Demand for animal protein is growing. Global consumption of meat is forecast to increase 76 per cent on recent levels by mid-century. A ‘protein transition’ is playing out across the developing world: as incomes rise, consumption of meat is increasing. In the developed world, per capita demand for meat has reached a plateau, but at excessive levels. Among industrialized countries, the average person consumes around twice as much as experts deem healthy. In the United States, the multiple is nearly three times.

This is not sustainable. A growing global population cannot converge on developed-country levels of meat consumption without huge social and environmental cost. Overconsumption of animal products, in particular processed meat, is associated with obesity and an increased risk of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as heart disease, type-2 diabetes and certain types of cancer. Livestock production is often a highly inefficient use of scarce land and water. It is a principal driver of deforestation, habitat destruction and species loss.

Crucially, these consumption trends are incompatible with the objective of avoiding dangerous climate change. The livestock sector is already responsible for 7.1 GtCO2e a year of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – just under 15 per cent of the global total, and equivalent to tailpipe emissions from all the world’s vehicles. Rising demand means emissions will continue to rise. Even with best efforts to reduce the emissions footprint of livestock production, the sector will consume a growing share of the remaining carbon budget. This will make it extremely difficult to realize the goal of limiting the average global temperature rise to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, agreed in 2010 by parties to the UN climate change conference in Cancún.
 
There is therefore a compelling case for shifting diets, and above all for addressing meat consumption. However, governments are trapped in a cycle of inertia: they fear the repercussions of intervention, while low public awareness means they feel no pressure to intervene.
 
This report offers a challenge to the received wisdom that these obstacles are insuperable. Drawing on original research,  including an innovative survey of public attitudes in 12 countries and extensive focus groups and stakeholder consultations in Brazil, China, the United Kingdom and the United States, it suggests how the cycle of inertia can be broken and a positive dynamic of government and societal action created. It argues that although reducing meat and dairy consumption is far from straightforward, it is neither an insurmountable task nor more challenging than other climate imperatives, such as decarbonizing power, industry and transport.
 
Recommendations:

Action is needed on three fronts.
  • build the case for government intervention  – a compelling evidence base that resonates with existing policy objectives such as managing healthcare costs, reducing emissions and implementing international frameworks will help mobilise policy-makers
  • initiate national debates about meat consumption – increasing public awareness about the problems of overconsumption of animal products can help disrupt the cycle of inertia, thereby creating more enabling domestic circumstances and the political space for policy intervention. Governments have a role to play here, as do the media, the scientific community, civil society and responsible business
  • pursue comprehensive approaches – the evidence indicates that shifting diets will require comprehensive strategies drawing on all components of the intervention toolkit. Such strategies will amount to more than the sum of their parts by sending a powerful signal to consumers that reducing meat consumption is beneficial and that government takes the issue seriously. Successful policies will be tailored to national contexts, and may benefit from framing government-led dietary guidance around a positive message of cultural preservation and the promotion of gastronomic diversity

August 11, 2016August 11, 20160
By