November 13, 2015 — How much meat does the average American eat annually? 50 pounds (20 kilograms)? 100 pounds (40 kilograms)? Not even close.
If we look just at the livestock “Big Four” — cows, chickens, pigs and sheep — the average American adult consumed 90 kilograms (198 pounds) of meat in 2014, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The global average during that same year was 34 kilograms (75 pounds). By 2024, these numbers are projected to increase to 94.1 kilograms (207.5 pounds) per person in the U.S. and 35.5 kilograms (78.3 pounds) globally.
Thanks to all of this meat eating, at any given point in the year, there are 19 billion chickens, 1.5 billion cows, 1 billion pigs and 1 billion sheep on the planet — more than three times the number of people. And these numbers are set to rise as the human population grows and more people shift toward a meat-based diet. The number of cattle, sheep, goats and buffalo — animals that require quite a bit of land for feed production and grazing — alone is increasing by 25 million annually, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Overall, global meat consumption is projected to increase more than 4 percent per person over the next 10 years. But as the maps below illustrate for a selection of countries and regions around the world, consumption won’t change equally across all types of livestock.
Looking again at the “Big Four,” consumption of poultry and sheep is predicted to rise 10.7 and 9.2 percent respectively, while the beef consumption is projected to remain stagnant and pork consumption will potentially see a 0.7 percent decline around the world compared with 2014 rates.
Why does all of this matter? Because while animal agriculture helps feed the planet, it also has a major impact on the environment. As ecologist Brian Machovina previously wrote at Ensia, “The livestock sector is responsible for approximately 15 percent of all human greenhouse gas emissions, about equivalent to all the direct emissions from transportation.”
Addressing climate change and other environmental challenges requires a better understanding of the parts of the world where meat consumption is predicted to increase — or decrease — over the coming years. And also a recognition that different kinds of livestock have different environmental footprints.
Where’s the Beef?
The map below featuring data from OECD highlights trends in global beef consumption. Of the countries and regions represented, the top five countries for the amount of beef consumed per person in 2014 were Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, the United States and Australia. Between 2014 and 2024 the countries predicted to have the highest percentage increases in per capita consumption of those listed here are Vietnam, Mozambique, Tanzania, Turkey and Indonesia. The total annual per capita consumption of these five countries will still lag far behind the leader — Argentina, which is projected to consume 43.2 kilograms (95.2 pounds) per capita annually.
Poultry Planet
Poultry is — and will remain — the dominant form of livestock on the planet. As The Guardian recently reported, 52 billion chickens are slaughtered each year and this number is likely to rise as consumption increases in places such as China and India. At present the largest per capita consumers of chicken by weight of the countries featured here are Israel, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Australia. Over the next 10 years, Vietnam, Ukraine and China are projected to substantially ramp up consumption.
Pork’s Future Mixed
Globally, pork is projected to see a slight decline in the coming years. Of the major pork-consuming countries and regions, this decline will be the most pronounced in Canada, New Zealand and across the European Union. But not all countries are predicted to see declines. In 2024, the leader among the locations featured here will be Vietnam at 34.5 kilograms (76.1 pounds) per capita — a 19.9 percent increase over 2014.
Sheep Graze Higher
Among the four different types of livestock featured here, mutton and lamb will see the second largest percentage increase in per capita consumption between 2014 and 2024. At 1.9 kilograms (4.2 pounds) per capita consumption in 2024, mutton and lamb will still only constitute a small percentage of the global meat diet.
So what’s the takeaway message? As overall meat consumption continues to rise, the type of meat we consume makes a difference for the environment. As previously reported at Ensia, switching from beef to chicken or pork can significantly reduce diet-related greenhouse gas emissions. Choices we make while eating out or at the supermarket matter when it comes to the question of meat’s impact on the environment.
Ensia shares solutions-focused stories free of charge through our online magazine and partner media. That means audiences around the world have ready access to stories that can — and do — help them shape a better future. If you value our work, please show your support today.
Yes, I'll support Ensia!
The unfortunate thing is that raising animals like this is inhumane and so the only real solution is to eat less meat in general, especially beef.
On page 2 of the Introduction to a 1996 Symposium entitled Biological Effects of Dietary Arachidonic Acid the authors noted that Excessive signaling of arachidonic acid (AA) metabolites has been associated with various chronic degenerative or autoimmune diseases, and intervention with the metabolism of AA is widely employed therapeutically in these afflictions. In essence, AA is the most biologically active unsaturated fatty acid in higher animals. Its concentration in membranes and its magnitude of effects depend on its amount, or that of its precursors and analogues, in the diet. The tendency of the field of nutrition to ignore the role of dietary AA will optimistically be reversed in the future." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8642436/
A 2010 Lipids in Health and Disease article by Norwegian animal science researchers begins: "Chicken meat with reduced concentration of arachidonic acid (AA) and reduced ratio between omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids has potential health benefits because a reduction in AA intake dampens prostanoid signaling, and the proportion between omega-6 and omega-3 fatty acids is too high in our diet. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2875212/
More recently a Siberian Federal University researcher said this: “The dietary value of the Yakutian horse meat is very high precisely due to the ideal balance of polyunsaturated omega-3 and omega-6 acids, 1:1 ratio of these acids is ideal for us, but civilization is steadily shifting the balance towards the predominance of omega-6 due to the dominance of vegetable oils, cheap pork and fast food in our daily diet. We also need omega-6 acids, but in combination with the omega-3 partners, which are found mainly in fatty fish. The horse meat we tested is also very good, especially for child nutrition and the diet of people suffering from cardiovascular diseases. If the population of Yakutia starts consuming mass-market products, which are now imported abundantly into the republic, and makes a choice in favor of, let us say, semi-finished pork products, this may drastically affect people's health. This is just the case when you should not change a time-tested balanced diet,” concluded Olesia Makhmutova. https://www.sfu-kras.ru/en/news/23160
The Norwegian researchers offer this solution to the problem: "It is shown how an unnaturally high omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid concentration ratio in meat, offal and eggs (because the omega-6/omega-3 ratio of the animal diet is unnaturally high) directly leads to exacerbation of pain conditions, cardiovascular disease and probably most cancers. It should be technologically easy and fairly inexpensive to produce poultry and pork meat with much more long-chain omega-3 fatty acids and less arachidonic acid than now, at the same time as they could also have a similar selenium concentration as is common in marine fish. The health economic benefits of such products for society as a whole must be expected vastly to outweigh the direct costs for the farming sector." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3031257/