Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reducing Meat Consumption to Mitigate Climate Change and Promote Health: but Is It Good for the Economy?

  • Published:
Environmental Modeling & Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With the growing population and increasing purchasing power, the sustainability of the food sector is questioned as environmental externalities derive from consumption, mainly the emission of greenhouse gases, which contribute to climate change. Academic literature has suggested strategies to efficiently manage food consumption, but one of the main implications is to reduce meat consumption. Such a reduction would mitigate climate change and other environmental externalities as well as reduce health-related problems. However, the livestock sector is also a relevant economic sector for the subsistence of any economy. Therefore, this reduction could threaten economic growth. Following a sample of 14 European high-income countries over more than four decades, the impact of food consumption on economic growth is assessed. Results suggest that both meat and plant-based consumption contribute positively to economic growth. Consequently, a reduction in meat consumption could have a negative impact on the economy. However, strategies to both reduce meat consumption and promote economic growth are discussed in line with the results, with plant-based foods as an efficient option to solve the dilemma. Furthermore, specific strategies for both the supply and the demand side, education on food production and consumption are recommended, particularly in primary schools. Children could learn about healthy and sustainable dietary habits that would not hamper economic growth, as these should be the seeds of future consumption habits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Table 1 showing the nomenclature is provided at the end of the Introduction section.

References

  1. United Nations. (2017). World population prospects: the 2017 revision. New York.

  2. Sans, P., & Combris, P. (2015). World meat consumption patterns: an overview of the last fifty years (1961–2011). Meat Science, 109, 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.05.012.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, & WHO. (2018). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018. Building climate resilience for food security and nutrition. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Allievi, F., Vinnari, M., & Luukkanen, J. (2015). Meat consumption and production - analysis of efficiency, sufficiency and consistency of global trends. Journal of Cleaner Production, 92, 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. FAO. (2017). FAOSTAT Online Database. Retrieved March 20, 2018, from http://faostat.fao.org.

  6. Vranken, L., Avermaete, T., Petalios, D., & Mathijs, E. (2014). Curbing global meat consumption: emerging evidence of a second nutrition transition. Environmental Science and Policy, 39, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.02.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gerber, P., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., et al. (2013). Tackling climate change through livestock – a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Rome. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.074.

  8. Mottet, A., de Haan, C., Falcucci, A., Tempio, G., Opio, C., & Gerber, P. (2017). Livestock: on our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debateGlobal Food Security. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.001.

  9. Marlow, H. J., Hayes, W. K., Soret, S., Carter, R. L., Schwab, E. R., & Sabaté, J. (2009). Diet and the environment: does what you eat matter? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89(5), 1699S–1703S. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2009.26736Z.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lacour, C., Seconda, L., Allès, B., Hercberg, S., Langevin, B., Pointereau, P., Lairon, D., Baudry, J., & Kesse-Guyot, E. (2018). Environmental impacts of plant-based diets: how does organic food consumption contribute to environmental sustainability? Frontiers in Nutrition, 5, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2018.00008.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Khan, S., & Hanjra, M. A. (2009). Footprints of water and energy inputs in food production - global perspectives. Food Policy, 34(2), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.022.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Weiss, F., & Leip, A. (2012). Greenhouse gas emissions from the EU livestock sector: A life cycle assessment carried out with the CAPRI model. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 149, 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.12.015.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Notarnicola, B., Tassielli, G., Renzulli, P. A., Castellani, V., & Sala, S. (2017). Environmental impacts of food consumption in Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 753–765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Peña-Lévano, L. M., Taheripour, F., & Tyner, W. E. (2019). Climate change interactions with agriculture, forestry sequestration, and food security. Environmental and Resource Economics, 74, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-019-00339-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Campbell, T. C., & Campbell, T. M. (2006). The China study. Science-based medicine. Retrieved from https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/385.

  19. Huang, T., Yang, B., Zheng, J., Li, G., Wahlqvist, M. L., & Li, D. (2012). Cardiovascular disease mortality and cancer incidence in vegetarians: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 60(4), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1159/000337301.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bouvard, V., Loomis, D., Guyton, K. Z., Grosse, Y., Ghissassi, F. E., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., et al. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Pan, A., Sun, Q., Bernstein, A. M., Manson, J. E., Willett, W. C., & Hu, F. B. (2013). Changes in red meat consumption and subsequent risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: three cohorts of US men and women. JAMA Internal Medicine, 173(14), 1328–1335. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6633.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rouhani, M. H., Salehi-Abargouei, A., Surkan, P. J., & Azadbakht, L. (2014, September). Is there a relationship between red or processed meat intake and obesity? A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Obesity Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12172.

  23. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30141-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wirsenius, S. (2003). Efficiencies and biomass appropriation of food commodities on global and regional levels. Agricultural Systems, 77(3), 219–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(02)00188-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gerber, P., Mottet, A., Opio, C. I., Falcucci, A., & Teillard, F. (2015). Environmental impacts of beef production: review of challenges and perspectives for durability. Meat Science, 109, 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.05.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hedenus, F., Wirsenius, S., & Johansson, D. J. A. (2014). The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. Climatic Change, 124(1–2), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1104-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Davies, A. R. (2014). Co-creating sustainable eating futures: technology, ICT and citizen–consumer ambivalence. Futures, 62, 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUTURES.2014.04.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pearce, D. (2002). An intellectual history of environmental economics. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 27(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.27.122001.083429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bonnet, C., Bouamra-Mechemache, Z., & Corre, T. (2018). An environmental tax towards more sustainable food: empirical evidence of the consumption of animal products in France. Ecological Economics, 147, 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.12.032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Vlaeminck, P., Jiang, T., & Vranken, L. (2014). Food labeling and eco-friendly consumption: experimental evidence from a Belgian supermarket. Ecological Economics, 108, 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2014.10.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lombardini, C., & Lankoski, L. (2013). Forced choice restriction in promoting sustainable food consumption: intended and unintended effects of the mandatory vegetarian day in Helsinki schools. Journal of Consumer Policy, 36(2), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-013-9221-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Westhoek, H., Lesschen, J. P., Rood, T., Wagner, S., De Marco, A., Murphy-Bokern, D., et al. (2014). Food choices, health and environment: effects of cutting Europe’s meat and dairy intake. Global Environmental Change, 26(1), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.02.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Frenette, E., Bahn, O., & Vaillancourt, K. (2017). Meat, dairy and climate change: assessing the long-term mitigation potential of alternative agri-food consumption patterns in Canada. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 22(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-016-9522-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. McMichael, A. J., Powles, J. W., Butler, C. D., & Uauy, R. (2007). Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health. Lancet, 370(9594), 1253–1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61256-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. IPCC, de Coninck, H., Revi, A., Babiker, M., Bertoldi, P., Buckeridge, M., … Sugiyama, T. (2018). Strengthening and implementing the global response. In: Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthen.

  36. Clonan, A., Roberts, K. E., & Holdsworth, M. (2016). Socioeconomic and demographic drivers of red and processed meat consumption: implications for health and environmental sustainability. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 75(3), 367–373. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665116000100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Marques, A. C., Fuinhas, J. A., & Pais, D. F. (2018). Economic growth, sustainable development and food consumption: evidence across different income groups of countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.06.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. WWF. (2016). Living planet report 2016: risk and resilience in a new era. Gland, Switzerland.

  39. Pretty, J. (2013). The consumption of a finite planet: well-being, convergence, divergence and the nascent green economy. Environmental and Resource Economics, 55(4), 475–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9680-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., van Otterdijk, R., & Meybeck, A. (2011). Global food losses and food waste. Rome. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0126.

  41. Marques, A. C., & Fuinhas, J. A. (2012). Are public policies towards renewables successful? Evidence from European countries. Renewable Energy, 44, 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.01.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hoechle, D. (2007). Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. Stata Journal, 7(3), 281–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Reed, W. R., & Ye, H. (2011). Which panel data estimator should I use? Applied Economics, 43(8), 985–1000. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840802600087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Beck, N., & Katz, J. N. (1995). What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 634–647. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Eberhardt, M. (2011). Panel time-series modeling: new tools for analyzing xt data. United Kingdom Stata Users’ Group Meetings 2011. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/boc/usug11/22.html

  46. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wursten, J. (2018). Testing for serial correlation in fixed-effects panel models. Stata Journal, 18(1), 76–100 Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tsj/stataj/v18y2018i1p76-100.html.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ozturk, I. (2010). A literature survey on energy–growth nexus. Energy Policy, 38(1), 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Tiba, S., & Omri, A. (2017). Literature survey on the relationships between energy, environment and economic growth. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 69, 1129–1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2016.09.113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Apergis, N., & Tang, C. F. (2013). Is the energy-led growth hypothesis valid? New evidence from a sample of 85 countries. Energy Economics, 38, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.02.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Narayan, P. K., & Popp, S. (2012). The energy consumption-real GDP nexus revisited: empirical evidence from 93 countries. Economic Modelling, 29(2), 303–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2011.10.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Gozgor, G., Lau, C. K. M., & Lu, Z. (2018). Energy consumption and economic growth: New evidence from the OECD countries. Energy, 153, 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2018.03.158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Menegaki, A. N., Marques, A. C., & Fuinhas, J. A. (2017). Redefining the energy-growth nexus with an index for sustainable economic welfare in Europe. Energy, 141, 1254–1268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.09.056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Acaravci, A., & Ozturk, I. (2010). On the relationship between energy consumption, CO2 emissions and economic growth in Europe. Energy, 35(12), 5412–5420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.07.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Rashid Gill, A., Viswanathan, K. K., & Hassan, S. (2018). The environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) and the environmental problem of the day. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 1636–1642. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2017.05.247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Santini, F., Ronzon, T., Perez Dominguez, I., Rene Araujo Enciso, S., & Proietti, I. (2017). What if meat consumption would decrease more than expected in the high-income countries? Bio-based and Applied Economics, 6(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-16372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Apostolidis, C., & McLeay, F. (2016). Should we stop meating like this? Reducing meat consumption through substitution. Food Policy, 65, 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. de Boer, J., Schösler, H., & Aiking, H. (2014). “Meatless days” or “less but better”? Exploring strategies to adapt Western meat consumption to health and sustainability challenges. Appetite, 76, 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Röös, E., Patel, M., Spångberg, J., Carlsson, G., & Rydhmer, L. (2016). Limiting livestock production to pasture and by-products in a search for sustainable diets. Food Policy, 58, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.10.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Pigou, A. (1928). A study in public finance. London: Macmillan and Co. Retrieved from https://www.worldcat.org/title/study-in-public-finance/oclc/2692215.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Lusk, J. L., & Norwood, F. B. (2016). Some vegetarians spend less money on food, others don’t. Ecological Economics, 130, 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.07.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. MCURC. (2016). The Protein Flip. Retrieved from http://www.moccollaborative.org/images/uploads/pdf/Protein_Flip_Strategies_for_College_and_University_Foodservice_high_res1.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2019.

  63. Jallinoja, P., Niva, M., & Latvala, T. (2016). Future of sustainable eating? Examining the potential for expanding bean eating in a meat-eating culture. Futures, 83, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUTURES.2016.03.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Hocquette, J. F. (2016). Is in vitro meat the solution for the future? Meat Science, 120, 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Avetisyan, M., Hertel, T., & Sampson, G. (2014). Is local food more environmentally friendly? The GHG emissions impacts of consuming imported versus domestically produced food. Environmental and Resource Economics, 58(3), 415–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9706-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. FAO. (2018). The Mexican school where pupils plant, harvest and eat together | FAO Stories | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved May 20, 2018, from http://www.fao.org/fao-stories/article/en/c/1142759/

  67. Sandell, M., Mikkelsen, B. E., Lyytikäinen, A., Ojansivu, P., Hoppu, U., Hillgrén, A., & Lagström, H. (2016). Future for food education of children. Futures, 83, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUTURES.2016.04.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Porter, K. J., Koch, P. A., & Contento, I. R. (2018). Why and how schools make nutrition education programs “work”. Journal of School Health, 88(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and detailed suggestions.

Funding

The financial support of the NECE-UBI, Research Unit in Business Science and Economics, sponsored by the Portuguese Foundation for the Development of Science and Technology, project UID/GES/04630/2013, is gratefully acknowledged. The author Daniel Francisco Pais is also grateful to the grant BOLSAS BID/ICI-FCSH/Santander Universidades-UBI/2017.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Management and Economics Department, NECE-UBI, University of Beira Interior, Rua Marquês d’Ávila e Bolama, 6201-001, Covilhã, Portugal

    Daniel Francisco Pais & António Cardoso Marques

  2. NECE-UBI and CeBER, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal

    José Alberto Fuinhas

Authors
  1. Daniel Francisco Pais
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. António Cardoso Marques
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. José Alberto Fuinhas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to António Cardoso Marques.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pais, D.F., Marques, A.C. & Fuinhas, J.A. Reducing Meat Consumption to Mitigate Climate Change and Promote Health: but Is It Good for the Economy?. Environ Model Assess 25, 793–807 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-020-09710-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-020-09710-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation