Review

Meat consumption, health, and the environment

H. Charles J. Godfray https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8859-7232 [email protected], Paul Aveyard https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1802-4217, Tara Garnett, Jim W. Hall https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2024-9191, Timothy J. Key, Jamie Lorimer https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4369-0884, Ray T. Pierrehumbert, Peter Scarborough https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2378-2944, Marco Springmann https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6028-5712, and Susan A. Jebb https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9190-2920

Science • 20 Jul 2018 • Vol 361, Issue 6399 • DOI: 10.1126/science.aam5324

get access

The future of meat

Meat consumption is rising annually as human populations grow and affluence increases. Godfray et al. review this trend, which has major negative consequences for land and water use and environmental change. Although meat is a concentrated source of nutrients for low-income families, it also enhances the risks of chronic ill health, such as from colorectal cancer and cardiovascular disease. Changing meat consumption habits is a challenge that requires identifying the complex social factors associated with meat eating and developing policies for effective interventions.

Science, this issue p. eaam5324

Structured Abstract

BACKGROUND

The global average per capita consumption of meat and the total amount of meat consumed are rising (see the figure), driven by increasing average individual incomes and by population growth. Growth rates vary across different regions, with consumption in high-income countries static or declining and in middle-income countries moderately to strongly increasing, whereas in low-income countries, meat consumption is on average low and stable. There has been a particularly marked increase in the global consumption of chicken and pork. The consumption of different types of meat and meat products has substantial effects on people’s health, and livestock production can have major negative effects on the environment.

ADVANCES

Meat is a good source of energy and some essential nutrients—including protein and micronutrients such as iron, zinc, and vitamin B₁₂—although it is possible to obtain a sufficient intake of these nutrients without eating meat if a wide variety of other foods is available and consumed. In high-income Western countries, large prospective studies and meta-analyses generally show that total mortality rates are modestly higher in participants who have high intakes of red and processed meat. The strongest evidence of a specific adverse effect is the increased risk of colorectal cancer with high intakes of processed meat.

Meat produces more emissions per unit of energy compared with that of plant-based foods because energy is lost at each trophic level. Within types of meat, ruminant production usually leads to more emissions than that of nonruminant mammals, and poultry production usually leads to less emissions than that of mammals. Meat production is the single most important source of methane, which has a relatively high warming potential but a low half-life in the environment compared with that of CO₂. Careful management of grassland systems can contribute to carbon storage, but the net benefits are likely to be relatively modest. Agriculture uses more freshwater than any other human activity, with nearly a third required for livestock, so meat production in water-stressed areas is a major competitor with other uses of water, including that required to maintain natural ecosystems. Meat production can be an important source of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other pollutants and affects biodiversity—in particular, through land conversion to pasture and arable feed crops.

OUTLOOK

Governments act to shape food systems for economic purposes and to protect health from contaminated food. But there is less agreement over the degree to which the state should use health, environmental, or animal welfare considerations to control the supply of meat through interventions that affect the production, sale, processing, and distribution of meat and meat products or the price to the consumer.

If we are to shape consumer demand, more evidence is needed about the effectiveness of different interventions to influence food selection. This may include interventions that affect either the conscious, reflective decision-making systems or nonconscious, automatic processes. Potential interventions within the rational choice paradigm include labeling schemes (based on health or environmental criteria) and certification programs (based on welfare or environmental considerations) or fiscal interventions (such as so-called fat taxes). Alternatively, the largely automatic responses to environmental cues that affect purchase and consumption behaviors can be manipulated by changes to the food environment, in retail and food consumption settings.

History suggests that change in dietary behaviors in response to interventions is slow. But social norms can and do change, and this process can be aided by the coordinated efforts of civil society, health organizations, and government. However, successful interventions to improve health and environmental objectives are likely to require a good understanding of the impact of meat consumption on these outcomes, as well as a license from society for governments and other bodies to implement a suite of interventions to stimulate change.

Total consumption of meat (in million metric tons) in different regions and (inset) globally.
[Data are from www.fao.org/faostat/en/?#data.]

Abstract

Both the global average per capita consumption of meat and the total amount of meat consumed are rising, driven by increasing average individual incomes and by population growth. The consumption of different types of meat and meat products has substantial effects on people’s health, and livestock production can have major negative effects on the environment. Here, we explore the evidence base for these assertions and the options policy-makers have should they wish to intervene to affect population meat consumption. We highlight where more research is required and the great importance of integrating insights from the natural and social sciences.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

Get Access

Already a Subscriber?Sign In

Correction (21 August 2018): Both graphs in the print summary figure had mislabeled y axes; the values were incorrect by a factor of 10. The revised figure is labeled correctly.

Correction (12 December 2018): In the full article online, an affiliation was added to author Aveyard, and additional funding information was added to the Acknowledgments.

The future of meat

Structured Abstract

BACKGROUND

ADVANCES

OUTLOOK

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References and Notes

Information

Published In

Copyright

Submission history

Permissions

Acknowledgments

Authors

Affiliations

Funding Information

Notes

Metrics

Article Usage

Altmetrics

Citations

Export citation

Cited by

Get Access

Log in to view the full text

More options

View options

PDF format

Figures

Multimedia

Share

Share article link

Share on social media

(0)eLetters

Cell-by-cell dissection of phloem development links a maturation gradient to cell specialization

The energetics of uniquely human subsistence strategies

Early giant reveals faster evolution of large body size in ichthyosaurs than in cetaceans

Current Issue

Cell-by-cell dissection of phloem development links a maturation gradient to cell specialization

The energetics of uniquely human subsistence strategies

Early giant reveals faster evolution of large body size in ichthyosaurs than in cetaceans

LATEST NEWS