The average person eats about six times as much chicken and twice as much pork as their grandparents’ generation did, data from a UN report suggests, with global meat supply having risen fourfold in the last 60 years and expected to keep rising.
The supply of poultry rose from below 3kg a person in 1961 to 17kg in 2022, according to data from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Pork supply doubled to 15kg a person over the same period, while beef, the most polluting food, stayed steady at 9kg.
Agriculture is the second most polluting sector of the global economy. Its planet-heating emissions are forecast to rise by 7.6% over the next decade, according to the FAO’s review of the science on the drivers of meat supply and demand, with livestock responsible for an estimated 80% of the increase.
The report found the average global meat supply rose from 25kg per person in 1961 to 47kg per person in 2022. It found that about 14% of meat and milk was lost during production or wasted after reaching supermarket shelves and restaurants.
In low- and middle-income countries, where food insecurity is most prevalent, animal foods are many times more expensive relative to incomes than in rich countries, where doctors and climate scientists recommend eating less meat.
“The regional distribution and access is still very unequal,” said Daniela Battaglia, a livestock development officer at the FAO and co-author of the report. “While high-income countries still have quite high and stable consumption, low-income countries are still constrained by the affordability of [animal products].”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified a shift from meat-heavy to plant-rich diets as one of the most effective demand-side actions that can be taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The FAO report, which was reviewed by the meat and dairy industry as well as external academics, cites research showing that wealthy nations are “driving excessive consumption” of animal products but does not go on to recommend they eat less meat.
“This report documents the problem clearly but stops well short of that conclusion,” said Cleo Verkuijl, a senior scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute, who was not involved in the report.
Previous FAO reports have been criticised by scientists for the “bewildering” omission of meat reduction from a climate roadmap, alleged “egregious errors” that downplayed the climate benefits of reducing meat in a report on livestock emissions, and a lack of engagement with scientific criticisms that one researcher described as “like hitting a brick wall”.
The latest report was commissioned as a comprehensive assessment of the contribution of livestock to food security, sustainable food systems, nutrition and healthy diets. The FAO said the report would be followed by another later this year that will look at environmental sustainability in greater detail.
Verkuijl said: “The fundamental problem is the mandate. The report sets out to help policymakers identify entry points where interventions support the positive contributions of animal-source foods to healthy diets. That may be the right framing for food-insecure populations, but it’s the wrong premise for wealthy nations, where the health and environmental case points toward reduction.”
Matthew Hayek, a food systems researcher at New York University, who was not involved in the report but has criticised previous FAO reports that cited his research, said it “largely sidesteps” the implications of high levels of meat consumption in rich countries and the climate benefits of reducing them.
“Instead, the authors present environmental issues merely as consumer perceptions or future research needs,” he said. “Their framing obscures the vast literature and strong evidence base showing that high levels of meat consumption have negative environmental impacts and are linked to a range of adverse health outcomes.”
The world has heated by about 1.4C since preindustrial times as a result of humanity’s burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of nature. Animal agriculture is responsible for 12-20% of planet-heating emissions and is a leading cause of biodiversity loss.
Battaglia said the FAO’s work was evidence-based and that different scientists may have different opinions. She said its message to policymakers was to reduce problems related to meat production such as antimicrobial resistance and greenhouse gas emissions, rather than to reduce livestock.
“We have the technologies, we have the innovation, we have the knowledge to significantly reduce emissions,” she said. “It’s also a matter of trade-offs. Animal-source food are still important as a source of nutrients … you have to make a balance towards trying to reduce the negative impact and maximise the positive one.”
