Introduction

Beef has become a significant source of protein in diets, especially in industrialized

countries. Approximately 58% of protein in OECD nations comes from livestock

products, with beef contributing about 12% (FAOSTAT, 2013). Population growth,

rising incomes, and urbanization, particularly in developing countries, are driving an

increasing demand for beef (Alexandratos & Bruinsma, 2012). However, the

environmental and health impacts of excessive meat consumption necessitate a

shift towards sustainable dietary practices.

Introduction

The production of meat has significantly larger environmental and climate footprints

than the production of plant-based foods (Godfray et al., 2018). Accounting for less

than 20% of the global food energy, meat and dairy use 70% of all agricultural land

and 40% of the arable cropland (Mottet et al., 2017; Poore & Nemecek, 2018).

Animal-sourced foods are responsible for more than one-quarter of humanity's

freshwater footprint (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2013) and up to two-thirds of all food-

related GHG emissions (Poore & Nemecek, 2018; Springmann et al., 2018a; Xu et

al., 2021). About 20% of global nitrogen and phosphorus applications are

attributable to animal-sourced foods, contributing to the pollution of terrestrial and

aquatic ecosystems (Springmann et al., 2018a). Meat production is also considered

one of the core drivers of global deforestation and biodiversity loss (Henry et al.,

2019; Machovina et al., 2015).

Body Paragraph 1: Environmental Concerns and Solutions

The water footprints of meat products are substantially larger than those of most
plant-based products, nuts being one of the few exceptions (Gerbens-Leenes et al.,

2013). Most of the water in livestock production is not required as drinking water for

animals but for the production of feed. In fact, more than 97% of the total water

footprint in the livestock sector can be traced back to feed production (Mekonnen &

Hoekstra, 2012). Depending on the feed sources, production systems differ

significantly in terms of the quantity and also the type of water used. Ruminants in

extensive grazing systems have a very large water footprint, but most of this water

is rainwater stored in soils or plants (so-called green water) with low competition for

other uses (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2013). Although green water scarcity is an issue

in some regions (Schyns et al., 2019), water competition is often much higher for

groundwater or surface water (so-called blue water). In addition, water pollution due

to livestock production activities (so-called gray water) can be an issue. To address

these challenges, reducing demand for livestock products offers a much greater

potential for meeting food security and greenhouse gas mitigation than supply-side

measures (Smith et al., 2013). Eliminating the loss of energy in livestock production

and growing crops for direct human consumption could increase food calories by

70%, feeding an additional 4 billion people (Cassidy et al., 2013).

Body Paragraph 2: Land Use, Biodiversity, and Solutions

Meat production is also considered one of the core drivers of global deforestation

and biodiversity loss (Henry et al., 2019; Machovina et al., 2015). Given that roughly

7.0 gigatons (Gt) of plant biomass is required to produce the 0.26 Gt of meat in our

modern global agricultural systems (Smith et al., 2013), even a small increase in

the consumption of animal-based foods will drive a large increase in habitat

conversion and greenhouse gas emissions. Substituting soy for meat as a source of
protein for humans would reduce total biomass appropriation in 2050 by 94% below

2000 baseline levels (Pelletier & Tyedmers, 2010). Soy and other legumes are

excellent sources of protein, and plant-based protein sources can meet complete

amino acid dietary requirements (McDougall, 2002). When compared to an

equivalent mass of common raw cuts of meats, soybeans contain on average twice

the protein of beef, pork, or chicken, and ten times more protein than whole milk

(U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2013). These approaches can protect plant and

animal biodiversity while addressing land demand challenges.

Conclusion

Meat production is a significant driver of environmental degradation at both global

and local levels, affecting water use, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and

biodiversity. However, solutions such as reducing animal product consumption,

substituting meat with plant-based proteins, and reintegrating livestock into diverse

agroecological systems offer pathways to sustainable food production. These

strategies can improve human nutritional health, decrease the environmental

footprint of agriculture, and protect global ecosystems on which humanity depends.

References

References

Cassidy, E. S., West, P. C., Gerber, J. S., & Foley, J. A. (2013). Redefining agricultural

yields: From tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environmental Research

Letters, 8(3), 034015.

Marshall, J. D., & Hill, J. D. (2021). Air quality–related health damages of food.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(20), e2013637118.

Gerbens-Leenes, P. W., Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2013). The water

footprint of poultry, pork, and beef: A comparative study in different countries and

production systems. Water Resources and Industry, 1–2, 25–36.

Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J., Lorimer, J., ... & Jebb,

S. A. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science, 361(6399),

eaam5324.

Henry, B., Ademe, F., Bringué, M., & Ellison, D. (2019). The role of livestock in the

21st-century global food system. Nature Sustainability, 2(1), 73–81.

Machovina, B., Feeley, K. J., & Ripple, W. J. (2015). Biodiversity conservation: The

key is reducing meat consumption. Science of The Total Environment, 536, 419–

431.

McDougall, J. (2002). Plant foods have a complete amino acid composition.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 55(5), 1160–1162.

Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2012). The blue water footprint of electricity

from hydropower. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 16(1), 179–187.

Mottet, A., de Haan, C., Falcucci, A., Tempio, G., Opio, C., & Gerber, P. (2017).

Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? Global Food Security, 14, 1–8.

Pelletier, N., & Tyedmers, P. (2010). Forecasting potential global environmental

costs of livestock production 2000–2050. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, 107(43), 18371–18374.

producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992.

Schyns, J. F., Hoekstra, A. Y., & Booij, M. J. (2019). Review and classification of

indicators of green water availability and scarcity. Hydrology and Earth System

Sciences, 23(2), 971–985.

Smith, P., Haberl, H., Popp, A., Erb, K. H., Lauk, C., Harper, R., ... & Stehfest, E.

(2013). How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without

compromising food security and environmental goals? Global Change Biology,

19(8), 2285–2302.

Springmann, M., Clark, M., Mason-D'Croz, D., Wiebe, K., Bodirsky, B. L., Lassaletta,

L., ... & Willett, W. (2018a). Options for keeping the food system within

environmental limits. Nature, 562(7728), 519–525.

Xu, X., Sharma, P., Shu, S., Lin, T. S., Ciais, P., Tubiello, F. N., ... & Jain, A. K. (2021).

Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-

based foods. Nature Food, 2(9), 724–732.

Yuan, Z., Zhang, J., & Li, T. (2016). Ecosystem multifunctionality and biodiversity in

grasslands. Nature Communications, 7(1), 10725.