Cultivated meat is produced from a sample of animal cells, rather than by slaughtering animals. This technology shows promise for reducing emissions from animal agriculture, but its climate impact depends on the energy source used during production. Research and development are still in early stages, and whether the products can scale depends on continued investments, consumer approval, technological growth, and regulatory acceptance. While cultivated meat shows potential, evidence about its emissions reduction potential is limited, and the high costs of production may restrain its scalability. Based on our assessment, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.
Based on our analysis, cultivated meat is promising in its ability to reduce emissions from meat production, but the impact on a large scale remains unclear. Based on our assessment, we will “Keep Watching” this potential solution.
| Plausible | Could it work? | Yes |
|---|---|---|
| Ready | Is it ready? | Yes |
| Evidence | Are there data to evaluate it? | Limited |
| Effective | Does it consistently work? | Yes |
| Impact | Is it big enough to matter? | ? |
| Risk | Is it risky or harmful? | No |
| Cost | Is it cheap? | No |
Cultivated meat (also called lab-grown or cultured meat) is a cellular agriculture product that, when used to replace meat from livestock, can reduce emissions. Cultivated meat is developed through bioengineering. Its production uses sample cells from an animal, in addition to a medium that supports cell growth in a bioreactor. Energy is required to produce the ingredients for the growth medium and to run the bioreactor (e.g., for temperature control, the mixing processes, aeration).
Since the development of cultivated meat is still in its infancy, there is limited evidence on its emissions savings potential from large-scale production. Preliminary estimates differ by an order of magnitude, depending on the energy source used in the lab environment. Using fossil energy sources, emissions generated from the production of 1 kg of cultivated meat could reach 25 kg CO₂‑eq. If renewable energy is used, emissions could be about 2 kg CO₂‑eq/kg of cultivated meat. By comparison, producing a kilogram of beef from livestock generates 80–100 kilograms CO₂‑eq, on average. Almost half of those emissions from livestock beef are in the form of methane. Producing pig meat and poultry meat generates about 12 kg and 10 kg CO₂‑eq, respectively. Based on these estimates, cultivated meat could substantially reduce the emissions of beef. Compared to pork and chicken, however, its emissions depend on the source of energy used during production.
The cultivated meat industry is fairly new but growing rapidly. The first cell-cultivated meat product was developed in 2013. In 2024, there were 155 companies involved in the industry, located across six continents, mostly based in the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, and Singapore. Agriculture is responsible for about 22% of global GHG emissions, and raising livestock, especially beef, is particularly emissions-intensive. Therefore, cultivated meat has great potential to reduce related emissions as demand for meat continues to grow across the world. Cultivated meat enables the production of a large amount of meat from a single stem cell. This means that far fewer animals will be needed for meat production. Cultivated meat is also more efficient at converting feed into meat than chickens, which reduces emissions associated with feed production and demand for land.
Concerns about cultivated meat include scalability, cost, and consumer acceptance. Because cultivated meat is still an emerging area of food science, the cost of production may be prohibitive at a large scale. Although cell culture is routinely performed in industrial and academic labs, creating the culture medium for mass-market production at competitive prices will require innovations and significant cost reductions. There are still many unknowns about the commercial potential of cultivated meat and whether consumers will accept the products. In 2024, companies began to move from research labs to larger facilities to start producing meat for consumers. Several countries now allow the sale of cultivated meat. In the United States, about one-third of adults find the concept of cultivated meat appealing, and only about 17% would be likely to purchase it, according to a poll conducted on behalf of the Good Food Institute. However, even substituting a fraction of the beef consumed in the United States with cultivated meat could have an important impact on reducing emissions. Cultivated meat is a novel food and may require consumer education and producer transparency on production methods and safeguards in order to become more widely accepted.
Congressional Research Service of the United States (2023). Cell-Cultivated Meat: An Overview Link to source: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47697
Garrison, G. L., et al. (2022). How much will large-scale production of cell-cultured meat cost?. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 10: 100358. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100358
Good Food Institute (2025). 2024 State of the Industry report: Cultivated meat, seafood, and ingredients. Link to source: https://gfi.org/resource/cultivated-meat-seafood-and-ingredients-state-of-the-industry/
Good Food Institute (2024). Consumer snapshot: Cultivated meat in the U.S. Link to source: https://gfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Consumer-snapshot-cultivated-meat-in-the-US.pdf
Good Food Institute (2020). An analysis of culture medium costs and production volumes for cultivated meat Link to source: https://gfi.org/resource/analyzing-cell-culture-medium-costs/
Gursel, I. et al. (2022). Review and analysis of studies on sustainability of cultured meat. Wageningen Food & Biobased Research. Link to source: https://edepot.wur.nl/563404
Mendly-Zambo, Z., et al. (2021). Dairy 3.0: cellular agriculture and the future of milk. Food, Culture & Society, 24(5), 675–693. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2021.1888411
MIT Technology Review (2023). Here’s what we know about lab-grown meat and climate change. Link to source: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/07/03/1075809/lab-grown-meat-climate-change/
J. Poore, & T. Nemecek (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360, 987-992. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
Risner, D., et al. (2023) Environmental impacts of cultured meat: A cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment. bioRxiv, 2023.04.21.537778; doi: Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.21.537778
Sinke, P., et al. (2023). Ex-ante life cycle assessment of commercial-scale cultivated meat production in 2030. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 28, 234–254 Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02128-8
Treich, N. (2021). Cultured Meat: Promises and Challenges. Environ Resource Econ, 79, 33–61 Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-021-00551-3
Tuomisto HL, et al. (2022) Prospective life cycle assessment of a bioprocess design for cultured meat production in hollow fiber bioreactors. Science of the Total Environment, 851:158051
World Bank (2024) Recipe for a Livable Planet: Achieving Net Zero Emissions in the Agrifood System Link to source: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/406c71a3-c13f-49cd-8f3f-a071715858fb
Xu X, Sharma P, Shu S et al (2021) Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nature Food, 2:724–732 Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00358-x
More than one-third of all food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted before it can be eaten. This means that the GHGs emitted during the production and distribution of that particular food – including emissions from agriculture-related deforestation and soil management, methane emissions from livestock and rice production, and nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer management – are also wasted. This solution reduces emissions by lowering the amount of food and its associated emissions that are lost or wasted across the supply chain, from production through consumption.
The global food system, including land use, production, storage, and distribution, generates more than 25% of global GHG emissions (Poore and Nemecek, 2018). More than one-third of this food is lost or wasted before it can be eaten, with estimated associated emissions being recorded at 4.9 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (our own calculation). FLW emissions arise from supply chain embodied emissions (i.e., the emissions generated from producing food and delivering to consumers). Reducing food loss and waste avoids the embodied emissions while simultaneously increasing food supply and reducing pressure to expand agricultural land use and intensity.
FLW occurs at each stage of the food supply chain (Figure 1). Food loss refers to the stages of production, handling, storage, and processing within the supply chain. Food waste occurs at the distribution, retail, and consumer stages of the supply chain.
Figure 1. GHG emissions occur at each stage of the food supply chain. Food loss occurs at the pre-consumer stages of the supply chain, whereas food waste occurs at the distribution, market, and consumption stages. Credit: Project Drawdown
Food loss can be reduced through improved post-harvest management practices, such as increasing the number and storage capacity of warehouses, optimizing processes and equipment, and improving packaging to increase shelf life. Retailers can reduce food waste by improving inventory management, forecasting demand, donating unsold food to food banks, and standardizing date labeling. Consumers can reduce food waste by educating themselves, making informed purchasing decisions, and effectively planning meals. The type of interventions to reduce FLW will depend on the type(s) of food product, the supply chain stage(s), and the location(s).
When FLW cannot be prevented, organic waste can be managed in ways that limit its GHG emissions. Waste management is not included in this solution but is addressed in other Drawdown Explorer solutions (see Deploy Methane Digesters, Improve Landfill Management, and Increase Centralized Composting).
Almaraz, M., Houlton, B. Z., Clark, M., Holzer, I., Zhou, Y., Rasmussen, L., Moberg, E., Manaigo, E., Halpern, B. S., Scarborough, C., Lei, X. G., Ho, M., Allison, E., Sibanda, L., & Salter, A. (2023). Model-based scenarios for achieving net negative emissions in the food system. PLOS Climate 2(9), Article e0000181. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000181
Amicarelli, V., Lagioia, G., & Bux, C. (2021). Global warming potential of food waste through the life cycle assessment: An analytical review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 91, Article 106677. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106677
Anríquez, G., Foster, W., Santos Rocha, J., Ortega, J., Smolak, J., & Jansen, S. (2023). Reducing food loss and waste in the Near East and North Africa – Producers, intermediaries and consumers as key decision-makers. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4060/cc3409en
Babiker, M., Berndes, G., Blok, K., Cohen, B., Cowie, A., Geden, O., Ginzburg, V., Leip, A., Smith, P., Sugiyama, M., & Yamba, F. (2022). Cross-sectoral perspectives. In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, & J. Malley (Eds.), Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 1245–1354). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.014
Byrne, F., Medina, M. K., Mosqueda, E., Salinas, E., Suarez Peña, A. C., Suarez, J. D., Raimondi, G., & Molina, M. (2024). Sustainability impacts of food recovery & redistribution organizations. The Global FoodBanking Network. Link to source: https://www.foodbanking.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FRAME-Methodology_Food-Recovery-to-Avoid-Methane-Emissions_GFN.pdf
Cattaneo, A., Federighi, G., & Vaz, S. (2021). The environmental impact of reducing food loss and waste: A critical assessment. Food Policy, 98, Article 101890. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101890
Cattaneo, A., Sánchez, M. V., Torero, M., & Vos, R. (2021). Reducing food loss and waste: Five challenges for policy and research. Food Policy, 98, Article 101974. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101974
Chen, C., Chaudhary, A., & Mathys, A. (2020). Nutritional and environmental losses embedded in global food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 160, Article 104912. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104912
Creutzig, F., Niamir, L., Bai, X., Callaghan, M., Cullen, J., Díaz-José, J, Figueroa, M., Grubler, A., Lamb, W.F., Leip, A., Masanet, E., Mata, É., Mattauch, L., Minx, J., Mirasgedis, S., Mulugetta, Y., Nugroho, S.B., Pathak, M., Perkins, P., Roy, J., de la Rue du Can, S., Saheb, Y., Some, S., Steg, L., Steinberger, J., & Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2021). Demand-side solutions to climate change mitigation consistent with high levels of well-being. Nature Climate Change, 12(1), 36-46. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01219-y
Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N., & Leip, A. (2021). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 2(3), 198-209. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9
Davidenko, V., & Sweitzer, M. (2024, November 19). U.S. households that earn less spend a higher share of income on food. USDA Economic Research Service. Link to source: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=110391#:~:text=U.S.%20households%20were%20divided%20into,32.6%20percent%20of%20their%20income
de Gorter, H., Drabik, D., Just, D. R., Reynolds, C., & Sethi, G. (2021). Analyzing the economics of food loss and waste reductions in a food supply chain. Food Policy, 98, Article 101953. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101953
Delgado, L., Schuster, M., & Torero, M. (2021). Quantity and quality food losses across the value chain: A comparative analysis. Food Policy, 98, Article 101958. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101958
Eurostat (2024). Food waste and food waste prevention by NACE Rev. 2 activity [Dataset]. Link to source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/env_wasfw/default/table?lang=en&category=env.env_was.env_wasst
European Commission Knowledge Center for Bioeconomy (2024). EU Bioeconomy Monitoring System [Dataset]. Link to source: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/bioeconomy/monitoring_en
Fabi, C., Cachia, F., Conforti, P., English, A., & Rosero Moncayo, J. (2021). Improving data on food losses and waste: From theory to practice. Food Policy, 98, Article 101934. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101934
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2014). Food wastage footprint: Full-cost accounting. Link to source: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/6a266c4f-8493-471c-ab49-30f2e51eec8c/content
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2019). The state of food and agriculture 2019: Moving forward on food loss and waste reduction. Link to source: https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/11f9288f-dc78-4171-8d02-92235b8d7dc7/content
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2023). Tracking progress on food and agriculture-related SDG indicators 2023. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7088en
Food Waste Coalition of Action. (2024). Driving emissions down and profit up by reducing food waste. The Consumer Goods Forum and AlixPartners. Link to source: https://www.theconsumergoodsforum.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Driving-Emissions-Down-Profit-Up-By-Reducing-Food-Waste-FWReport2024-1.pdf
Gatto, A., & Chepeliev, M. (2024). Reducing global food loss and waste could improve air quality and lower the risk of premature mortality. Environmental Research Letters, 19, Article 014080. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad19ee
Goossens, Y., Wegner, A., & Schmidt, T. (2019). Sustainability assessment of food waste prevention measures: Review of existing evaluation practices. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3(90). Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00090
Guo, X., Broeze, J., Groot, J. J., Axmann, H., & Vollebregt, M. (2020). A worldwide hotspot analysis on food loss and waste, associated greenhouse gas emissions, and protein losses. Sustainability, 12(18), Article 7488. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187488
Hanson, C., & Mitchell, P. (2017). The Business Case for Reducing Food Loss and Waste. Link to source: https://champions123.org/sites/default/files/2020-08/business-case-for-reducing-food-loss-and-waste.pdf
Hegnsholt, E., Unnikrishnan, S., Pollmann-Larsen, M., Askelsdottir, B., & Gerard, M. (2018). Tackling the 1.6-billion-ton food loss and waste crisis. The Boston Consulting Group, Food Nation, State of Green. Link to source: https://web-assets.bcg.com/img-src/BCG-Tackling-the-1.6-Billion-Ton-Food-Waste-Crisis-Aug-2018%20%281%29_tcm9-200324.pdf
Hegwood, M., Burgess, M. G., Costigliolo, E. M., Smith, P., Bajzelj, B., Saunders, H., & Davis, S. J. (2023). Rebound effects could offset more than half of avoided food loss and waste. Nature Food, 4(7), 585-595. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00792-z
Jaglo, K., Kelly, S., & Stephenson, J. (2021). From farm to kitchen: The environmental impacts of U.S. food waste (Report No. EPA 600-R21 171). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/land-research/farm-kitchen-environmental-impacts-us-food-waste
Karl, K., Tubiello, F. N., Crippa, M., Poore, J., Hayek, M. N., Benoit, P., Chen, M., Corbeels, M., Flammini, A., Garland, S., Leip, A., McClelland, S., Mencos Contreras, E., Sandalow, D., Quadrelli, R., Sapkota, T., and Rosenzweig, C. (2024). Harmonizing food systems emissions accounting for more effective climate action. Environmental Research: Food Systems, 2(1), Article 015001. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/2976-601X/ad8fb3
Kaza, Silpa, Lisa Yao, Perinaz Bhada-Tata, and Frank Van Woerden (2018). What a waste 2.0: A global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. Urban Development Series. World Bank. Link to source: http://hdl.handle.net/10986/30317
Kenny, S. (2025). Estimating the Cost of Food Waste to American Consumers. (No. EPA/600/R25-048). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-04/costoffoodwastereport_508.pdf
Kenny, S., Stephenson, J., Stern, A., Beecher, J., Morelli, B., Henderson, A., Chiang, E., Beck, A., Cashman, S., Wexler, E., McGaughy, K., & Martell, A. (2023). From Field to Bin: The Environmental Impact of U.S. Food Waste Management Pathways (No. EPA/600/R-23/065). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development. Link to source: https://www.epa.gov/land-research/field-bin-environmental-impacts-us-food-waste-management-pathways
Kummu, M., De Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., & Ward, P. J. (2012). Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Science of The Total Environment, 438, 447-489. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.092
Lipinski, B. (2024). SDG target 12.3 on food loss and waste: 2024 progress report. Champions 12.3. Link to source: https://champions123.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/champions-12-3-2024-progress-report.pdf
Mbow, C., Rosenzweig, C., Barioni, L. G., Benton, T. G., Herrero, M., Krishnapillai, M., Liwenga, E., Pradhan, P., Rivera-Ferre, M. G., Sapkota, T., Tubiello, F. N., & Xu, Y. (2019). Food security. In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, & J. Malley (Eds.), 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 (pp. 437–550). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157988.007
Marston, L. T., Read, Q. D., Brown, S. P., & Muth, M. K. (2021). Reducing water scarcity by reducing food loss and waste. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.651476
Moraes, N. V., Lermen, F. H., & Echeveste, M. E. S. (2021). A systematic literature review on food waste/loss prevention and minimization methods. Journal of Environmental Management, 286. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112268
Nabuurs, G.-J., Mrabet, R., Hatab, A. A., Bustamante, M., Clark, H., Havlík, P., House, J. I., Mbow, C., Ninan, K. N., Popp, A., Roe, S., Sohngen, B., & Towprayoon, S. (2022). Agriculture, forestry and other land uses (AFOLU). In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, & J. Malley (Eds.), Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 747–860). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.009
Neff, R. A., Kanter, R., & Vandevijvere, S. (2015). Reducing food loss and waste while improving the public’s health. Health Affairs, 34(11), 1821-1829. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0647
Nutrition Connect. (2023). Reducing waste from farm to plate: A multi-stakeholder recipe to reduce food loss and waste. Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN). Link to source: https://nutritionconnect.org/news-events/reducing-food-loss-waste-farm-plate-stakeholder-recipe-compendium
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
Porter, S. D., Reay, D. S., Higgins, P., & Bomberg, E. (2016). A half-century of production-phase greenhouse gas emissions from food loss & waste in the global food supply chain. Science of the Total Environment, 571, 721-729. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.041
Read, Q. D., Brown, S., Cuellar, A. D., Finn, S. M., Gephart, J. A., Marston, L. T., Meyer, E., Weitz, K.A., & Muth, M. K. (2020). Assessing the environmental impacts of halving food loss and waste along the food supply chain. Science of the Total Environment, 712, Article 136255. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136255
Read, Q. D., & Muth, M. K. (2021). Cost-effectiveness of four food waste interventions: Is food waste reduction a “win–win?”. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 168. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105448
ReFED. (2024). The methane impact of food loss and waste in the United States. Link to source: https://refed.org/uploads/refed-methane-report-final.pdf
Reynolds, C., Goucher, L., Quested, T., Bromley, S., Gillick, S., Wells, V. K., Evans, D., Koh, L., Carlsson Kanyama, A., Katzeff, C., Svenfelt, A., & Jackson, P. (2019). Review: Consumption-stage food waste reduction interventions – What works and how to design better interventions. Food Policy, 83, 7-27. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.01.009
Rolker, H., Eisler, M., Cardenas, L., Deeney, M., & Takahashi, T. (2022). Food waste interventions in low-and-middle-income countries: A systematic literature review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 186. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106534
Searchinger, T., Waite, R., Hanson, C., & Ranganathan, J. (2019). Creating a sustainable food future. World Resources Institute. Link to source: https://research.wri.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/WRR_Food_Full_Report_0.pdf
Sheahan, M., & Barrett, C. B. (2017). Review: Food loss and waste in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy, 70, 1-12. Link to source: https://doi.rog/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.03.012
Swannell, R., Falconer Hall, M., Tay, R., & Quested, T. (2019). The food waste atlas: An important tool to track food loss and waste and support the creation of a sustainable global food system. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146, 534-545. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.02.006
Thi, N. B. D., Kumar, G., & Lin, C.-Y. (2015). An overview of food waste management in developing countries: Current status and future perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 157, 220-229. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.04.022
Tubiello, F. N., Karl, K., Flammini, A., Gütschow, J., Obli-Laryea, G., Conchedda, G., Pan, X., Qi, S. Y., Halldórudóttir Heiðarsdóttir, H., Wanner, N., Quadrelli, R., Rocha Souza, L., Benoit, P., Hayek, M., Sandalow, D., Mencos Contreras, E., Rosenzweig, C., Rosero Moncayo, J., Conforti, P., & Torero, M. (2022). Pre- and post-production processes increasingly dominate greenhouse gas emissions from agri-food systems. Earth System Science Data, 14(4), 1795-1809. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1795-2022
United Nations Environment Programme. (2024). Food waste index report 2024. Think eat save: Tracking progress to halve global food waste. Link to source: https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/handle/20.500.11822/45230
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2019). Food facts: How to cut food waste and maintain food safety. Link to source: https://www.fda.gov/food/consumers/how-cut-food-waste-and-maintain-food-safety
Wilson, N. L. W., Rickard, B. J., Saputo, R., & Ho, S.-T. (2017). Food waste: The role of date labels, package size, and product category. Food Quality and Preference, 55, 35-44. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.08.004
World Bank. (2020). Addressing food loss and waste: A global problem with local solutions. Link to source: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/1564bf5c-ed24-5224-b5d8-93cd62aa3611
WRAP (2023). UK Food System Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Progress towards the Courtauld 2030 target. Link to source: https://www.wrap.ngo/sites/default/files/2024-05/WRAP-MIANZW-Annual-Progress-Summary-report-22-23-Variation-1-2024-04-30.pdf
WRAP (2024). UK food system greenhouse gas emissions: Progress towards the Courtauld 2030 target. Link to source: https://www.wrap.ngo/sites/default/files/2024-12/WRAP-Courtauld-2030-GHG-2324.pdf
WWF-UK. (2021). Driven to waste: The global impact of food loss and waste on farms. :Link to source: https://files.worldwildlife.org/wwfcmsprod/files/Publication/file/5p58sxloyr_technical_report_wwf_farm_stage_food_loss_and_waste.pdf
WWF-WRAP. (2020). Halving food loss and waste in the EU by 2030: The major steps needed to accelerate progress. Link to source: https://www.wrap.ngo/resources/report/halving-food-loss-and-waste-eu-2030-major-steps-needed-accelerate-progress
Xue, L., Liu, G., Parfitt, J., Liu, X., Herpen, E. V., O’Connor, C., Östergren, K., & Cheng, S. 2017. Missing food, missing data? A critical review of global food losses and food waste data. Env Sci Technol. 51, 6618-6633. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b00401
Ziervogel, G., & Ericksen, P. J. (2010). Adapting to climate change to sustain food security. WIREs Climate Change, 1(4), 525-540. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.56
Zhu, J., Luo, Z., Sun, T., Li, W., Zhou, W., Wang, X., Fei, X., Tong, H., & Yin, K. (2023). Cradle-to-grave emissions from food loss and waste represent half of total greenhouse gas emissions from food systems. Nature Food, 4(3), 247-256. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00710-3
Erika Luna
Aishwarya Venkat, Ph.D.
Ruthie Burrows, Ph.D.
Emily Cassidy, Ph.D.
James Gerber, Ph.D.
Yusuf Jameel, Ph.D.
Daniel Jasper
Alex Sweeney
Eric Toensmeier
Paul C. West, Ph.D.
Aiyana Bodi
Hannah Henkin
Megan Matthews, Ph.D.
Heather McDiarmid, Ph.D.
Ted Otte
Christina Swanson, Ph.D.
Paul C. West, Ph.D.
Our analysis estimates that reducing FLW reduces emissions 2.82 t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis) for every metric ton of food saved (Table 1). This estimate is based on selected country and global assessments from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), public agencies, and development banks (ReFED, 2024; World Bank, 2020; WRAP, 2024). All studies included in this estimate reported a reduction in both volumes of FLW and GHG emissions. However, it is important to recognize that the range of embodied emissions varies widely across foods (Poore & Nemecek, 2018). For example, reducing meat waste can be more effective than reducing fruit waste because the embodied emissions are much higher.
Effectiveness is only reported on a 100-yr time frame here because our data sources did not include enough information to separate out the contribution of different GHGs and calculate the effectiveness on a 20-yr time frame.
Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.
Unit: t CO₂‑eq /t reduced FLW, 100-yr basis
| 25th percentile | 2.75 |
| mean | 3.11 |
| median (50th percentile) | 2.82 |
| 75th percentile | 3.30 |
The net cost of baseline FLW is US$932.56/t waste, based on values from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2014) and Hegensholt et al. (2018). The median net cost of implementing strategies and practices that reduce FLW is US$385.5/t waste reduced, based on values from ReFED (2024) and Hanson and Mitchell (2017). These costs include, but are not limited to, improvements to inventory tracking, storage, and diversion to food banks. Therefore, the net cost of the solution compared to baseline is a total savings of US$547.0/t waste reduced.
Therefore, reducing emissions for FLW is cost-effective, saving US$194.0/t avoided CO₂‑eq on a 100-yr basis (Table 2).
Table 2. Net cost per unit climate impact.
Unit: US$/t CO₂‑eq , 2023
| Median (100-yr basis) | -194.0 |
Learning curve data were not yet available for this solution.
Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.
At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.
Reduce Food Loss and Waste is an EMERGENCY BRAKE climate solution. It has the potential to deliver a more rapid impact than nominal and delayed solutions. Because emergency brake solutions can deliver their climate benefits quickly, they can help accelerate our efforts to address dangerous levels of climate change. For this reason, they are a high priority.
Reducing FLW through consumer behavior, supply chain efficiencies, or other means can lead to lower food prices, creating a rebound effect that leads to increased consumption and GHG emissions (Hegwood et al., 2023). This rebound effect could offset around 53–71% of the mitigation benefits (Hegwood et al., 2023). Population and economic growth also increase FLW. The question remains however, who should bear the cost of implementing FLW solutions. A combination of value chain investments by governments and waste taxes for consumers may be required for optimal FLW reduction (Gatto, 2023; Hegwood, 2023; The World Bank, 2020).
Strategies for managing post-consumer waste through composting and landfills are captured in other Project Drawdown solutions (see Improve Landfill Management, Increase Centralized Composting, and Deploy Methane Digesters).
Due to a lack of data we were not able to quantify current adoption for this solution.
Data on adoption trends were not available.
We assumed an adoption ceiling of 1.75 Gt of FLW reduction in 2023, which reflects a 100% reduction in FLW (Table 3). While reducing FLW by 100% is unrealistic because some losses and waste are inevitable (e.g., trimmings, fruit pits and peels) and some surplus food is needed to ensure a stable food supply (HLPE, 2014), we kept that simple assumption because there wasn’t sufficient information on the amount of inevitable waste, and it is consistent with other research used in this assessment.
Table 3. Adoption ceiling.
Unit: t reduced FLW/yr
| Median | 1,750,000,000 |
Studies consider that halving the reduction in FLW by 2050 is extremely ambitious and would require “breakthrough technologies,” whereas a 25% reduction is classified as highly ambitious, and a 10% reduction is more realistic based on coordinated efforts (Searchinger, 2019; Springmann et al., 2018). With our estimate of 1.75 Gt of FLW per year, a 25% reduction equals 0.48 Gt, while a 50% reduction would represent 0.95 Gt of reduced FLW.
It is important to acknowledge that, 10 years after the 50% reduction target was set in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs, Goal 12.3), the world has not made sufficient progress. The challenge has therefore become larger as the amounts of FLW keep increasing at a rate of 2.2%/yr (Gatto & Chepeliev, 2023; Hegnsholt, et al. 2018; Porter et al., 2016).
As a result of these outcomes, we have selected a 25% reduction in FLW as our Achievable – Low and 50% as our Achievable – High. Reductions in FLW are 437.5, 875.0, and 1,750 Mt FLW/year for Achievable – Low, Achievable – High, and Adoption Ceiling, respectively (Table 4).
Table 4. Adoption levels.
Unit: t reduced FLW/yr
| Current adoption (baseline) | Not determined |
| Achievable – Low (25% of total FLW) | 437,500,000 |
| Achievable – High (50% of total FLW) | 875,000,000 |
| Adoption ceiling (100% of total FLW) | 1,750,000,000 |
An Achievable – Low (25% FLW reduction) could represent 1.23 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (100-yr basis) of reduced emissions, whereas an Achievable – High (50% FLW reduction) could represent up to 2.47 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. The adoption potential (100% FLW reduction) would result in 4.94 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Table 5). We only report emissions outcomes on a 100-yr basis here because most data sources did not separate the percentage of type of food wasted or disaggregate their associated emissions factors by GHG type. Estimated impacts would be higher on a 20-yr basis due to the higher GWP of methane associated with meat and rice production.
Table 5. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.
Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, 100-yr basis
| Current adoption (1.5% of total FLW) | Not determined |
| Achievable – Low (25% of total FLW) | 1.23 |
| Achievable – High (50% of total FLW) | 2.47 |
| Adoption ceiling (100% of total FLW) | 4.94 |
We also compiled studies that have modeled the climate impacts of different FLW reduction scenarios, from 10% to 75%. For an achievable 25% reduction, Scheringer (2019) estimated a climate impact of 1.6 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. Studies that modeled the climate impact of a 50% reduction by 2050 estimated between 0.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (excluding emissions from agricultural production and land use change; Roe at al., 2021) to 3.1–4.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (including emissions from agricultural production and land use change; Roe at al., 2021; Searchinger et al., 2019).
Multiple studies stated that climate impacts from FLW reduction would be greater when combined with the implementation of dietary changes (see the Improve Diets solution; Almaraz et al., 2023; Babiker et al.; 2022; Roe et al., 2021; Springmann et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2023).
Households and communities can strengthen adaptation to climate change by improving food storage, which helps reduce food loss (Ziervogel & Ericksen, 2010). Better food storage infrastructure improves food security from extreme weather events such as drought or floods which make it more difficult to grow food and can disrupt food distribution (Mbow et al., 2019).
FLW accounts for a loss of about US$1 trillion annually (World Bank, 2020). In the United States, a four-person household spends about US$2,913 on food that is wasted (Kenny, 2025). These household-level savings are particularly important for low-income families because they commonly spend a higher proportion of their income on food (Davidenko & Sweitzer, 2024). Reducing FLW can improve economic efficiency (Jaglo et al., 2021). In fact, a report by Champions 12.3 found efforts to reduce food waste produced positive returns on investments in cities, businesses, and households in the United Kingdom (Hanson & Mitchell, 2017). FLW in low- and middle-income countries mostly occurs during the pre-consumer stages, such as storage, processing, and transport (Kaza et al., 2018). Preventive measures to reduce these losses have been linked to improved incomes and profits (Rolker et al., 2022).
Reducing FLW increases the amount of available food, thereby improving food security without requiring increased production (Neff et al., 2015). The World Resources Institute estimated that halving the rate of FLW could reduce the projected global need for food approximately 20% by 2050 (Searchinger et al., 2019). In the United States, about 30–40% of food is wasted (U.S. Food and Drug Administration [U.S. FDA], 2019) with this uneaten food accounting for enough calories to feed more than 150 million people annually (Jaglo et al., 2021). These studies demonstrate that reducing FLW can simultaneously decrease the demand for food production while improving food security.
Policies that reduce food waste at the consumer level, such as those that improve food packaging and require clearer information on shelf life and date labels, can reduce the number of foodborne illnesses (Neff et al., 2015; U.S. FDA, 2019). Additionally, efforts to improve food storage and food handling can further reduce illnesses and improve working conditions for food-supply-chain workers (Neff et al., 2015). Reducing FLW can lower air pollution from food production, processing, and transportation and from disposal of wasted food (Nutrition Connect, 2023). Gatto and Chepeliev (2024) found that reducing FLW can improve air quality (primarily through reductions in carbon monoxide, ammonia, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter), which lowers premature mortality from respiratory infections. These benefits were primarily observed in China, India, and Indonesia, where high FLW-embedded air pollution is prevalent across all stages of the food supply chain (Gatto & Chepeliev, 2024).
For a description of the land resources benefits, please refer to the “water resources” subsection below.
Reducing FLW can conserve resources and improve biodiversity (Cattaneo, Federighi, & Vaz, 2021). A reduction in FLW reflects improvements in resource efficiency of freshwater, synthetic fertilizers, and cropland used for agriculture (Kummu et al., 2012). Reducing the strain on freshwater resources is particularly relevant in water-scarce areas such as North Africa and West-Central Asia (Kummu et al., 2012). In the United States, halving the amount of FLW could reduce approximately 290,000 metric tons of nitrogen from fertilizers, thereby reducing runoff, improving water quality, and decreasing algal blooms (Jaglo et al., 2021).
Interventions to address FLW risk ignoring economic factors such as price transmission mechanisms and cascading effects, both upstream and downstream in the supply chain. The results of a FLW reduction policy or program depend greatly on the commodity, initial FLW rates, and market integration (Cattaneo, 2021; de Gorter, 2021).
On the consumer side, there is a risk of a rebound effect: Avoiding FLW can lower food prices, leading to increased consumption and net increase in GHG emissions (Hegwood et al., 2023). Available evidence is highly contextual and often difficult to scale, so relevant dynamics must be studied with care (Goossens, 2019).
The production site is a critical loss point, and farm incomes, scale of operations, and expected returns to investment affect loss reduction interventions (Anriquez, 2021; Fabi, 2021; Sheahan and Barrett, 2017).
Food waste is used as raw material for methane digesters and composting. Reducing FLW may reduce the impact of those solutions as a result of decreased feedstock availability.
t reduced FLW
CO₂ , CH₄ , N₂O
Some FLW reduction strategies have trade-offs for emission reductions (Cattaneo, 2021; de Gorter et al., 2021). For example, improved cold storage and packaging are important interventions for reducing food loss, yet they require additional electricity and refrigerants, which can increase GHG emissions (Babiker et al., 2022; FAO, 2019).
A large volume of scientific research exists regarding reducing emissions of FLW effectively. The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) estimates the mitigation potential of FLW reduction (through multiple reduction strategies) to be 2.1 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (with a range of 0.1–5.8 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr ) (Nabuurs et al., 2022). This accounts for savings along the whole value chain.
Following the 2011 FAO report – which estimated that around one-third (1.3 Gt) of food is lost and wasted worldwide per year – global coordination has prioritized the measurement of the FLW problem. This statistic has served as a baseline for multiple FLW reduction strategies. However, more recent studies suggest that the percentage of FLW may be closer to 40% (WWF, 2021). The median of the studies included in our analysis is 1.75 Gt/yr of FLW (FAO, 2024; Gatto & Chepeliev, 2024; Guo et al., 2020; Porter et al., 2016; UNEP, 2024; WWF, 2021; Zhu et al., 2023), with an annual increasing trend of 2.2%.
Only one study included in our analysis calculated food embodied emissions from all stages of the supply chain, while the rest focused on the primary production stages. Zhu et al. (2023) estimated 6.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr arising from the supply chain side, representing 35% of total food system emissions.
When referring to food types, meat and animal products were estimated to emit 3.5 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr compared to 0.12 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr from fruits and vegetables (Zhu et al., 2023). Although meat is emissions-intensive, fruits and vegetables are the most wasted types of food by volume, making up 37% of total FLW by mass (Chen et al., 2020). The consumer stage is associated with the highest share of global emissions at 36% of total supply-embodied emissions from FLW, compared to 10.9% and 11.5% at the retail and wholesale levels, respectively (Zhu et al., 2023).
While efforts to measure the FLW problem are invaluable, critical gaps exist regarding evidence of the effectiveness of different reduction strategies across supply chain stages ( Cattaneo, 2021; Goossens, 2019; Karl et al., 2025). To facilitate impact assessments and cost-effectiveness, standardized metrics are required to report actual quantities of FLW reduced as well as resulting GHG emissions savings (Food Loss and Waste Protocol, 2024).
The results presented in this document summarize findings across 22 studies. These studies are made up of eight academic reviews and original studies, eight reports from NGOs, and six reports from public and multilateral organizations. This reflects current evidence from five countries, primarily the United States and the United Kingdom. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research for meta-analyses and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions and stages of the supply chain.
Agriculture produces about 12 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr, or 21% of total human-caused GHG emissions (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 2023). Animal agriculture contributes more than half of these emissions (Halpern et al., 2022; Poore and Nemecek, 2018).
Ruminant animals, such as cattle, sheep, and goats produce methane – a GHG with 80 times the warming potential of CO₂ in the near term – in their digestive system (Jackson et al., 2024). Since agriculture is the leading driver of tropical deforestation, particularly for cattle and animal feed production, reducing ruminant meat consumption can avoid additional forest loss and associated GHG emissions.
We define improved diets as a reduction in ruminant meat consumption and a replacement with other protein-rich foods. Such a diet shift can be adopted incrementally through small behavioral changes that together lead to globally significant reductions in GHG emissions.
Reducing ruminant meat consumption, especially in high-consuming regions, has a globally significant potential for climate change mitigation. Ruminants contribute 30% of food-related emissions but generate only 5% of global dietary calories (Li et al., 2024).
Ruminant animals have digestive systems with multiple chambers that allow them to ferment grass and leaves. However, this digestion generates methane emissions through a process called enteric fermentation. In addition, clearing forests and grasslands for pastures and cropland to feed livestock emits CO₂, and livestock manure emits methane and nitrous oxide.
In 2019, an international team of scientists called the EAT-Lancet Commission developed benchmarks for a healthy, sustainable diet based on peer-reviewed information on human health and environmental sustainability (Willett et al., 2019). The commission estimated that red meat (beef, lamb, and pork) should be limited to 14 grams (30 calories) per day per person, or 5.1 kg/person/yr. Although the EAT-Lancet diet includes pork, our analysis looked specifically at limiting ruminant meat to 5.1 kg/person/yr because it has much higher GHG emissions than pork (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production of protein-rich foods. Beef has the highest emissions per kilogram. These emissions data are from Poore & Nemecek (2018), with the exception of "Ruminant meat," which was calculated based on the amount of beef and lamb consumed in 2022.
Poore, J. & T. Nemecek (2018) Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
In this solution, we explored reducing ruminant meat consumption in middle- and high-income countries in which consumption exceeds 5.1 kg/person/yr. Furthermore, our analysis assumed ruminant meat is replaced with approximately the same amount of protein-rich plant- or animal-based foods, which are estimated to be about 20% protein by weight (Poore and Nemecek, 2018).
Bai, Y., Alemu, R., Block, S. A., Headey, D., & Masters, W. A. (2021). Cost and affordability of nutritious diets at retail prices: Evidence from 177 countries. Food policy, 99, Article 101983. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101983
Bouvard, V., Loomis, D., Guyton, K. Z., Grosse, Y., Ghissassi, F. E., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., Guha, N., Mattock, H., & Straif, K. (2015). Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. The Lancet Oncology, 16(16), 1599–1600. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1
Bradbury, K. E., Murphy, N., & Key, T. J. (2020). Diet and colorectal cancer in UK Biobank: A prospective study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 49(1), 246–258. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz064
Casey, J. A., Curriero, F. C., Cosgrove, S. E., Nachman, K. E., & Schwartz, B. S. (2013). High-density livestock operations, crop field application of manure, and risk of community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection in Pennsylvania. JAMA Internal Medicine, 173(21), 1980–1990. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.10408
Domingo, N. G. G., Balasubramanian, S., Thakrar, S. K., Clark, M. A., Adams, P. J., Marshall, J. D., Muller, N. Z., Pandis, S. N., Polasky, S., Robinson, A. L., Tessum, C. W., & Hill, J. D. (2021). Air quality–related health damages of food. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(20), Article e2013637118. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013637118
Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N. D., O’Connell, C., Ray, D. K., West, P. C., Balzer, C., Bennett, E. M., Carpenter, S. R., Hill, J., Monfreda, C., Polasky, S., Rockström, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S., ... Zaks, D. P. M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337–342. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2025). FAO‑FAOSTAT: Food balances (2010-) [Data set]. Food balances for individual countries for the year 2022 (most recent year available). Retrieved March 25, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2023). Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) - List updated June 2023. Retrieved March 25, 2025, from Link to source: https://www.fao.org/member-countries/lifdc/en
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2017). Livestock solutions for climate change [Technical paper]. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1634679/
Gerber, P. J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A., & Tempio, G. (2013). Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities [Report]. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/4/i3437e/i3437e00.htm
Godfray, H. C. J., Aveyard, P., Garnett, T., Hall, J. W., Key, T. J., Lorimer, J., Pierrehumbert, R. T., Scarborough, P., Springmann, M., & Jebb, S. A. (2018). Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science, 361(6399), Article eaam5324. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam5324
Gupta, S., Vemireddy, V., Singh, D. K., & Pingali, P. (2021). Ground truthing the cost of achieving the EAT lancet recommended diets: Evidence from rural India. Global Food Security, 28, Article 100498. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100498
Halpern, B. S., Frazier, M., Verstaen, J., Rayner, P.-E., Clawson, G., Blanchard, J. L., Cottrell, R. S., Froehlich, H. E., Gephart, J. A., Jacobsen, N. S., Kuempel, C. D., McIntyre, P. B., Metian, M., Moran, D., Nash, K. L., Többen, J., & Williams, D. R. (2022). The environmental footprint of global food production. Nature Sustainability, 5, 1027–1039. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00965-x
Harter, T., Lund, J. R., Darby, J., Fogg, G. E., Howitt, R., Jessoe, K. K., Pettygrove, G. S., Quinn, J. F., Viers, J. H., Boyle, D. B., Canada, H. E., De La Mora, N., Dzurella, K. N., Fryjoff-Hung, A., Hollander, A. D., Honeycutt, K. L., Jenkins, M. W., Jensen, V. B., King, A. M., ... Rosenstock, T. S. (2012). Addressing nitrate in California’s drinking water with a focus on Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley groundwater [Report]. Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California. Link to source: https://ucanr.edu/sites/default/files/2012-03/138956.pdf
Heederik, D., Sigsgaard, T., Thorne, P. S., Kline, J. N., Avery, R., Bønløkke, J. H., Chrischilles, E. A., Dosman, J. A., Duchaine, C., Kirkhorn, S. R., Kulhanková, K., & Merchant, J. A. (2007). Health effects of airborne exposures from concentrated animal feeding operations. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(2), 298–302. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8835
Herrero, M., Henderson, B., Havlík, P., Thornton, P. K., Conant, R. T., Smith, P., Wirsenius, S., Hristov, A. N., Gerber, P., Gill, M., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Valin, H., Garnett, T., & Stehfest, E. (2016). Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nature Climate Change, 6(5), 452–461. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2925
Hirvonen, K., Bai, Y., Headey, D., & Masters, W. A. (2020). Affordability of the EAT–Lancet reference diet: A global analysis. The Lancet Global Health, 8(1), e59–e66. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30447-4
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2023). Climate change 2023: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee, & J. Romero (Eds.)]. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647
Jackson, R. B., Saunois, M., Martinez, A., Canadell, J. G., Yu, X., Li, M., Poulter, B., Raymond, P. A., Regnier, P., Ciais, P., Davis, S. J., & Patra, P. K. (2024). Human activities now fuel two-thirds of global methane emissions. Environmental Research Letters, 19(10), Article 101002. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad6463
Kaluza, J., Wolk, A., & Larsson, S. C. (2012). Red meat consumption and risk of stroke: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Stroke, 43(10), 2556–2560. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.112.663286
Katare, B., Wang, H. H., Lawing, J., Hao, N., Park, T., & Wetzstein, M. (2020). Toward optimal meat consumption. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 102(2), 662–680. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajae.12016
Kim, B. F., Santo, R. E., Scatterday, A. P., Fry, J. P., Synk, C. M., Cebron, S. R., Mekonnen, M. M., Hoekstra, A. Y., de Pee, S., Bloem, M. W., Neff, R. A., & Nachman, K. E. (2020). Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises. Global Environmental Change, 62, Article 101926. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.010
Li, M., Wang, Y., Zhao, S., Chen, W., Liu, Y., Zheng, H., Sun, Z., He, P., Li, R., Zhang, S., Xing, P., & Li., Q. (2024). Improving the affordability and reducing greenhouse gas emissions of the EAT-Lancet diet in China. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 52, 445–457. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.11.014
Li, Y., He, P., Shan, Y., Li, Y., Hang, Y., Shao, S., Ruzzenenti, F., & Hubacek, K. (2024). Reducing climate change impacts from the global food system through diet shifts. Nature Climate Change, 14(9), 943–953. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02084-1
Mariotti, F., & Gardner, C. D. (2019). Dietary protein and amino acids in vegetarian diets—A review. Nutrients, 11(11), Article 2661. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11112661
Mbow, C., Rosenzweig, C., Barioni, L. G., Benton, T. G., Herrero, M., Krishnapillai, M., Liwenga, E., Pradhan, P., Rivera-Ferre, M. G., Sapkota, T., Tubiello, F. N., & Xu, Y. (2019). Food security. In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, & J. Malley (Eds.), 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 (pp. 437–550). Cambridge University Press. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157988.007
Meier, T., & Christen, O. (2013). Environmental impacts of dietary recommendations and dietary styles: Germany as an example. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(2), 877–888. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1021/es302152v
Nelson, M. E., Hamm, M. W., Hu, F. B., Abrams, S. A., & Griffin, T. S. (2016). Alignment of healthy dietary patterns and environmental sustainability: A systematic review. Advances in Nutrition, 7(6), 1005–1025. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3945/an.116.012567
Nijdam, D., Rood, T., & Westhoek, H. (2012). The price of protein: Review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes. Food Policy, 37(6), 760–770. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.08.002
Norwood, F. B., & Lusk, J. L. (2011). Compassion, by the pound: The economics of farm animal welfare. Oxford University Press. Link to source: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/compassion-by-the-pound-9780199551163?cc=ca&lang=en&
Pan, A., Sun, Q., Bernstein, A. M., Schulze, M. B., Manson, J. E., Willett, W. C., & Hu, F. B. (2011). Red meat consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: 3 cohorts of US adults and an updated meta-analysis. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 94(4), 1088–1096. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.111.018978
Pan, A., Sun, Q., Bernstein, A. M., Schulze, M. B., Manson, J. E., Stampher, M. J., Willett, W. C., & Hu, F. B. (2012). Red meat consumption and mortality: Results from 2 prospective cohort studies. Archives of Internal Medicine, 172(7), 555–563. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.2287
Pimentel, D., & Pimentel, M. (2003). Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78(3), 660S–663S. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/78.3.660S
Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018) Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
Porter, S., & Cox, C. (2020, May 28). Manure overload: Manure plus fertilizer overwhelms Minnesota’s land and water. Environmental Working Group. Link to source: https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2020-manure-overload/
Ripple, W. J., Smith, P., Haberl, H., Montzka, S. A., McAlpine, C., & Boucher, D. H. (2014a). Ruminants, climate change and climate policy. Nature Climate Change, 4(1), 2–5. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2081
Ripple, W. J., Estes, J. A., Beschta, R. L., Wilmers, C. C., Ritchie, E. G., Hebblewhite, M., Berger, J., Elmhagen, B., Letnic, M., Nelson, M. P., Schmitz, O. J., Smith, D. W., Wallach, A. D., & Wirsing, A. J. (2014b). Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science, 343(6167), Article 1241484. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241484
Ripple, W. J., Newsome, T. M., Wolf, C., Dirzo, R., Everatt, K. T., Galetti, M., Hayward, M. W., Kerley, G. I. H., Levi, T., Lindsey, P. A., Macdonald, D. W., Malhi, Y., Painter, L. E., Sandom, C. J., Terborgh, J., & Van Valkenburgh, B. (2015). Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores. Science Advances, 1(4), Article e1400103. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1400103
Searchinger, T., Waite, R., Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., Dumas, P., Matthews, E., & Klirs, C. (2019). Creating a sustainable food future: A menu of solutions to feed nearly 10 billion people by 2050 [Report]. World Resources Institute. Link to source: https://research.wri.org/wrr-food
Sinha, R., Cross, A. J., Graubard, B. I., Leitzmann, M. F., & Schatzkin, A. (2009). Meat intake and mortality: A prospective study of over half a million people. Archives of Internal Medicine, 169(6), 562–571. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.6
Springmann, M., Clark, M. A., Rayner, M., Scarborough, P., & Webb, P. (2021). The global and regional costs of healthy and sustainable dietary patterns: A modelling study. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(11), e797–e807. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00251-5
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & de Haan, C. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options [Report]. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Link to source: https://www.fao.org/4/a0701e/a0701e00.htm
Sun, J., Liao, X.-P., D’Souza, A. W., Boolchandani, M., Li, S.-H., Cheng, K., Luis Martínez, J., Li, L., Feng, Y.-J., Fang, L.-X., Huang, T., Xia, J., Yu, Y., Zhou, Y.-F., Sun, Y.-X., Deng, X.-B., Zeng, Z.-L., Jiang, H.-X., Fang, B.-H., … Liu, Y.-H. (2020). Environmental remodeling of human gut microbiota and antibiotic resistome in livestock farms. Nature Communications, 11(1), Article 1427. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15222-y
Tang, K. L., Caffrey, N. P., Nóbrega, D. B., Cork, S. C., Ronksley, P. E., Barkema, H. W., Polachek, A. J., Ganshorn, H., Sharma, N., Kellner, J. D., & Ghali, W. A. (2017). Restricting the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals and its associations with antibiotic resistance in food-producing animals and human beings: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Planetary Health, 1(8), e316–e327. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30141-9
Toumpanakis, A., Turnbull, T., & Alba-Barba, I. (2018). Effectiveness of plant-based diets in promoting well-being in the management of type 2 diabetes: A systematic review. BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care, 6(1), Article e000534. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjdrc-2018-000534
Van Boeckel, T. P., Brower, C., Gilbert, M., Grenfell, B. T., Levin, S. A., Robinson, T. P., Teillant, A., & Laxminarayan, R. (2015). Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(18), 5649–5654. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503141112
Vergnaud, A.-C., Norat, T., Romaguera, D., Mouw, T., May, A. M., Travier, N., Luan, J., Wareham, N., Slimani, N., Rinaldi, S., Couto, E., Clavel-Chapelon, F., Boutron-Ruault, M.-C., Cottet, V., Palli, D., Agnoli, C., Panico, S., Tumino, R., Vineis, P., … Peeters, P. H. M. (2010). Meat consumption and prospective weight change in participants of the EPIC-PANACEA study. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92(2), 398–407. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2009.28713
Westhoek, H., Lesschen, J. P., Rood, T., Wagner, S., De Marco, A., Murphy-Bokern, D., Leip, A., van Grinsven, H., Sutton, M. A., & Oenema, O. (2014). Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe’s meat and dairy intake. Global Environmental Change, 26, 196–205. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.004
Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., Garnett, T., Tilman, D., DeClerck, F., Wood, A., Jonell, M., Clark, M., Gordon, L. J., Fanzo, J., Hawkes, C., Zurayk, R., Rivera, J. A., De Vries, W., Majele Sibanda, L., ... Murray, C. J. L. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393(10170), 447–492. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31788-4
Willits-Smith, A., Odinga, H., O’Malley, K., & Rose, D. (2023). Demographic and socioeconomic correlates of disproportionate beef consumption among US adults in an age of global warming. Nutrients, 15(17), Article 3795. Link to source: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15173795
We estimated that replacing 1 kg of ruminant meat with the same weight of other meat or protein-rich food reduces emissions by about 0.065 t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis).
We derived GHG emissions from 1 kg of ruminant meat, 0.075 t CO₂‑eq (100-yr basis), from Poore and Nemecek’s (2018) database and modeling from Kim et al. (2020). Our calculation was based on the GHG footprint of a kg of meat from beef cattle, dairy cattle, and sheep. We weighted the average GHG footprint based on the fact that beef makes up the majority (83%) of ruminant meat consumption, with sheep meat making up a smaller proportion (17%), according to data from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Food Balances (FAO, 2025).
From Poore and Nemecek’s database, we also derived the average GHG emissions from consuming 1 kg of other protein-rich foods in place of ruminant meat. These foods were: pig meat (pork), poultry meat, eggs, fish (farmed), crustaceans (farmed), peas, other pulses, groundnuts, nuts, and tofu, which are all around 20% protein by weight. Using FAO data on food availability in 2022 as a proxy for consumption, we calculated that the weighted average of these substitutes is 0.01 t CO₂‑eq /kg.
We subtracted the weighted average emissions of these protein-rich foods (0.01 t CO₂‑eq /kg) from the weighted average emissions from ruminant meat production (0.075 t CO₂‑eq /kg) to calculate the emissions savings (0.065 t CO₂‑eq /kg) (Table 1). Our analysis assumed that substituting a serving of plant- or animal-based protein for ruminant meat reduces the production of that meat (see Caveats).
Kim et al. (2020) did not provide species-specific emissions, but we assumed that for ruminant meat, the breakdown of CO₂, nitrous oxide, and methane was the same as in Poore and Nemecek (2018) – 43% methane and 57% CO₂ and nitrous oxide.
Table 1. Effectiveness at reducing emissions.
Unit: t CO₂‑eq /kg avoided ruminant meat
| mean (weighted average) | 0.065 |
Unit: t CO₂‑eq /kg avoided ruminant meat
| mean (weighted average) | 0.13 |
Based on our analysis, the average cost of 1 kg of ruminant meat was US$21.29 compared with the weighted average US$20.73 for other protein-rich foods. This resulted in a savings of US$0.56/kg of food. This translates to an estimated savings of US$8.54/t CO₂ eq (Table 2).
Since the publication of the EAT-Lancet Commission's dietary benchmarks, several studies have been published on the affordability of shifting to the diet (Gupta et al., 2021; Hirvonen et al., 2020; Li et al., 2024; Springmann et al., 2021). Research findings have been mixed on whether this diet shift reduces costs for consumers. One modeling study found that while the diet may cost less in upper-middle-income to high-income countries, on average, it may be more expensive in lower-middle-income to low-income countries (Springmann et al., 2021).
As opposed to the EAT-Lancet commission, our analysis focused solely on the shift from ruminant meat toward other protein-rich foods, which doesn’t include other dietary shifts, such as reducing other kinds of meat, reducing dairy, or increasing fruits and vegetables. We found no published evidence on the economic impacts of the shift away from ruminant meat alone. However, we used data from Bai et al. (2020), which used food price data from the World Bank’s International Comparison Program (ICP) (2011), to estimate cost differences between ruminant meat and substitutes.
We converted these prices into 2023 US$ and calculated a weighted average cost of food substitutes, based on food availability from the FAO Food Balances (2025).
The limited information used for this estimate can create bias, and we hope this work inspires research and data sharing on the economic impact of reduced ruminant consumption.
Table 2. Cost per unit climate impact. Negative values reflect cost savings.
Unit: 2023 US$/t CO₂‑eq , 100-year basis
| mean | -8.54 |
Improve Diets does not have a learning curve associated with falling costs of adoption. This solution does not address synthetically derived animal products, such as lab-grown meat, which could serve as replacements for ruminant meat. See Advance Cultivated Meat for more information
Speed of action refers to how quickly a climate solution physically affects the atmosphere after it is deployed. This is different from speed of deployment, which is the pace at which solutions are adopted.
At Project Drawdown, we define the speed of action for each climate solution as emergency brake, gradual, or delayed.
Improve Diets is an EMERGENCY BRAKE climate solution. It has the potential to deliver a more rapid impact than nominal and delayed solutions. The impact of this solution is two-fold: first, it reduces methane from enteric fermentation and manure management. Second, the solution reduces pressure on natural ecosystems, reducing deforestation and other land use changes, which create a large, sudden “pulse” of CO₂ emissions.
Because emergency brake solutions can deliver their climate benefits quickly, they can help accelerate our efforts to address dangerous levels of climate change. For this reason, they are a high priority.
We did not include Low-Income Food-Deficit countries (FAO, 2023) in this analysis because the solution does not apply to people who do not have access to affordable and healthy alternatives to ruminant meat or those with micronutrient deficiencies.
Although some amino acids, which are building blocks of protein, are present in lower-than-optimal proportions for human needs in some plant-based foods, mixing plant protein sources, as is typically done in vegetarian diets, can address deficiencies (Mariotti & Gardner, 2019).
Additionality is a concern for this solution. While ruminant meat consumption in middle- to high-income countries remained fairly stable between 2010 and 2022, some high-income countries have recently started reducing their ruminant consumption (see Adoption Trends). However, it’s difficult to determine current adoption and trends from national-level statistics, which average out low and high consumers within a country.
Another consideration is that the decision to eat less ruminant meat will ultimately lead farmers to produce fewer ruminant animals, but the substitution may not be one-to-one. For example, one modeling study found that cutting beef consumption by 1 kg may only reduce beef production by 0.7 kg (Norwood & Lusk, 2011).
Humans use more land for animal agriculture than for any other activity. However, the potential to remove and store carbon from the atmosphere by freeing up the land used in food production, as estimated by Mbow et al. (2019), was not included in this analysis.
Household-level data on food consumption are limited and not often comparable. In this analysis, we summarized current levels of food consumption on a national level, based on data on food availability from FAO Food Balances (2025). Because the data are averaged at a country level, we couldn’t estimate the current level of adoption for individuals of reduced ruminant meat consumption or the EAT-Lancet diet.
The EAT-Lancet recommended threshold of 5.1 kg of ruminant meat per person per year is in edible, retail weight. However, available data on per capita food availability from the FAO Food Balances is measured in carcass weight, which, for beef cattle, is about 1.4 times larger than a retail cut of meat. Therefore, in this analysis, we set the threshold of excess consumption in the Food Balances as greater than 7.2 kg carcass weight per person per year, which is 5.1 kg of retail ruminant meat per person per year.
In 110 of the 146 countries tracked by FAO, average annual consumption was more than 5.1 kg of ruminant meat per person per year. Some of the highest consuming nations include Mongolia (70.1 kg/person/yr), Argentina (33.3 kg/person/yr), the United States (27.5 kg/person/yr), Australia (25.3 kg/person/yr), and Brazil (25 kg/person/yr).
The 36 high- and middle-income countries with low (<5.1 kg/person/year) ruminant meat consumption include India (2 kg/person/yr), Peru (3.6 kg/person/yr), Poland (0.2 kg/person/yr), Vietnam (3.9 kg/person/yr), and Indonesia (2.4 kg/person/yr).
Ruminant meat consumption in high- and middle-income countries remained fairly stable between 2010 and 2022, according to data from FAO’s Food Balances, increasing only 3% overall from 8.2 to 8.5 kg/person/yr.
However, per capita ruminant meat consumption across high-consuming regions (the Americas, Europe, and Oceania) decreased. Consumption in South America and North America declined by 13% and 2%, respectively. Europe and Oceania saw the greatest declines, at 18% and 38%, respectively.
The adoption ceiling for this solution is the amount of total ruminant meat consumption across all 146 high- and middle-income countries tracked by the FAO. In 2022, the consumption of ruminant meat totaled 81.2 billion kg (Table 3).
Table 3. Adoption ceiling.
Unit: kg avoided ruminant meat/yr
| Estimate | 81,200,000,000 |
If all of the 110 countries consuming more than the EAT-Lancet recommendation cut consumption to 5.1 kg/person/yr (which is about an 85 g serving of ruminant meat every six days), that would lower annual global ruminant meat consumption by about half (53%), or 42.9 billion kg/yr. We used this as the estimated high achievable adoption value. The low achievable adoption value we estimated to be half of this reduction (26%), or 21.4 billion kg/yr (Table 4).
Table 4. Range of achievable adoption levels.
Unit: kg avoided ruminant meat/yr
| Current Adoption | Not Determined |
| Achievable – Low | 21,400,000,000 |
| Achievable – High | 42,900,000,000 |
| Adoption Ceiling | 81,200,000,000 |
Improving diets by reducing ruminant meat consumption globally could mitigate emissions by 1.4–5.3 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Table 5).
Therefore, reducing ruminant meat consumption and replacing it with any other form of plant or animal protein can have a substantial impact on GHG emissions. Such a diet shift can be adopted incrementally with small behavioral changes that together lead to globally significant reductions in GHG emissions.
Table 5. Climate impact at different levels of adoption.
Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr
| Current Adoption | Not Determined |
| Achievable – Low | 1.40 |
| Achievable – High | 2.80 |
| Adoption Ceiling | 5.30 |
Unit: Gt CO₂‑eq/yr
| Current Adoption | Not Determined |
| Achievable – Low | 2.88 |
| Achievable – High | 5.76 |
| Adoption Ceiling | 10.90 |
Reducing ruminant meat in diets of high-income countries can improve food security (Searchinger et al., 2019). Productive cropland that is used to grow animal feed could instead be used to produce food for human consumption (Ripple et al., 2014a).
Reducing ruminant meat consumption has multiple health benefits. Diets high in red meat have been linked to increased risk of overall mortality and mortality from cancer (Pan et al., 2012; Sinha et al., 2009). Excess red meat consumption is also associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer, and weight gain (Bouvard et al., 2015; Bradbury et al., 2020; Kaluza et al., 2012; Pan et al., 2011; Vergnaud et al., 2010). Diets that incorporate other sources of protein such as fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy, and whole grains are associated with a lower risk of mortality and a reduction in dietary saturated fat, and can improve the management of diabetes (Pan et al., 2012; Nelson et al., 2016; Toumpanakis et al., 2018).
Reducing demand for meat also has implications for health outcomes associated with livestock production. Animal agriculture, especially industrial and confined feeding operations, commonly uses antibiotics to prevent and treat infections in livestock (Casey et al., 2013). Consistent direct contact with livestock exposes people, especially farmworkers, to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which can lead to antibiotic-resistant health outcomes (Sun et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2017). Moreover, these exposures are not limited to farmworkers. In fact, a study in Pennsylvania found that people living near dairy/veal and swine industrial agriculture had a higher risk of developing methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections (Casey et al., 2013).
A lower demand for ruminant meat could promote environmental justice by reducing the amount of industrial animal agriculture operations. This may benefit communities near these operations by reducing exposure to air and water pollution, pathogens, and odors (Casey et al., 2013; Heederik et al., 2007; Steinfeld et al., 2006).
Agricultural expansion for livestock production is a major driver of deforestation (Ripple et al., 2014b). Deforestation is associated with biodiversity loss through habitat degradation and destruction, as well as forest fragmentation (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Livestock farming can reduce the diversity of landscapes and can contribute to the loss of large carnivore, herbivore, and bird species (Ripple et al., 2015; Steinfeld et al., 2006). The clearing of forests for animal agriculture is especially prevalent in the tropics, and a lower demand for meat, particularly ruminant meat, could reduce tropical deforestation (Ripple et al., 2014b).
Animal agriculture, especially ruminants such as cattle, requires a lot of land (Nijdam et al., 2012). Life-cycle analyses have found that beef consistently requires the most land use among animal-based proteins (Nijdam et al., 2012; Meier & Christen, 2013; Searchinger et al., 2019). This high land use is mostly due to the amount of land needed to grow crops that eventually feed livestock (Ripple et al., 2014a). In the European Union, Westhoek et al. (2014) estimated that halving consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs would result in a 23% reduction in per capita cropland use.
While livestock is directly responsible for a small proportion of global water usage, a significant amount of water is required to produce forage and grain for animal feed (Steinfeld et al., 2006). In the United States, livestock production is the largest source of freshwater consumption, and producing 1 kg of animal protein uses 100 times more water than 1 kg of grain protein (Pimentel & Pimentel, 2003). Ruminant meats have some of the highest water usage rates of all animal protein sources (Kim et al., 2020; Searchinger et al., 2019; Steinfed et al., 2006).
Livestock production can contribute to water pollution directly and indirectly through feed production and processing (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Manure contains nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as drug residues, heavy metals, and pathogens (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Manure can pollute water directly from feedlots and can also leach into water sources when used as a fertilizer on croplands (Porter & Cox, 2020). For example, animal agriculture is one of the top polluters of water basins in central California (Harter et al., 2012)
In addition to CO₂, ruminant agriculture is a source of air pollutants such as methane, nitrous oxides, ammonia, and volatile organic compounds (Gerber et al., 2013). Fertilization of feed crops and deposition of manure on crops are the primary sources of nitrogen emissions from ruminant agriculture (Steinfeld et al., 2006). Air pollution in nearby communities can lead to poor odors and respiratory issues, which may affect stress levels and quality of life (Domingo et al., 2021; Heederik et al., 2007).
A total replacement of ruminant meat with other food may reduce food availability in arid climates, where ruminants graze on land not suitable for crop production.
While the shift from ruminant meat consumption to chicken and pork would curtail some of the demand for animal feed, it would not be reduced as much as a shift from ruminants to plant-based foods.
Pastures for grazing ruminants occupy 34 million sq km of land, more than any other human activity (Foley et al., 2011). Curtailing the consumption of ruminants can significantly reduce demand for land and facilitate protection and restoration of carbon-rich ecosystems.
Silvopasture represents a way to produce some ruminant meat and dairy in a more climate-friendly way. This impact can contribute to addressing emissions from ruminant production, but only as part of a program that strongly emphasizes diet change.
Cultivated meat shows promise for reducing emissions from animal agriculture, especially ruminant meat production. Although evidence about cultivated meat’s emissions reduction potential is limited, replacing beef or lamb with cultivated meat is a more promising way to reduce emissions than replacing chicken or pork.
Lowering ruminant meat consumption might reduce the amount of manure available to manage, depending on whether it is substituted with plant-based foods or other meat.
Improved ruminant breeding could reduce methane emissions from ruminants that are managed on pasture or rangelands. However, intentionally breeding ruminants for reduced methane production is in its early stages, and deploying this solution across multiple species and breeds could take time. Improved breeding could reduce emissions from ruminant agriculture which could reduce the effectiveness of the Improve Diet solution.
kg avoided ruminant meat
CO₂, CH₄ , N₂O
There are climate and environmental trade-offs associated with the production of different kinds of protein. Producing ruminant meat is land-intensive and contributes to the conversion of natural ecosystems to pasture and animal feed. However, ruminants can live on land that is too dry for crop production and graze on plants not suitable for human consumption. In some low-income food-insecure countries (not included in this analysis), grazing animals may be an important source of protein.
Substituting ruminant meat with chicken, fish, or other meat can substantially reduce methane emissions, but comes with some environmental and animal welfare trade-offs.
Consensus of effectiveness in reducing ruminant meat: High
There is a high level of consensus in the scientific literature that shifting diets away from ruminant meat mitigates GHG emissions. An IPCC special report on land found “broad agreement” that meat – particularly ruminant meat – was the single food with the greatest impact on the environment on a global basis, especially in terms of GHG emissions and land use (Mbow et al., 2019). The IPCC found that the range of cumulative emissions mitigation from diet shifts by 2050, depending on the type of shift, was as much as 2.7–6.4 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr. This estimate included shifts away from all meat, whereas our analysis focused on shifting away from ruminant meat alone.
The emissions associated with the production of different food products in this solution came from Poore and Nemecek (2018) and Kim et al. (2020). Poore and Nemecek developed a database of emissions footprints for different foods based on a meta-analysis of 570 studies with a median reference year of 2010 (Figure 1). It covers ~38,700 commercially viable farms in 119 countries and 40 products representing ~90% of global protein and calorie consumption.
According to Poore and Nemecek (2018), producing 1 kg of beef emits 33 times the GHGs emitted by producing protein-rich plant-based foods, such as beans, nuts, and lentils. But beef can also be replaced with any other non-ruminant meat (poultry, pork, or fish) to cut emissions. Substituting ruminant meat with any other kind of meat reduces average emissions by roughly 85%.
A 2024 study on dietary emissions from 140 food products in 139 countries found that shifting consumption toward the EAT-Lancet guidelines could reduce emissions from the food system 17%, or about 1.94 Gt CO₂‑eq/yr (Li, Y. et al., 2024).
The results presented in this document summarize findings from 42 studies (34 academic reviews and original studies, three reports from NGOs, and five reports from public and multilateral organizations). The results reflect current evidence from 119 countries, but observations are concentrated in Europe, North America, Oceania, Brazil, and China, and limited in Africa and parts of Asia. We recognize this limited geographic scope creates bias, and hope this work inspires research and data sharing on this topic in underrepresented regions.
Join the 85,000+ subscribers discovering how to drive meaningful climate action around the world! Every other week, you'll get expert insights, cutting-edge research, and inspiring stories.
