Best Eco-Friendly Meat?

4 min

Eating less meat is a good idea on both counts. Those who follow plant-based diets have been shown to have a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease and other health concerns than individuals who regularly eat meat, especially red meats and processed meats (bacon, sausage, deli meats, etc.). Raising animals for meat also impacts the environment more than plant agriculture.

United States farmers produce enough meat each year to supply every American with well over 200 pounds of it — about four pounds a week — and that’s not even counting the meat we import. Not everyone eats that much, but some do more than their share: One study found that only 12 percent of Americans are responsible for fully half the beef consumed here. Even so, and even after subtracting the 10 percent of meat production that’s used for pet food and the 15 percent wasted and discarded, the average American is consuming significantly more meat than required to meet our protein needs, and too much for our health and for the good of the planet.

Whether it’s eaten by humans or pets or discarded at a grocery store, restaurant, or home, every pound of meat produced takes a toll on the environment. The billions of animals slaughtered each year for market consume massive resources, including the water and food required to nourish them, the forests cleared and acreage used to house them, and the energy needed to transport them to market. They produce methane gas along with other waste products, which run off into water. Wastewater from livestock may include pathogens that cause diseases in humans, including E. coli, salmonella, giardia, and cryptosporidium, as well as other parasites, bacteria, and viruses. It may also include residues of hormones, antibiotics, and other pharmaceuticals given to the animals.

As a rule, the larger the animal produced for food, the worse the environmental impact. Cattle raised for beef emit nearly 50 kg of greenhouse gases per 100 g of protein produced — that’s more than twice the emission caused by lambs and nearly ten times the emission from poultry or fish. Larger animals need more space, as well. The amount of land worldwide devoted to grazing more than doubled between 1900 and 2000 (from 1.57 billion to 3.32 billion hectares) and continues to grow. That’s land that could be used for growing healthier foods with lesser emissions. Raising livestock also consumes an alarming amount of our planet’s supply of fresh water — primarily to irrigate crops that feed animals, instead of watering plants for human consumption.

A 2025 report from the Technical University of Denmark calculated that an environmentally sustainable level of meat consumption would be about half a pound of pork or poultry per week, with no red meat at all. One 2020 journal article estimated that if Americans completely replaced beef with beans, we could reduce greenhouse gas emissions so much that we could attain 75 percent of our carbon reduction target. While neither of those recommendations is particularly feasible in the United States today, it’s clear that our goal should be to reduce the amount of meat we produce and consume.

You don’t need to give up meat altogether — cutting back helps. A 2023 Gallup poll found that only 4 percent of American adults say they are vegetarian, down a bit from the 6 percent who said that 22 years earlier. The meat-eating majority can improve both their health and the environment by reducing the amount of meat they eat, especially red meat and processed meats. When you do eat meat, choose modest portions of products from small animals.

See also: For Better Health, Prioritize Plant-Based Meals

Andrew Weil, M.D.

Sources
Capodici A, Mocciaro G, Gori D, Landry MJ, Masini A, Sanmarchi F, Fiore M, Coa AA, Castagna G, Gardner CD, Guaraldi F. “Cardiovascular health and cancer risk associated with plant based diets: An umbrella review.” PLoS One. 2024 May 15;19(5):e0300711. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300711. PMID: 38748667; PMCID: PMC11095673. doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0300711

Gebara CH, Berthet E, Vandenabeele MID, Jolliet O, Laurent A. “Diets can be consistent with planetary limits and health targets at the individual level.” Nat Food. 2025 May;6(5):466-477. doi: 10.1038/s43016-025-01133-y. Epub 2025 Mar 21. PMID: 40119219.

Godfray HCJ, Aveyard P, Garnett T, Hall JW, Key TJ, Lorimer J, Pierrehumbert RT, Scarborough P, Springmann M, Jebb SA. “Meat consumption, health, and the environment.” Science. 2018 Jul 20;361(6399):eaam5324. doi: 10.1126/science.aam5324. PMID: 30026199. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih/30026199/

Rust NA, Ridding L, Ward C, Clark B, Kehoe L, Dora M, Whittingham MJ, McGowan P, Chaudhary A, Reynolds CJ, Trivedy C, West N. “How to transition to reduced-meat diets that benefit people and the planet.” Sci Total Environ. 2020 May 20;718:137208. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137208. Epub 2020 Feb 8. PMID: 32088475; PMCID: PMC7184671.  pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih/articles/PMC7184671/

Hannah Ritchie, Pablo Rosado, and Max Roser (2022). “Environmental Impacts of Food Production” Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved from: ourworldindata/environmental-impacts-of-food

Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (2006). Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) Initiative, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. fao/4/a0701e/a0701e00.htm

Willits-Smith A, Odinga H, O’Malley K, Rose D. “Demographic and Socioeconomic Correlates of Disproportionate Beef Consumption among US Adults in an Age of Global Warming.” Nutrients. 2023; 15(17):3795. doi/10.3390/nu15173795