Supporting the literature on dietary shifts, multiple global studies explore the relationship between the agricultural sector, various individual food products and greenhouse gas emissions generally, and conclude that animal products, specifically ruminant meat, account for the most emissions of all food products in middle and high income countries.^{19, 20} Beef production produces 5 times more greenhouse gas than the average of the other livestock categories.²¹

The greenhouse gas emissions associated with plant-based proteins are significantly smaller than those associated with animal-based products, so replacing meat with foods such as beans, legumes, lentils, nuts, and soy is key to reducing diet-related emissions. Ruminant meats (beef and lamb) have emissions per gram of protein that are about 250 times those of legumes.²³ A 2019 study found that ruminant meats were the most greenhouse gas-intensive items by serving, energy content, protein or mass. The researchers found that bovine meat was 316, 115, and 40 times more emissions-intensive than pulses (beans and peas), nuts and seeds, and soy, respectively.²⁴

The consensus among relevant studies is that reducing animal-based products and replacing them with plant-based foods is an effective way to reduce dietary greenhouse gas emissions. Although the complete elimination of animal-based foods may not be needed to achieve the necessary greenhouse gas reductions, a priority should be placed on limiting the consumption and production of high-impact meats like beef.

U.S.-focused studies discuss the relative greenhouse gas intensity of meat and dietary shifts as a mechanism to reduce food-related greenhouse gas emissions. One study found that replacing beef with beans could achieve approximately 46% to 74% of the reductions needed to meet President Barack Obama’s 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for the United States.²⁵ Another study found that replacing beef in the diets of U.S. individuals with legumes, nuts and seeds would reduce dietary greenhouse gas emissions for these individuals by 40%, improve the nutritional quality of their diets, and reduce their food costs.²⁶

Many U.S.-focused studies discuss dietary guidelines or related policies as a policy lever for emissions reductions.²⁸ Dietary recommendations that fail to recognize the environmental costs of food production can result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. For example, one study found that a shift from the average U.S. diet to the USDA dietary recommendations could result in a 12% increase in diet-related greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from the increase in dairy consumption.²⁹ According to another study, “Given the evidence and the scale of influence of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans on food systems, incorporating sustainability into them should be prioritized.”³⁰

See Appendix A for a list of studies reviewed for this section.

Read the complete study on University of Michigan’s Center for Sustainable Systems website.

The researchers used USDA’s Loss Adjusted Food Availability dataset as a proxy for the commodity foods consumed in the current US diet. The greenhouse gas emissions associated with producing those foods were determined using an extensive compilation of life cycle assessment literature.³¹

1. The baseline average U.S. diet, based on data for 2016, remains unchanged to 2030;
2. Meat and poultry consumption increase according to USDA projections for 2030;
3. Consumption of animal-based foods (red meat, poultry, fish/seafood, eggs, dairy and animal-based fats) decreases by 50% and is substituted with plant-based foods; and
4. Same projections as scenario 3, but a decrease in beef consumption of 90% instead of 50%.

The emissions from producing the average U.S. diet are 5.0 kg CO2 equivalent (CO2eq) per person per day, with 80% of total diet-related greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods. All animal-based foods account for 82% of total diet-related emissions, with beef responsible for 40% of the total emissions. With USDA-projected increases in meat and poultry consumption (and no changes in consumption of other foods), per capita greenhouse gas emissions would increase to 5.14 kg CO2eq per day in 2030. At this projection 49% of total diet-related emissions would come from meat; 41% of total emissions would come from beef.

The projections significantly change when diets are shifted. Decreasing consumption of animal-based foods by 50% from the baseline would reduce diet-related greenhouse gas emissions by 35% to 3.3. kg CO2eq per person per day. In this scenario 36% of total diet-related emissions would be from meat, with 31% of total emissions from beef.

When beef is further reduced by 90% alongside the 50% reduction for all other animal-based foods, the daily per capita emissions fall to 2.4 kg CO2eq, a 51% decrease from the baseline. With steep reductions in beef consumption, meat is only responsible for 16% of total diet-related emissions and beef for 8% of the total emissions.

Cumulatively these changes are even more significant. Replacing 50% of all animal-based foods with plant-based foods leads to an annual emission reduction of 224 million metric tons of CO2eq (MMT) in 2030. That’s the emissions equivalent of taking 47.5 million cars off the road for a year. The cumulative emissions savings between 2016 and 2030 of shifting 50% of animal-based foods in the baseline diet to plant-based foods would be 1,634 MMT. If 90% of beef were replaced with the 50% reduction in all other animal products, the cumulative emissions savings leap to 2,408 MMT.

Shifting U.S. diets to replace half of animal-based foods with plant-based foods has an annual emissions reduction equivalent to the annual emissions from the energy use of 188.5 million homes or 420 coal-fired power plants. By further reducing beef by 90%, those reductions would be equivalent to the annual emissions from powering nearly 278 million homes or 619 coal-fired power plants.³²

These comparisons are not intended to imply that addressing diet-related emissions can replace a rapid, just transition to 100% renewable energy, but rather to demonstrate that reducing food system emissions is a necessary component of reaching climate targets by 2030. Dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions must come from all sectors to avoid catastrophic climate change, and sizable reductions are possible through dietary shifts and related food policy.

Many people associate diets and other types of consumption with individual choice, but the reality is that those choices are influenced by policies that shape knowledge and cultural norms, affect pricing and drive demand, and determine the availability of different foods.

Individual dietary changes can help shift cultural norms, drive market demand and empower people to get involved in collective action. However, the responsibility for shifting community and national dietary patterns — and thus what types of foods are produced — ultimately falls to policymakers, who must align the policies that shape agricultural prices, food availability and nutrition education with the growing demand and urgent need for fewer animal-based products and more plant-based foods.

Without dietary changes the emissions associated with the average American diet will increase 9% by 2030 due to population growth.³³If meat and poultry consumption increase according to USDA projections, dietary greenhouse gas emissions increase even further. Although it is impossible to predict what Americans will actually consume 10 years from now, the USDA estimates future consumption using a number of assumptions to project food availability, such as macroeconomic forecasts, weather, international developments and agricultural and trade policies including those that affect price, such as subsidies.³⁴

These scenarios show the climate cost of inaction, especially government policies that continue to favor livestock production rather than supporting plant-based diets. To avoid these increased diet-related emissions, policymakers need to acknowledge their role in shaping dietary patterns and strive to create policies that transform both mindsets and purchasing to make healthy, sustainable food more widely acceptable, affordable and accessible.

U.S. policymakers should take immediate steps to accelerate the reduction of beef consumption by 90% and all other animal products by 50% as part of their efforts to address climate change.

Dietary guidelines can also help identify and encourage food-environment and policy approaches to systematize healthy, sustainable eating rather than solely relying on individual choice. The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee noted: “These approaches have the potential for broad and sustained impact at the population level because they can become incorporated into organizational structures and systems and lead to alterations in sociocultural and societal norms. Both policy and environmental changes can also help reduce disparities by improving access to and availability of healthy food in underserved neighborhoods and communities.”³⁶

In short the dietary guidelines have an enormous influence over creating equitable food choices and policies in the United States and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with U.S. dietary patterns.

Sustainable dietary guidance is critical to food security

The purpose of national dietary guidelines is to promote health and food security. The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee found that diets lower in animal-based foods and higher in plant-based foods are aligned with the best available nutrition science and help ensure access to sufficient, nutritious and safe food for current and future generations, since they require fewer resources and support soil health and resiliency.³⁷

In 2019 the Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior published a position on the importance of including environmental sustainability in dietary guidance, stating that “environmental sustainability should be inherent in dietary guidance, whether working with individuals or groups about their dietary choices or in setting national dietary guidance. Improving the nutritional health of a population is a long-term goal that requires ensuring the long-term sustainability of the food system.”³⁸

Low-carbon diets featured in dietary guidance around the world

Several countries around the world have begun integrating climate concerns and other environmental impacts into their national food recommendations. The official guidelines of Brazil, Germany, Qatar and Sweden include sustainability and emphasize plant-based foods while calling on citizens to limit red meat consumption. Government-supported guidance issued in Estonia, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and by the Nordic Council of Ministries (which includes Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) include similar recommendations.³⁹ In 2016 the Chinese Nutrition Society released updated dietary guidelines along with its “Less Meat Less Heat” campaign urging Chinese consumers to cut meat consumption in half from current levels.⁴⁰

One of the most recent and notable updates to national dietary guidance was the revision to the Canada food guide released in January 2019. While the guide focuses on health, it acknowledges the environmental benefits of diets higher in plant-based foods and lower in animal-based foods. It emphasizes plant-based proteins and replaced dairy with water as the beverage of choice.⁴¹ Health Canada made a commitment to develop its latest guidelines based on scientific evidence and free from industry influence, an example the United States should follow.⁴²

The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee considered sustainability in its review of the latest research on diet and nutrition, leading it to conclude that “a diet higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in calories and animal-based foods is more health promoting and is associated with less environmental impact than is the current U.S. diet.” ⁴³

The body of evidence supporting plant-forward diets for the climate, health and food security has only grown since the 2015 advisory committee released its scientific report.⁴⁴ But the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee was prohibited from doing a systematic review of the evidence linking sustainability and healthy diets.⁴⁵ As a result it cannot include sustainability in its nutrition recommendations. But the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans can still include information on the climate impact of food production to educate policymakers, institutional food purchasers and the public.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans should include recommendations and supporting evidence to help shift the American diet toward a major reduction in beef and substantial reduction in all other animal-based foods from current consumption levels. Following the lead of science-based recommendations in other countries this should include limiting meat consumption, particularly red meat, and replacing it with plant-based foods rather than increased consumption of poultry or seafood. The guidelines should emphasize the importance of plant-based foods, including proteins, and replace dairy with water as the beverage of choice.

Finally, the guidelines should acknowledge the importance of dietary shifts in reducing food-related greenhouse gas emissions as well as other environmental impacts and highlight the alignment of sustainable diets with food security and improved public health. At a minimum the guidelines and related education and outreach should place greater emphasis on plant-forward eating, such as vegan and vegetarian diets, and indicate that these healthy dietary patterns are more environmentally sustainable.

2) Increase the availability of plant-based foods in school lunches

Federal school-meal programs like the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program serve approximately 30 million children, who eat nearly 5 billion lunches and more than 2.4 billion breakfasts over the course of a school year.⁴⁶ Many of those meals consist predominantly of meat and dairy products.⁴⁷

Based on a typical high-school menu, outlined by the Institute of Medicine Committee on Nutrition Standards for National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, students consume about eight ounces of ground or processed beef weekly.⁴⁸ Beef-based dishes such as sloppy joes, hamburgers and hotdogs are served three days a week on average. This amounts to 7.7 billion kg CO2eq per school year.⁴⁹

Dairy milk is offered every day in eight-ounce servings as a key part of the USDA’s school-meal requirements, resulting in more than 2.2 billion kg CO2eq each year.⁵⁰

The first step to support healthier, climate-friendly school lunches is to reverse the Trump administration rollbacks to the Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act of 2010. This law set standards for school meals that would make sure kids were receiving more vegetables, fruits and whole-grain rich foods. In a rule proposed January 17, 2020, the USDA would let schools decide how much fruit to offer, what types of vegetables to include in meals. The rule would also broaden the definition of snacks and let schools serve more à la carte meals.⁵¹

Rather than making it easier for schools to replace healthy meals with hamburgers and French fries, the USDA should focus on making sure schools have enough access to fresh fruits and vegetables and the appropriate training on how to serve delicious, appealing, plant-based meals.

Second, the USDA should add more plant-based proteins to the USDA Foods list. While plant-based alternatives that meet nutritional guidelines can replace animal-based meat, there are few such options available through USDA Foods.⁵² Public schools rely on these commodities for 10 to 15 percent of their food purchases.⁵³ For example, many legume varieties are available, but if schools want to serve veggie burgers, tofu, tempeh or plant-based chicken nugget alternatives, they have to source them with limited funds available for commercial purchases, often at a significantly higher cost.⁵⁴

In addition to improving the availability of cost-effective meat alternatives through USDA, federal policymakers should support legislation that would incentivize plant-based meals with additional funding to help offset the low reimbursement rates for school meals and the costs of plant-based foods that don’t currently enjoy the subsidies granted to meat and dairy production.

Finally, USDA should cover the cost of plant-based milk substitutes. Meals with non-dairy milk substitutions are currently reimbursed at the same rate as meals serving cow’s milk, even though government subsidies and surplus purchases keep the cost of dairy lower than plant-based alternatives. Since the federal government does not reimburse additional costs incurred from offering plant-based milks, many schools cannot afford to broadly offer these alternatives to students.

Fully reimbursing plant-based milks would level the playing field, reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with school lunches, and be more inclusive to all students. The American Medical Association adopted a resolution at its 2018 Annual Meeting acknowledging that “lactose intolerance is a common and normal condition among many Americans, especially African Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans.” The association proposed modifying the National School Lunch Act to eliminate requirements that children produce documentation of a special need in order to receive milk alternatives and that DGAs and other federal nutrition guidelines should clearly indicate that meat and dairy products are optional.⁵⁵

3) End subsidies and other government funding schemes that encourage overproduction of meat and dairy

In 2018 the livestock industry received $677 million in subsidies, and more than double that if dairy program and animal-feed subsidies are included. Fruits and vegetables received less than $1 million.⁵⁶ Between 2002 and 2014, U.S. taxpayers lost more than $1 billion due to livestock operators being grossly undercharged for public lands grazing fees.⁵⁷ The USDA has also spent $47.1 million in taxpayer money to purchase 22 million pounds of surplus cheese since 2016, dumping into school lunches and other government programs.⁵⁸
These direct and indirect subsidies suppress the price of meat, distort market demand and encourage overproduction. In one of starkest examples of how government policies help prop up failing industries, as of February 2019, the U.S. had an excess of 1.4 billion pounds of cheese.⁵⁹ Meanwhile, the U.S. doesn’t grow enough vegetables to meet its own federal nutrition recommendations.⁶⁰

If subsidies were shifted to support sustainable agriculture or if livestock producers had to account for the true environmental, health and social costs of production, meat and dairy would be much more expensive.⁶¹

Congress should prohibit programs, including surplus purchases and cash payouts, that distort market demand and incentivize the overproduction of meat and dairy products. The government funding currently supporting feed crops and industrial meat and dairy production should be shifted to support organic and plant-based agriculture for human consumption that produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions and supports climate resilience through improved soil health and biodiversity.

Measures have been passed in several states to promote local food through a statewide, systemic approach.⁶² These have included legislative amendments to direct marketing of fresh fruits and vegetables, task forces to investigate ways to encourage residents to purchase local food, commissioned studies to determine barriers to local food purchases, and policies to increase accessibility to healthy food options. A similar approach can be used to advance climate-friendly, plant-forward diets. Food policy councils can play a role in developing and overseeing these types of measures and integrating climate goals into recommendations for meaningful change.

For example, the Washington State Food Policy Forum convenes cross-sector stakeholders to develop recommendations to improve the food system. The forum’s 2019 report addressed key areas such as food insecurity, barriers to small and mid-size farmers accessing markets, and the impacts of climate change.⁶³ The forum could be tasked with creating recommendations for healthy, sustainable dietary patterns and policies that can improve procurement, accessibility and promotion of plant-based foods to help meet state climate targets. (See municipal recommendations for integrating sustainable diets into climate action plans.)

2) Increase the availability of plant-based foods in schools, agencies and state-owned facilities

State-level procurement policies determine food-purchasing decisions for public universities, healthcare facilities, prisons and other state-funded programs. These policies can shift large institutional purchases toward plant-based foods and influence local procurement policies (see municipal recommendations for more information). Specific procurement targets should be set that reduce purchases of beef by 90% and other animal-based foods by 50% while increasing plant-based options.

Procurement policies that require more plant-based foods can be an effective way to shift dietary choices. Simply doubling the proportion of vegetarian meals in university cafeterias increased vegetarian sales by as much as 79%, with the most significant change among diners who previously were least likely to choose the vegetarian option.⁶⁴

State procurement policies can also ensure that more people have access to plant-based foods, particularly individuals who have little choice about what they get to eat. California SB 1138, passed in 2018, requires licensed healthcare facilities and prisons to make plant-based meals available to the people in their care. The bill recognizes the health benefits of plant-based meals as well as their ability to meet most religious, ethical and food sensitivity concerns.⁶⁵

Although school meal programs are administered by the USDA (see federal policy recommendations), state policymakers can make it easier for schools to purchase healthier food. Farm to school programs provide funding and change procurement processes to ease access to local food. Salad bars created through these programs have been shown to increase vegetable consumption at schools by as much as 84%.⁶⁶

Many states provide reimbursements, grants and other additional funding to help schools stretch their limited budgets to improve the quality of school meals.⁶⁷ Funding for nutritious, healthy meals for kids should be available in every state. Policymakers can go one step further and incentivize plant-based foods and dairy alternatives. A bill introduced in California offers additional per-meal reimbursements for meals that include plant-based options, as well as providing financial aid to meet infrastructure needs for plant-based food preparation and menu changes, such as cafeteria equipment, technical assistance and student engagement.⁶⁸

3) Increase funding and technical support for farmers’ markets, community gardens and urban agriculture to improve access to fresh fruits and vegetables

Many local and regional food initiatives that increase access to fresh, affordable plant-based foods and build food-system resilience can benefit from state-level support. For example, farmers’ markets are mostly regulated at the state and local levels, which gives state policymakers the opportunity to remove barriers to farmers participating in markets, promote farmers’ markets to residents, and provide guidance to the state’s rules and regulations for farmers and operators.⁶⁹ State legislatures can provide funds to support development, renovation and maintenance. Finally, state policymakers can help give farmers the resources they need to accept SNAP, WIC and seniors’ nutrition program benefit, which can help increase produce sales.⁷⁰

Similarly, state policy that makes it easier for people to establish community gardens and urban agriculture projects can revitalize communities and provide additional access to fresh, local produce. This can include allowing gardens in public spaces and in lieu of lawns and allowing sales of the fruits and vegetables grown in these gardens to help them become financially sustainable. By providing information for students and seniors, these projects can also become educational opportunities about food system resilience and climate-friendly diets.

Fourteen cities around the world signed onto the C40 Good Food Cities Declaration at the C40 World Mayors Summit in 2019. The declaration acknowledges food as a leading source of consumption-based emissions and urges mayors to introduce policies that make low-carbon food more affordable and accessible. Among those policies is a pledge to align procurement policies to the Planetary Health Diet, which focuses on vegetables, fruits, whole grains, plant proteins and modest amounts of animal proteins.⁷²

In the United States several cities including Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and New York have adopted the Good Food Purchasing Program, a framework to align food purchasing with five core values: local economies, valued workforce, environmental sustainability, nutrition and animal welfare.⁷³

The values of the program as a whole, and within the environmental sustainability standards, represent many interconnected issues that are important components of a just transition to a sustainable food system. However, in order to achieve meaningful reductions in food-related greenhouse gas emissions, cities adopting the program will have to not only increase menu options with lower carbon footprints but decrease purchases of high-intensity animal-based options.

2) Increase the availability and acceptance of plant-based options

Local policymakers can also adopt initiatives that help their communities reduce meat and dairy consumption by increasing the availability, affordability and acceptance of plant-based options across towns and cities.

These policies will help raise awareness about the connection between livestock production and climate change and can offer marketing cues at the point of purchase to influence customers’ willingness to choose plant-based options, reduce consumption of animal-based foods, and increase support for government action to curb diet-related greenhouse gas emissions.⁷⁴

Communities can only shift toward climate-friendly diets if plant-based options are widely available. In 2019 Los Angeles councilmember Paul Koretz introduced a motion directing city facilities and services such as parks, the zoo, and Meals on Wheels to report on currently available vegan options and how they plan to make sure those options are available on an ongoing basis. The motion also explores the feasibility of plant-based food concessionaires in each airport terminal, a minimum of one vegan entrée being available at all other airport restaurants, and a potential future ordinance requiring all large-scale entertainment venues in the city that sell food to provide at least one vegan option.⁷⁵

Ensuring a minimum of one plant-based entrée is aligned with reducing the carbon footprint of menus, appealing to the growing consumer interest in plant-based foods, and offering more inclusive options as plant-based meals are consistent with a range of religious, ethical and medical dietary restrictions.

Another popular option for increasing the availability and acceptance of plant-based foods is to join the Meatless Monday movement. Meatless Monday was founded in association with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health to encourage people to cut meat from their diets one day a week for their own health and the health of the planet.⁷⁶ Green Monday is a similar global effort, started in Asia, that focuses on reducing meat consumption to benefit the climate and food security.⁷⁷ While replacing meat just one day a week won’t be enough to achieve the necessary reductions in food-related emissions, Meatless or Green Mondays are a great way to introduce people to plant-based foods and begin the cultural shift needed for more ambitious dietary changes.

Meatless or Green Monday resolutions can take a variety of forms, such as adopting Meatless or Green Mondays in government offices, passing official proclamations urging institutions and businesses across cities to participate, and encouraging schools, hospitals and restaurants to feature meatless meals one day a week.⁷⁸ Participating institutions may choose to serve an entirely meat-free menu on Mondays or actively promote meatless dishes in their cafeterias and on social media. The more these efforts can be widely adopted and promoted, the more effective they will be in raising the profile and social acceptance of plant-based eating.

There are several other barriers to healthy, sustainable eating, such as lack of access to affordable, fresh produce and knowledge gaps around cooking and nutrition, that can be addressed on the local level. Policies that support farmers’ markets and solutions such as no-fee grocery delivery can help make fresh, healthy food more accessible.⁷⁹ Partnerships between food banks, community gardens, local chefs, healthcare workers and sustainability advocates can help educate diverse audiences on how — and why — to prepare appealing plant-based meals. Transforming diets and local food systems will require this kind of creative, community-based collaboration across sectors.

3) Integrate sustainable diets in climate action plans

Many cities use sector-based greenhouse gas inventories focused primarily on accounting for emissions from energy use within city boundaries and those generated from waste treatment. However, the climate impacts of city policies and activities reach far beyond their borders. By using a consumption-based approach, cities can capture direct and lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from goods and services consumed by their residents.⁸⁰

Recognizing the climate contribution of meat and dairy and the mitigation opportunities of dietary shifts in climate action plans can help raise public awareness of the connection between food and climate.⁸¹ Through consumption-based accounting and identifying specific steps, climate action plans can move beyond education and individual action to creating a policy environment that supports a climate-friendly local food system.

For example, the climate action plan for the city of Portland and Multnomah County in Oregon includes a section on food and agriculture, with specific timebound actions and lead agencies assigned to their development and implementation. These actions include low-carbon food choices in public and business outreach (including skills development), efforts to encourage plant-based diets, collaborative partnerships to promote low-carbon diets and affordability and access, integration of sustainable food system issues into land-use planning and purchasing policies.⁸²

In the study the authors note that the annual emissions reduction associated with decreasing consumption of all animal-based foods by half represents 24% of the reduction from the 2017 emissions required to meet the U.S. Intended Nationally Determined Contribution in the Paris Agreement, with the steeper reductions in beef consumption bringing emissions 36% closer to the U.S. Nationally Determined Contribution.⁸³

Because the U.S. Nationally Determined Contribution is not sufficient to meet the Paris Agreement climate targets, other approaches have estimated an equitable U.S. “fair share” of emissions reductions needed to achieve Paris targets. Using an equity approach based on responsibility and capability, the U.S. fair share of emissions reductions for meeting a 1.5 degree Celsius Paris target equates to cutting U.S. domestic emissions by at least 60 to 70% below 2005 levels by 2030.⁸⁴ A diet-related reduction of 224 MMT, derived from halving U.S. consumption of all animal-based foods, would represent 5 to 6% of the "fair share" domestic emissions reductions in 2030 from 2016 levels that are consistent with meeting a 1.5 degree Celsius target. By reducing beef consumption by 90% and all other animal-based foods by 50%, diet-related emissions could contribute 8 to 9% of the domestic reductions needed to meet equitable climate targets for the United States.⁸⁵

These dietary shifts will require ambitious, transformative changes. A 90% decrease in beef from the current average would result in consumption of only four pounds of beef per person per year, or about 16 hamburgers annually. That amounts to one beef burger every three to four weeks, compared to the current consumption of three hamburgers per person every week. Even with plant-based foods becoming increasingly mainstream, achieving the necessary diet-related emissions reductions will require a shift in how American think about their diets.⁸⁶

This report has outlined a number of pathways governments can take to accelerate the shift from high consumption of animal-based foods toward diets higher in plant-based foods. By bringing together food policy and climate policy, governments can provide a foundation for a healthy, climate-friendly food system.

Literature Reviewed

1. Willits-Smith, A., Aranda, R., Heller, M.C., and Rose, D. 2020. Addressing the carbon footprint, healthfulness, and costs of self-selected diets in the USA: a population-based cross-sectional study. Lancet Planetary Health. 4:e98-106.
2. Rose, D., Heller, M.C., Willits-Smith, A.M., and Meyer, R.J. 2019. Carbon footprint of self-selected US diets: nutritional, demographic, and behavioral correlates. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 108:1-9.
3. Kim, B.F., R.E. Santo, A.P. Scatterday, J.P. Fry, C.M. Synk, S.R. Cebron, M.M. Mekonnen, A.Y. Hoekstra, S. de Pee, M.W. Bloem, R.A. Neff, and K.E. Nachman. 2019. Country-specific dietary shifts to mitigate climate and water crises. Global Environmental Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.010.
4. Hitaj, C., S. Rehkamp, P. Canning, C.J. Peters. 2019. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States Food System: Current and Healthy Diet Scenarios. Environ Sci Technol. 53 (9).
5. Irz, X., J.D. Jensen, P. Leroy, V. Requillart, L-G. Soler. 2019. Promoting climate-friendly diets: What should we tell consumers in Denmark, Finland and France? Environmental Science & Policy. 99: 169-177.
6. Swain, M., L. Blomqvist, J. McNamara, W.J. Ripple. 2019. Reducing the environmental impact of global diets. Science of The Total Environment. 610-611: 1207-1209.
7. Chai, B.J., J.R. van der Voort, K. Grofelnik, H.G. Eliasdottir, I. Kloss, F. Perez-Cuerto. 2019. Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets. Sustainability. 11(15).
8. Magkos, F., I. Tetens, S.G. Bugel, C. Felby, S.R. Schacht, J.O. Hill, E. Ravussin, and A. Astrup. 2019. A Perspective on the Transition to Plant-based Diets: a Diet Change May Attenuate Climate Change, but Can It Also Attenuate Obesity and Chronic Disease Risk? Advances in Nutrition. 11 (1).
9. Batlle-Bayer, L., A. Bala, I. Garcia-Herrero, E. Lemaire, G. Song, R. Aldaco, P. Fullana-i-Palmer.  2019. The Spanish Dietary Guidelines: A potential tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of current dietary patterns. Journal of Cleaner Production. 213: 588-589.
10. Corrado, S., G. Luzzani, M. Trevisan, L. Lamastra. 2019. Contribution of different life cycle stages to the greenhouse gas emissions associated with three balanced dietary patterns. 660: 622-630.
11. Blackstone, N.T., N.H. El-Abbadi, M.S. McCabe, T.S. Griffin, and M.E. Nelson. 2018. Linking sustainability to the healthy eating patterns of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans: a modelling study. The Lancet: Planetary Health. 2 (8).
12. Van de Kamp, M.E., C. van Dooren, A. Hollander, M. Geurts, E.J. Brink, C. van Rossum, S. Biesbroek, E. de Valk, I.B. Toxopeus, E. Temme. 2018. Healthy diets with reduced environmental impact? The greenhouse gas emissions of various diets adhering to the Dutch food based dietary guidelines. Food Research International. 104: 14-24.
13. Arrieta, E.M. and A.D. Gonzalez. 2018. Impact of current, National Dietary Guidelines and alternative diets on greenhouse gas emissions in Argentina. Food Policy, Elsevier, 79(C): 58-66.
14. Niles, M.T., R. Ahuja, J. Esquivel, S. Gutterman, M.C. Heller, N. Mango, D. Portner, R. Raimond, C. Tirado, and S. Vermeulen. 2018. Climate change mitigation beyond agriculture: a review of food system opportunities and implications. 33: 297-308.
15. Heller, M.C., A. Willits-Smith, R. Meyer, G.A. Keoleian, and D.Rose. 2018. Greenhouse gas emissions and energy use associated with production of individual self- selected US diets. Environmental Research Letters. 3 (4).
16. Yau, Y.Y., B. Thibodeau, and C. Not. 2018. Impact of cutting meat intake on hidden greenhouse gas emissions in an import-reliant city. Environmental Research Letters. 13 (6).
17. Seconda, L., J. Baudry, B. Alles, C. Boizot-Szantai, L-G. Soler, P. Galan, S. Hercberg, B. Langevin, D. Lairon, P. Pointereau, and E. Kesse-Guyot. 2018. Comparing nutritional, economic, and environmental performances of diets according to their levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Climatic Change. 148 (11).
18. Ritchie, H., D.S. Reay, and P. Higgins. 2018. The impact of global dietary guidelines on climate change. 49: 46-55.
19. Rao, N.D., J. Min, R. DeFries, S. Ghosh-Jerath, H. Valin, and J. Fanzo. 2018. Healthy, affordable and climate-friendly diets in India. Global Environmental Change. 49: 154-165.
20. Behrens, P., J.C. Kiefte-de Jong, T. Bosker, J.F.D. Rodrigues, A. de Koning, and A. Tukker. 2017. Evaluating the environmental impacts of dietary recommendations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114 (51).
21. Wynes, S. and K.A. Nicholas. 2017. The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environmental Research Letters. 12 (7).
22. Hyland, J.J. M.B. McCarthy, M. Henchion & S.N. McCarthy. 2017. Dietary emissions patterns and their effect on the overall climatic impact of food consumption. International Journal of Food Science + Technology. 52 (12).
23. Hallström, E., Q. Gee, P. Scarborough, D.A. Cleveland. 2017. A healthier US diet could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from both the food and health care systems. Climatic Change. 142: 199-212.
24. Harwatt, H., J. Sabaté, G. Eshel, S. Soret, and W. Ripple. 2017. Substituting beans for beef as a contribution toward US climate change targets. Climatic Change. 143: 261–270.
25. White, R.R. and M.B. Hall. 2017. Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114 (48).
26. Kumari, S. M. Hiloidhari, N. Kumari, S.N. Naik, R.P. Dahiya. 2017. Climate change impact of livestock CH4 emission in India: Global temperature change potential (GTP) and surface temperature response. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 147: 516-522.
27. Wei, S., Z.H. Bai, D. Chadwick, Y.Hou, W.Qin, Z.Q. Zhao, R.F. Jiang, L.Ma. 2017. Greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions and mitigation options from livestock production in peri-urban agriculture: Beijing, A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production. 178: 515-525.
28. Hyland, J.J., M.B. McCarthy, M. Henchion, and S.N. McCarthy. 2017. Dietary emissions patterns and their effect on the overall climatic impact of food consumption. Food Science + Technology. 52 (12).
29. Va´zquez-Rowe, I., G. Larrea-Gallegos, P. Villanueva-Rey, A. Gilardino. 2017. Climate change mitigation opportunities based on carbon footprint estimates of dietary patterns in Peru. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188182.
30. Vetter, S.H., T.B. Sapkota, J. Hillier, C.M. Stirling, J.I. Macdiarmid, L. Aleksandrowicz, R. Green, E.J.M. Joy, A.D. Dangour, P. Smith. 2017. Greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural food production to supply Indian diets: Implications for climate change mitigation. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 237: 234-241.
31. Quam, V.G.M., J. Rocklov, M.B.M. Quam, and R.A.I. Lucas. 2017. Assessing greenhouse gas emissions and health co-benefits: a structured review of lifestyle-related climate change mitigation strategies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 14 (5).
32. Yue, Q., X. Xu, J. Hillier, K. Cheng, and G. Pan. 2017. Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture: From farm production to food consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production. 149: 1011-1019.
33. Bryngelsson, D., F. Hedenus, D.J.A. Johansson, C. Azar, S. Wirsenius. 2017. How do dietary choices influence the energy-system cost of stabilizing the climate? Energies. 10 (2).
34. Rojas-Downing, M.M., A.P. Nejadhashemi, T. Harrigan, S.A. Woznicki. 2017. Climate change and livestock: Impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Climate Risk Management. 16: 145-163.
35. Song, G., M. Li, P. Fullana-i-Palmer, D. Williamson, and Y. Wang. 2017. Dietary changes to mitigate climate change and benefit public health in China. The Science of the Total Environment. 577: 289-299.
36. Balter, K., C. Sjors, A. Sjolander, C. Gardner, F. Hedenus, and A. Tillander. 2017. Is a diet low in greenhouse gas emissions a nutritious diet?–Analyses of self-selected diets in the LifeGene study. Archives of Public Health. 75 (17).
37. Horgan, G.W., A. Perrin, S. Whybrow, and J.I. Macdiarmid. 2016. Achieving dietary recommendations and reducing greenhouse gas emissions: modelling diets to minimise the change from current intakes. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 13: 46.
38. Springmann, M., H.C.J. Godfray, M. Rayner, P. Scarborough. 2016. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. PNAS. 113 (15).
39.  Clune, S., E. Crossin, K. Verghese. 2016. Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories. Journal of Cleaner Production. 140: 766-783.
40.  Aleksandrowicz, L., R. Green, E.J.M. Joy, P. Smith, A.Haines. 2016. The Impacts of Dietary Change on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use, Water Use, and Health: A Systematic Review. PLoS One. 11 (11).
41. Bryngelsson, D., S. Wirsenius, F. Hedenus, and U. Sonesson. 2016. How can the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of technological and demand-side changes in food and agriculture. Food Policy. 59: 152-164.
42. Perignon, M., G. Masset, G. Ferrari, T. Barre, F. Vieux, M. Maillot, M.J. Amiot, N. Darmon. 2016. How low can dietary greenhouse gas emissions be reduced without impairing nutritional adequacy, affordability and acceptability of the diet? A modelling study to guide sustainable food choices. Public Health Nutrition. 19 (14).
43. Herrero, M., B. Henderson, P. Havlik, P.K. Thornton, R.T. Cornant, P. Smith, S. Wirsenius, A.N. Hristov, P. Gerber, M. Gill, K. Butterback-Bahl, H. Valin, T. Garnett, and E. Stefest. 2016. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nature Climate Change. 6: 452-461.
44. Sjors, C., S.E. Raposo, A. Sjolander, O. Balter, F. Hedenus, and K. Balter. 2016. Diet-related greenhouse gas emissions assessed by a food frequency questionnaire and validated using 7-day weighed food records. Environmental Health. 15 (15).
45. Wickramasinghe, K.K., M. Rayner, M. Goldacre, N. Townsend, P. Scarborough. 2016. Contribution of healthy and unhealthy primary school meals to greenhouse gas emissions in England: linking nutritional data and greenhouse gas emission data of diets. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 70 (10).
46. Strapasson, A., J. Woods, K. Mbuk. 2016. Land use futures in Europe: how changes in diet, agricultural practices and forestlands could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Imperial College London, Grantham Institute Briefing paper No 17.
47. Heller, M.C. and G.A. Keoleian. 2015. Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates of U.S. Dietary Choices and Food Loss. Journal of Industrial Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12174
48. Tom, M.S., P.S. Fischbeck, C.T. Hendrickson. 2015. Energy use, blue water footprint, and greenhouse gas emissions for current food consumption patterns and dietary recommendations in the US. Environment Systems and Decisions. 36: 92-103.  
49. Bennetzen, E.H., P. Smith, J.R. Porter. 2015. Decoupling of greenhouse gas emissions from global agricultural production: 1970–2050. Global Change Biology. 22 (2).
50. Hallstrom, E., A. Carlsson-Kanyama, P. Borjesson. 2015. Environmental impact of dietary change: a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production. 91: 1-11.
51. Milner, J., R. Green, A.D. Dangour, A. Haines, Z. Chalabi, J. Spadaro, A. Markandya, P. Wilkinson. 2015. Health effects of adopting low greenhouse gas emission diets in the UK. BMJ Open. 5 (4).
52. Green, R., J. Milner, A.D. Dangour, A. Haines, Z. Chalabi, A. Markandya, J. Spadaro, and P. Wilkinson. 2015. The potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the UK through healthy and realistic dietary change. Climatic Change. 129: 253-265.
53. Reynolds, C.J., J.I. Macdiarmid, S. Whybrow, G. Horgan and J. Kyle. 2015. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with sustainable diets in relation to climate change and health. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 74 (OCE5).
54. Westhoek, H., J.P. Lesschen, G.A. Rood, S. Wagner, A. De Marco, D. Murphy-Bokern, A. Leip, H. van Grinsven, M.A. Sutton, O. Oenema. 2014. Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe’s meat and dairy intake. Global Environmental Change. 26 (1).
55. Eshel, G., A. Shepon, T. Makov, and R. Milo. 2014. Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, and reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs, and dairy production in the United States. PNAS. 111 (33).
56. Tilman, D. and M. Clark. 2014. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature. 515: 518-522.
    

6. Implications of Future U.S. Diet Scenarios on Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Heller, et al, 2020) found that replacing 90% of beef and 50% of other animal-based foods in the U.S. diet with plant-based foods would reduce lead to a cumulative savings in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of 2,408 million metric tonnes CO2eq (MMT) between 2016 and 2030. According to the EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, that’s the equivalent of taking more than 500 million cars off the road for a year. Navigant Research estimates there are approximately 1.2 billion cars on the road. See: https://www.navigantresearch.com/reports/transportation-forecast-light-duty-vehicles .