K. Thornton, M. Herrero, Potential for reduced methane and carbon dioxide emissions from livestock and pasture management in the tropics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 19667–19672 (2010).
15
P. J. Gerber, H. Steinfeld, B. Henderson, A. Mottet, C. Opio, J. Dijkman, A. Falcucci, G. Tempio, Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock – A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2013).
16
IPCC, “Climate change and land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems” (Head of TSU (Operations) IT/Web Manager Senior Administrat, 2019); www.ipcc.ch.
17
J. A. Foley, N. Ramankutty, K. A. Brauman, E. S. Cassidy, J. S. Gerber, M. Johnston, N. D. Mueller, C. O’Connell, D. K. Ray, P. C. West, C. Balzer, E. M. Bennett, S. R. Carpenter, J. Hill, C. Monfreda, S. Polasky, J. Rockström, J. Sheehan, S. Siebert, D. Tilman, D. P. M. Zaks, Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).
18
A. S. Bernstein, A. W. Ando, T. Loch-Temzelides, M. M. Vale, B. V. Li, H. Li, J. Busch, C. A. Chapman, M. Kinnaird, K. Nowak, M. C. Castro, C. Zambrana-Torrelio, J. A. Ahumada, L. Xiao, P. Roehrdanz, L. Kaufman, L. Hannah, P. Daszak, S. L. Pimm, A. P. Dobson, The costs and benefits of primary prevention of zoonotic pandemics. Sci. Adv. 8, eabl4183 (2022).
19
H. L. Snyder, S. E. Niebuhr, J. S. Dickson, Transfer of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from retail pork products onto food contact surfaces and the potential for consumer exposure. J. Food Prot. 76, 2087–2092 (2013).
20
C. R. Bergeron, C. Prussing, P. Boerlin, D. Daignault, L. Dutil, R. J. Reid-Smith, G. G. Zhanel, A. R. Manges, Chicken as reservoir for extraintestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli in humans, Canada. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 18, 415–421 (2012).
21
T. Robinson, P. Thorton, G. Franceschini, R. Kruska, F. Chiozza, A. Notenbaert, G. Cecchi, M. Herrero, M. Epprecht, S. Fritz, L. You, G. Conchedda, L. See, “Global Livestock Production Systems” (FAO, 2011); www.fao.org/3/i2414e/i2414e00.htm.
22
K. Proudfoot, G. Habing, Social stress as a cause of diseases in farm animals: Current knowledge and future directions. Vet. J. 206, 15–21 (2015).
23
M. H. Rostagno, Can stress in farm animals increase food safety risk? Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 6, 767–776 (2009).
24
M. S. Honeyman, D. L. Maxwell, W. D. Busby, “Effects of stocking density on steer performance and carcass characteristics in bedded hoop barns” (Iowa State University Animal Industry Report, vol. 9, 2012);https://doi.org/10.31274/ans_air-180814-138.
25
D. T. Gauthier, Bacterial zoonoses of fishes: A review and appraisal of evidence for linkages between fish and human infections. Vet. J. 203, 27–35 (2015).
26
P. T. J. Johnson, A. R. Townsend, C. C. Cleveland, P. M. Glibert, R. W. Howarth, V. J. Mckenzie, E. Rejmankova, M. H. Ward, Linking environmental nutrient enrichment and disease emergence in humans and wildlife. Ecol. Appl. 20, 16–29 (2010).
27
Y. Lam, J. P. Fry, K. E. Nachman, Applying an environmental public health lens to the industrialization of food animal production in ten low- and middle-income countries. Global. Health. 15, 40 (2019).
28
A. Wasley, A. Heal, “Revealed: Development banks funding industrial livestock farms around the world,” The Guardian, 2 July 2020; www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/02/revealed-development-banks-funding-industrial-livestock-farms-around-the-world.
29
M. N. Hayek, R. D. Garrett, Nationwide shift to grass-fed beef requires larger cattle population. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 084005 (2018).
30
I. Chan, B. Franks, M. N. Hayek, The “sustainability gap” of US broiler chicken production: Trade-offs between welfare, land-use, and consumption. R. Soc. Open Sci. 9, 210478 (2022).
31
P. Smith, Delivering food security without increasing pressure on land. Glob. Food Sec. 2, 18–23 (2013).
32
D. Tilman, C. Balzer, J. Hill, B. L. Befort, Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 20260–20264 (2011).
33
UNEP, ILRI, “Preventing the next pandemic—Zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission” (Nairobi, Kenya, 2020); www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/preventing-future-zoonotic-disease-outbreaks-protecting-environment-animals-and.
34
B. A. Jones, D. Grace, R. Kock, S. Alonso, J. Rushton, M. Y. Said, D. McKeever, F. Mutua, J. Young, J. McDermott, D. U. Pfeiffer, Zoonosis emergence linked to agricultural intensification and environmental change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 8399–8404 (2013).
35
R. D. Garrett, I. Koh, E. F. Lambin, Y. le Polain de Waroux, J. H. Kastens, J. C. Brown, Intensification in agriculture-forest frontiers: Land use responses to development and conservation policies in Brazil. Glob. Environ. Chang. 53, 233–243 (2018).
36
M. G. Ceddia, N. O. Bardsley, S. Gomez-Y-Paloma, S. Sedlacek, Governance, agricultural intensification, and land sparing in tropical South America. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 7242–7247 (2014).
37
U. Kreidenweis, F. Humpenöder, L. Kehoe, T. Kuemmerle, B. L. Bodirsky, H. Lotze-Campen, A. Popp, Pasture intensification is insufficient to relieve pressure on conservation priority areas in open agricultural markets. Glob. Chang. Biol. 24, 3199–3213 (2018).
38
E. F. Lambin, P. Meyfroidt, Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 3465–3472 (2011).
39
P. Meyfroidt, R. R. Chowdhury, A. de Bremond, E. C. Ellis, K.-H. Erb, T. Filatova, R. D. Garrett, J. M. Grove, A. Heinimann, T. Kuemmerle, C. A. Kull, E. F. Lambin, Y. Landon, Y. le Polain de Waroux, P. Messerli, D. Müller, J. Ø. Nielsen, G. D. Peterson, V. Rodriguez García, M. Schlüter, B. L. Turner II, P. H. Verburg, Middle-range theories of land system change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 53, 52–67 (2018).
40
B. T. Phalan, What have we learned from the land sparing-sharing model? MDPI Sustain. 10, 1760 (2018).
41
P. Meyfroidt, T. K. Rudel, E. F. Lambin, Forest transitions, trade, and the global displacement of land use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 20917–20922 (2010).
42
J. R. Stevenson, N. Villoria, D. Byerlee, T. Kelley, M. Maredia, Green Revolution research saved an estimated 18 to 27 million hectares from being brought into agricultural production. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 8363–8368 (2013).
43
T. Garnett, E. Röös, D. Little, “Lean, green, mean, obscene…? What is efficiency and is it sustainable? Animal production and consumption reconsidered” (Food Climate Research Network, 2015); https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/77611459.pdf.
44
C. Cederberg, U. Sonesson, M. Henriksson, V. Sund, J. Davis, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Swedish Consumption of Meat, Milk and Eggs 1990 and 2005 (The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, 2009).
45
F. Müller-Hansen, J. Heitzig, J. F. Donges, M. F. Cardoso, E. L. Dalla-Nora, P. Andrade, J. Kurths, K. Thonicke, Can intensification of cattle ranching reduce deforestation in the Amazon? Insights from an agent-based social-ecological model. Ecol. Econ. 159, 198–211 (2019).
46
J. Loos, D. J. Abson, M. J. Chappell, J. Hanspach, F. Mikulcak, M. Tichit, J. Fischer, Putting meaning back into “sustainable intensification”. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 356–361 (2014).
47
L. V. Rasmussen, B. Coolsaet, A. Martin, O. Mertz, U. Pascual, E. Corbera, N. Dawson, J. A. Fisher, P. Franks, C. M. Ryan, Social-ecological outcomes of agricultural intensification. Nat. Sustain. 1, 275–282 (2018).
48
S. T. Garnett, N. D. Burgess, J. E. Fa, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, Z. Molnár, C. J. Robinson, J. E. M. Watson, K. K. Zander, B. Austin, E. S. Brondizio, N. F. Collier, T. Duncan, E. Ellis, H. Geyle, M. V. Jackson, H. Jonas, P. Malmer, B. McGowan, A. Sivongxay, I. Leiper, A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nat. Sustain. 1, 369–374 (2018).
49
E. A. Ellis, L. Porter-Bolland, Is community-based forest management more effective than protected areas?: A comparison of land use/land cover change in two neighboring study areas of the Central Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. For. Ecol. Manage. 256, 1971–1983 (2008).
50
É. Edelblutte, R. Krithivasan, M. N. Hayek, Animal agency in wildlife conservation and management. Conserv. Biol. 9, e13853 (2022).
51
R. D. Garrett, L. L. Rausch, Green for gold: Social and ecological tradeoffs influencing the sustainability of the Brazilian soy industry. J. Peasant Stud. 43, 461–493 (2016).
52
Y. le Polain de Waroux, R. D. Garrett, R. Heilmayr, E. F. Lambin, Land-use policies and corporate investments in agriculture in the Gran Chaco and Chiquitano. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 4021–4026 (2016).
53
D. Leclère, M. Obersteiner, M. Barrett, S. H. M. Butchart, A. Chaudhary, A. De Palma, F. A. J. DeClerck, M. Di Marco, J. C. Doelman, M. Dürauer, R. Freeman, M. Harfoot, T. Hasegawa, S. Hellweg, J. P. Hilbers, S. L. L. Hill, F. Humpenöder, N. Jennings, T. Krisztin, G. M. Mace, H. Ohashi, A. Popp, A. Purvis, A. M. Schipper, A. Tabeau, H. Valin, H. van Meijl, W.-J. van Zeist, P. Visconti, R. Alkemade, R. Almond, G. Bunting, N. D. Burgess, S. E. Cornell, F. Di Fulvio, S. Ferrier, S. Fritz, S. Fujimori, M. Grooten, T. Harwood, P. Havlík, M. Herrero, A. J. Hoskins, M. Jung, T. Kram, H. Lotze-Campen, T. Matsui, C. Meyer, D. Nel, T. Newbold, G. Schmidt-Traub, E. Stehfest, B. B. N. Strassburg, D. P. van Vuuren, C. Ware, J. E. M. Watson, W. Wu, L. Young, Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585, 551–556 (2020).
54
C. Rosenzweig, C. Mbow, L. G. Barioni, T. G. Benton, M. Herrero, M. Krishnapillai, E. T. Liwenga, P. Pradhan, M. G. Rivera-Ferre, T. Sapkota, F. N. Tubiello, Y. Xu, E. Mencos Contreras, J. Portugal-Pereira, Climate change responses benefit from a global food system approach. Nat. Food. 1, 94–97 (2020).
55
W. Willett, J. Rockström, B. Loken, M. Springmann, T. Lang, S. Vermeulen, T. Garnett, D. Tilman, F. DeClerck, A. Wood, M. Jonell, M. Clark, L. Gordon, J. Fanzo, C. Hawkes, R. Zurayk, J. A. Rivera, W. De Vries, L. Sibanda, A. Afshin, A. Chaudhary, M. Herrero, R. Agustina, F. Branca, A. Lartey, S. Fan, B. Crona, E. Fox, V. Bignet, M. Troell, T. Lindahl, S. Singh, S. E. Cornell, K. S. Reddy, S. Narain, S. Nishtar, C. J. L. Murray, Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 6736, 3–49 (2019).
56
Z. Sun, L. Scherer, A. Tukker, S. A. Spawn-Lee, M. Bruckner, H. K. Gibbs, P. Behrens, Dietary change in high-income nations alone can lead to substantial double climate dividend. Nat. Food. 3, 29–37 (2022).
57
K.-H. Erb, C. Lauk, T. Kastner, A. Mayer, M. C. Theurl, H. Haberl, Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation. Nat. Commun. 7, 11382 (2016).
58
J. Poore, T. Nemecek, Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).
59
T. D. Searchinger, S. Wirsenius, T. Beringer, P. Dumas, Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change. Nature 564, 249–253 (2018).
60
B. B. N. Strassburg, A. Iribarrem, H. L. Beyer, C. L. Cordeiro, R. Crouzeilles, C. C. Jakovac, A. B. Junqueira, E. Lacerda, A. E. Latawiec, A. Balmford, T. M. Brooks, S. H. M. Butchart, R. L. Chazdon, K.-H. Erb, P. Brancalion, G. Buchanan, D. Cooper, S. Díaz, P. F. Donald, V. Kapos, D. Leclère, L. Miles, M. Obersteiner, C. Plutzar, C. A. de M Scaramuzza, F. R. Scarano, P. Visconti, Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 586, 724–729 (2020).
61
M. N. Hayek, M. Longo, J. Wu, M. N. Smith, N. Restrepo-Coupe, R. Tapajós, R. da Silva, D. R. Fitzjarrald, P. B. Camargo, L. R. Hutyra, L. F. Alves, B. Daube, J. W. Munger, K. T. Wiedemann, S. R. Saleska, S. C. Wofsy, Carbon exchange in an Amazon forest: From hours to years. Biogeosciences. 15, 4833–4848 (2018).
62
UN Environment, UNEP Frontiers 2016 Report: Emerging Issues of Environmental Concern (United Nations Environmental Programme, 2016).
63
H. Harwatt, W. J. Ripple, A. Chaudhary, M. G. Betts, M. N. Hayek, Scientists call for renewed Paris pledges to transform agriculture. Lancet Planet. Health 4, e9–e10 (2020).
64
S. Attwood, P. Voorheis, C. Mercer, K. Davies, D. Vennard, Playbook for Guiding Diners Toward Plant-Rich Dishes in Food Service (World Resources Institute, 2019).
65
S. S. Morris, S. Barquera, A. Sutrisna, D. Izwardy, R. Kupka, Perspective: Interventions to improve the diets of children and adolescents. Glob. Food Sec. 27, 100379 (2020).
66
D. Mason-D’Croz, J. R. Bogard, T. B. Sulser, N. Cenacchi, S. Dunston, M. Herrero, K. Wiebe, Gaps between fruit and vegetable production, demand, and recommended consumption at global and national levels: An integrated modelling study. Lancet Planet. Health 3, e318–e329 (2019).
67
R. Waite, D. Vennard, G. Pozzi, “Tracking progress toward the cool food pledge: Setting climate targets, tracking metrics, using the cool food calculator, and related guidance for pledge signatories” (World Resources Institute, 2019);www.coolfoodpledge.org.
68
P. Puska, J. Tuomilehto, J. T. Salonen, A. Nissinen, Ten years of the North Karelia project of prevention of ischaemic heart disease. Cas. Lek. Cesk. 218, 66–71 (1985).
69
A. Shepon, G. Eshel, E. Noor, R. Milo, Energy and protein feed-to-food conversion efficiencies in the US and potential food security gains from dietary changes. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 105002 (2016).
70
D. Bryngelsson, F. Hedenus, D. J. A. Johansson, C. Azar, S. Wirsenius, How do dietary choices influence the energy-system cost of stabilizing the climate? Energies 10, 182 (2017).
71
DGAC, “Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee: Advisory Report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Agriculture” (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 2015);http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/.
72
FDRE, “Updated nationally determined contribution” (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, 2021).
73
S. Henders, U. M. Persson, T. Kastner, Trading forests: Land-use change and carbon emissions embodied in production and exports of forest-risk commodities. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 125012 (2015).
74
T. P. Van Boeckel, C. Brower, M. Gilbert, B. T. Grenfell, S. A. Levin, T. P. Robinson, A. Teillant, R. Laxminarayan, Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 5649–5654 (2015).
75
Y. M. Bar-On, R. Phillips, R. Milo, P. G. Falkowski, The biomass distribution on Earth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 6506–6511 (2018).
76
R. Espinosa, D. Tago, N. Treich, Infectious diseases and meat production. Environ. Resource Econ. 76, 1019–1044 (2020).
77
J. Bernstein, J. Dutkiewicz, A public health ethics case for mitigating zoonotic disease risk in food production. Food Ethics. 6, 9 (2021).
78
M. Springmann, H. C. J. Godfray, M. Rayner, P. Scarborough, Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 4146–4151 (2016).
79
L. Scherer, P. Behrens, A. Tukker, Opportunity for a dietary win-win-win in nutrition, environment, and animal welfare. One Earth 1, 349–360 (2019).
80
F. Biermann, T. Hickmann, C.-A. Sénit, M. Beisheim, S. Bernstein, P. Chasek, L. Grob, R. E. Kim, L. J. Kotzé, M. Nilsson, A. Ordóñez Llanos, C. Okereke, P. Pradhan, R. Raven, Y. Sun, M. J. Vijge, D. van Vuuren, B. Wicke, Scientific evidence on the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 5, 795–800 (2022).
81
C. van Staden, COVID-19 and the crisis of national development. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 443–444 (2020).
82
T. P. Van Boeckel, E. E. Glennon, D. Chen, M. Gilbert, T. P. Robinson, B. T. Grenfell, S. A. Levin, S. Bonhoeffer, R. Laxminarayan, Reducing antimicrobial use in food animals. Science 357, 1350–1352 (2017).
83
J. P. Graham, J. H. Leibler, L. B. Price, J. M. Otte, D. U. Pfeiffer, T. Tiensin, E. K. Silbergeld, The animal-human interface and infectious disease in industrial food animal production: Rethinking biosecurity and biocontainment. Public Health Rep. 123, 282–299 (2008).
84
J. H. Leibler, J. Otte, D. Roland-Holst, D. U. Pfeiffer, R. Soares Magalhaes, J. Rushton, J. P. Graham, E. K. Silbergeld, Industrial food animal production and global health risks: Exploring the ecosystems and economics of avian influenza. Ecohealth 6, 58–70 (2009).
85
S. Srinivasan, L. Easterling, B. Rimal, X. M. Niu, A. J. K. Conlan, P. Dudas, V. Kapur, Prevalence of bovine tuberculosis in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 65, 1627–1640 (2018).
86
A. J. Springbett, K. MacKenzie, J. A. Woolliams, S. C. Bishop, The contribution of genetic diversity to the spread of infectious diseases in livestock populations. Genetics 165, 1465–1474 (2003).
87
R. Alders, J. A. Awuni, B. Bagnol, P. Farrell, N. De Haan, Impact of avian influenza on village poultry production globally. Ecohealth 11, 63–72 (2014).
88
J. C. Chee-Sanford, R. I. Aminov, I. J. Krapac, N. Garrigues-Jeanjean, R. I. Mackie, Occurrence and diversity of tetracycline resistance genes in lagoons and groundwater underlying two swine production facilities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67, 1494–1502 (2001).
89
N. Kanwar, H. M. Scott, B. Norby, G. H. Loneragan, J. Vinasco, M. McGowan, J. L. Cottell, M. M. Chengappa, J. Bai, P. Boerlin, Effects of ceftiofur and chlortetracycline treatment strategies on antimicrobial susceptibility and on tet(A), tet(B), and blaCMY-2 resistance genes among E. coli isolated from the feces of feedlot cattle. PLOS ONE 8, e80575 (2013).
90
A. D. McEachran, B. R. Blackwell, J. D. Hanson, K. J. Wooten, G. D. Mayer, S. B. Cox, P. N. Smith, Antibiotics, bacteria, and antibiotic resistance genes: Aerial transport from cattle feed yards via particulate matter. Environ. Health Perspect. 123, 337–343 (2015).
91
N. Ramesh, S. W. Joseph, L. E. Carr, L. W. Douglass, F. W. Wheaton, Serial disinfection with heat and chlorine to reduce microorganism populations on poultry transport containers. J. Food Prot. 66, 793–797 (2003).
92
A. Di Nardo, N. J. Knowles, D. J. Paton, Combining livestock trade patterns with phylogenetics to help understand the spread of foot and mouth disease in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Rev. Sci. Tech. 30, 63–85 (2011).
93
H. El-Lethey, B. Huber-Eicher, T. W. Jungi, Exploration of stress-induced immunosuppression in chickens reveals both stress-resistant and stress-susceptible antigen responses. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathol. 95, 91–101 (2003).
94
C. Millman, R. Christley, D. Rigby, D. Dennis, S. J. O’Brien, N. Williams, “Catch 22”: Biosecurity awareness, interpretation and practice amongst poultry catchers. Prev. Vet. Med. 141, 22–32 (2017).
95
Y. Zheng, S. Ge, J. Zhang, Q. Guo, M. H. Ng, F. Wang, N. Xia, Q. Jiang, Swine as a principal reservoir of hepatitis E virus that infects humans in Eastern China. J Infect Dis 193, 1643–1649 (2006).
96
A. N. Hristov, J. Oh, C. Lee, R. Meinen, F. Montes, T. Ott, J. Firkins, A. Rotz, C. Dell, A. Adesogan, W. Yang, J. Tricarico, E. Kebreab, G. Waghorn, J. Dijkstra, S. Oosting, Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Livestock Production - A Review of Technical Options for Non-CO2 Emissions (FAO, 2013);https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/libro?codigo=317825.
97
R. D. Garrett, M. T. Niles, J. D. B. Gil, A. Gaudin, R. Chaplin-Kramer, A. Assmann, T. S. Assmann, K. Brewer, P. C. de Faccio Carvalho, O. Cortner, R. Dynes, K. Garbach, E. Kebreab, N. Mueller, C. Peterson, J. C. Reis, V. Snow, J. Valentim, Social and ecological analysis of commercial integrated crop livestock systems: Current knowledge and remaining uncertainty. Agr. Syst. 155, 136–146 (2017).
98
J. C. Salton, F. M. Mercante, M. Tomazi, J. A. Zanatta, G. Concenço, W. M. Silva, M. Retore, Integrated crop-livestock system in tropical Brazil: Toward a sustainable production system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 190, 70–79 (2014).
99
G. Lemaire, A. Franzluebbers, P. C. de Faccio Carvalho, B. Dedieu, Integrated crop-livestock systems: Strategies to achieve synergy between agricultural production and environmental quality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 190, 4–8 (2014).
100
M. Bogaerts, L. Cirhigiri, I. Robinson, M. Rodkin, R. Hajjar, C. Costa Junior, P. Newton, Climate change mitigation through intensified pasture management: Estimating greenhouse gas emissions on cattle farms in the Brazilian Amazon. J. Clean. Prod. 162, 1539–1550 (2017).
101
J. Piipponen, M. Jalava, J. de Leeuw, A. Rizayeva, C. Godde, G. Cramer, M. Herrero, M. Kummu, Global trends in grassland carrying capacity and relative stocking density of livestock. Glob. Chang. Biol. 28, 3902–3919 (2022).
102
M. Herrero, B. Henderson, P. Havlík, P. K. Thornton, R. T. Conant, P. Smith, S. Wirsenius, A. N. Hristov, P. Gerber, M. Gill, K. Butterbach-Bahl, H. Valin, T. Garnett, E. Stehfest, Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 452–461 (2016).
103
D. F. Cusack, C. E. Kazanski, A. Hedgpeth, K. Chow, A. L. Cordeiro, J. Karpman, R. Ryals, Reducing climate impacts of beef production: A synthesis of life cycle assessments across management systems and global regions. Glob. Chang. Biol. 27, 1721–1736 (2021).
104
A. Bragança, P. Newton, A. Cohn, J. Assunção, C. Camboim, D. de Faveri, B. Farinelli, V. M. E. Perego, M. Tavares, J. Resende, S. de Medeiros, T. D. Searchinger, Extension services can promote pasture restoration: Evidence from Brazil’s low carbon agriculture plan. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 119, e2114913119 (2022).
105
FAOSTAT, UN FAO, www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL [accessed 29 August 2022].
(0)eLetters
eLetters is a forum for ongoing peer review. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed, but they are screened. eLetters should provide substantive and scholarly commentary on the article. Neither embedded figures nor equations with special characters can be submitted, and we discourage the use of figures and equations within eLetters in general. If a figure or equation is essential, please include within the text of the eLetter a link to the figure, equation, or full text with special characters at a public repository with versioning, such as Zenodo. Please read our Terms of Service before submitting an eLetter.
Log In to Submit a ResponseNo eLetters have been published for this article yet.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Science Advances
Volume 8 | Issue 44
November 2022
November 2022
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Submission history
Received: 26 June 2022
Accepted: 15 September 2022
Acknowledgments
I thank B. Franks, J. Sebo, D. Jamieson, W. Alonso, and N. Mueller as well as the anonymous reviewers for helpful input regarding the contents and direction of this article.
Funding: The authors acknowledge that they received no funding in support of this research.
Author contributions: M.N.H. authored this report, including all drafts and revisions, performed the data analysis, and created and designed all figures contained therein.
Competing interests: The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Data and materials availability: All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper, with the exception of data in Fig. 3, the online sources of which are cited in the caption.
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
- 55 citation in Crossref
- 47 citation in Web of Science
Altmetrics
Citations
Cite as
- Matthew N. Hayek
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citation of this publication.
Cited by
- Defensive reactions to a meat reduction intervention, Appetite, 217, (108354), (2026).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2025.108354
- Every Person Counts in a Fair Transition to Net Zero: A UK Food Lens Towards Safeguarding Against Nutritional Vulnerability , Nutrition Bulletin, (2025).https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.70032
- The One Health Approach and the Tackling of Drivers of Environmental Degradation, The Cambridge Handbook of One Health and the Law, (123-138), (2025).https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009653732.012
- One Health and Contemporary Legal Structures, The Cambridge Handbook of One Health and the Law, (87-180), (2025).https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009653732.009
- Exploring the ethics of a One Health approach to harm reduction: A way forward for industrialized animal-sourced foods, CABI One Health, (2025).https://doi.org/10.1079/cabionehealth.2025.0027
- Trained immunity in farm animals, Veterinary Research, 56, 1, (2025).https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-025-01594-w
- Differences in tests of phenotypic colistin resistance in clinical Escherichia coli isolates from poultry and their genetic diversity, Veterinary Microbiology, 307, (110581), (2025).https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2025.110581
- Factory farm gas: Rendering industrial animal waste as renewable energy on North Carolina pig farms, Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, (2025).https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486251359484
- Drivers of Zoonotic Viral Spillover: Understanding Pathways to the Next Pandemic, Zoonotic Diseases, 5, 3, (18), (2025).https://doi.org/10.3390/zoonoticdis5030018
- Broad-spectrum virus elimination by nasal mucosa-colonized wild-type Bacillus subtilis, Research, (2025).https://doi.org/10.34133/research.0781
- See more
Loading...
View Options
View options
PDF format
Download this article as a PDF file
Download PDFLog in to view the full text
AAAS login provides access to Science for AAAS Members, and access to other journals in the Science family to users who have purchased individual subscriptions.
More options
Register for free to read this article
As a service to the community, this article is available for free. Login or register for free to read this article.
