MEAT ATLAS
Facts and figures about the animals we eat

2021

IMPRINT
The MEAT ATLAS 2021 is jointly published byHeinrich Böll Stiftung, Berlin, Germany
Friends of the Earth Europe, Brussels, Belgium
Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz, Berlin, Germany
Chief executive editors:
Christine Chemnitz, Heinrich Böll Foundation (project management)
Stanka Becheva, Friends of the Earth Europe
Managing editor, graphics research: Dietmar Bartz
Art director, graphic development: Ellen Stockmar
English edition
Editor: Paul Mundy
Proofreader: Rachel Glassberg
German edition
Chief sub-editor: Elisabeth Schmidt-Landenberger
Documentation and final editing: Andreas Kaizik, Sandra Thiele (Infotext GbR)
Contributors: Francesco Ajena, Isis Alvarez, Stanka Becheva, Reinhild Benning, Milena Bernal Rubio, Peter Birke,
Christine Chemnitz, Inka Dewitz, Thomas Fatheuer, Lukas Paul Fesenfeld, Harald Grethe, Carla Hoinkes, Heike Holdinghausen,
Philip Howard, Kristin Jürkenbeck, Kamal Kishore, Ilse Köhler-Rollefson, Silvie Lang, Jonas Luckmann, Bettina Müller,
Lia Polotzek, Thorsten Reinsch, Hanni Rützler, Maureen Schulze, Shefali Sharma, Achim Spiller, Lisa Tostado, Mia Watanabe,
Katrin Wenz, Sabine Wichmann, Stephanie Wunder, Anke Zühlsdorf
Cover image: Ellen Stockmar, image editing: Roland Koletzki
The views do not necessarily reflect those of all partner organizations.
The maps show the areas where data are collected and do not make any statement about political affiliation.
Editorial responsibility (V. i. S. d. P.): Annette Maennel, Heinrich Böll Foundation
1st edition, September 2021
This material – except the cover image, publication covers and logos – is licensed under the Creative Commons “Attribution 4.0
International” (CC BY 4.0). For the licence agreement, see https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode, anda summary (not a substitute) at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en. Individual graphics from this atlas may
be reproduced if the attribution “Bartz/Stockmar, CC BY 4.0” is placed next to the graphic.

Friends of the Earth Europe gratefully acknowledges financial assistance from the European Commission (LIFE Programme). The sole
responsibility for the content of this document lies with Friends of the Earth Europe. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of thefunder mentioned above. The funder cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

FOR DOWNLOADS
Heinrich Böll Stiftung, www.eu.boell.org/meatatlas
Friends of the Earth Europe, www.friendsoftheearth.eu/meatatlas-2021

MEAT ATLAS
Facts and figures about the animals we eat

2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
16 MERCOSUR
TRADING AWAY THE ENVIRONMENTThe Association Agreement between
the European Union and the Mercosur
countries raises concerns with regards
to meat and feed, as well as the rainforest
and the climate. Meanwhile, the EU is worried
about cheap imports, and resistanceis growing. Whether the deal will actually
come into force is questionable.

18 PRODUCTION
PROBLEM FOODSAND THEIR PRODUCERS
02 IMPRINT
08 INTRODUCTION
10 TWELVE BRIEF LESSONSABOUT MEAT AND THE WORLD
12 CONSUMPTIONEVERYDAY FOOD AND LUXURY GOOD
The global demand for meat continues torise due to economic and population growth,
but at a slower pace than 10 years ago. Poultry
accounts for an increasingly large share of
consumption. Large differences remain in
consumption per capita between countries andamong population groups.

14 WORLD TRADEIN LORRIES AND SHIPS
Trade in meat and live animals is relatively new
and growing fast. Disease outbreaks, sanitary
restrictions and trade policies can lead to big
swings in trade flow. The big four players are
China – which dominates import markets –as well as the USA, Brazil and the EU, which
provide most exports.

4 MEAT ATLAS 2021

The world’s meat production has grown
rapidly, fed by rising demand andmade possible by technological advancesin livestock farming. But this has hadserious consequences for animal welfare
and small-scale producers.

20 ABATTOIRSCHOPPING BUT NOT CHANGING
Covid-19 outbreaks in abattoirs and processing
plants are just the latest in a long list of
problems in the meat industry. Low wages,
hard work, and precarious employment
are the price that workers pay to supply us
with cheap meat. The industry is
attempting to dodge its responsibility toprovide decent conditions for its staff.

22 MEAT WASTE
A LOT LESS THAN THE WHOLE HOG
The meat industry used to be famous
for using “everything about the hog except
the squeal”. But a large proportion of
the livestock raised for food do not end up
as food. Many die, or are killed, before
they reach the slaughterhouse, and evenmore meat is wasted between the factory
and the plate.

24 LAND CONFLICTS
CUTTING DOWN FORESTS,CARVING UP PASTURESIn South America, natural vegetation is
being turned into pastureland andmonocultures to support an unsustainable
form of livestock production. In Africa
and Asia, a sustainable form of livestockraising is losing ground to industrialized
agriculture. Traditional local
communities are on the losing end.

26 COMPANIESDOMINATING THE MARKET
FROM FARM TO DISPLAY CASE
Global meat companies play a major rolein determining how meat and feed are
produced, transported and traded.
Food is big business: the 100 largest foodand beverage firms around the world
include 10 main meat producers andprocessors.

28 FINANCE
BIG BUCKS FOR BIG FIRMS
Big Meat attracts big money. Both private
and public investors pour money into meatand dairy corporations, further boosting
their market power and fuelling yet more
consolidation in an already concentrated
industry. The environmental and social
damage caused by the industry is largely
overlooked.

30 GENDER AND POVERTYYET MORE UNPAID WORKIn many countries, women do most of the
farm work, but they are not allowed tomake most of the decisions. They have tobalance caring for their children and elderly
parents with looking after the chickens andgoats. Livestock can be a welcome sourceof extra money, but may also mean more
work. And if selling eggs and milk becomes
more profitable, men very often take charge.

32 FEED
SOY, FOREST, AND SAVANNA
More than one-third of all crops worldwide
end up in the stomachs of livestock.
That includes one billion tonnes a yearof soybeans and maize alone. The feed
and livestock industries want to increasethat even further.

34 CLIMATEA LIGHTER HOOFPRINT
Livestock’s share of global greenhousegas emissions is understated. The climate
footprint of the animals and the feed
they need is significant. There are ways
to change that.

36 PESTICIDESBANNED BY BRUSSELS,ALLOWED IN THE AMAZON
Pesticide applications are on the rise acrossthe globe. Some of the most dangerous
substances have been banned in theEuropean Union, but are still being used ona large scale in other parts of the world.
Many are intended for the cultivationof soybean and maize, which are destined
mainly for use as livestock feed.

38 WATERTHIRSTY ANIMALS, THIRSTY CROPS
All animal products have a water footprint:
the amount of water needed to produce
them. It is not just the total amountthat is important, but the types of waterthat are needed. There is enough“green” water. But the volumes of “blue”
and “grey” water should be kept low.

MEAT ATLAS 2021

5

40 FERTILIZERSTOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING
Nitrogen pollution from livestock manure
is an increasing problem in many partsof the world. Countries in the European
Union have lots of ideas on how to reducesuch contamination of their environments.
One approach is through closer monitoringof industrial livestock producers andrestricting the amount of manure slurrythat crop farmers are allowed to apply.

42 REWETTINGGIVE PEAT A CHANCE
Across the globe, peatlands are being
drained for farming and raising livestock.
But dried-out peat emits huge amountsof greenhouse gases. Agricultural
policy should initiate the transition to theclimate-friendly use of these areas.

44 ANTIBIOTICSUSELESS MEDICINES
Antibiotics help to treat many diseases.
The big problem: in both humans andanimals, pathogens can develop antibiotic
resistance – a fatal danger. And inindustrial livestock production, these drugs
are still not being used carefully enough.

46 PANDEMICS
DANGEROUS CONTACTS
Livestock production and meat consumption
stimulate outbreaks of diseases that canbe transmitted from wild animals to humans.
Such zoonoses can have catastrophic
consequences – as Covid-19 has shown.

48 PASTORALISM
BOUNTY FROM A BARREN LAND
Mobile herders move with their herds orflocks in the remotest of pastures. This form

6 MEAT ATLAS 2021

of animal production, known as pastoralism,is economically important and climatefriendly, but it is under severe threat.

50 PASTORALISM IN INDIARANGELAND, NOT WASTELAND
India is the world’s largest exporterof buffalo, sheep and goat meat. Remarkably,
the majority of this output is producedin traditional agropastoral systems.

52 ACTIVE STATE
THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF
TRANSFORMING THE MEAT SYSTEM
Representative surveys in various
countries have found a surprising amountof public support for reduced consumptionof meat. Policymakers must find theright package and sequence of measures
to stimulate the transition to a moresustainable future.

54 THE EUROPEAN UNIONCOMMON LIVESTOCK POLICY
Intensive livestock production
creates environmental and animal welfare
problems. Reforms currently being
considered to the EU’s Common Agricultural
Policy do not go nearly far enough toresolve these. But improvements can bemade even within the current system.

56 LABEL
THREE STARS FOR A BETTER LIFE
Buy meat from a supermarket, and you
can probably choose between organic andnon-organic. But with the non-organic
products, you have no way of telling whether
the animal was treated well, or was stuck
in a pen with little room to move. Calls
are growing for meat labels that show theconditions under which the animals are raised.

58 EU STRATEGIESA GOOD START, BUT
COULD TRY HARDER
As part of its Green Deal, the European
Commission has proposed a “Farmto Fork Strategy”. This is the EU’s mostcoherent attempt yet to respond to thefundamental challenges plaguing thefood system. But much will dependon converting grand-soundingwords into actual policies.

60 LAB MEATCELLSTOCK VS LIVESTOCK
Lab-grown meat is a disruptive
innovation that could help resolve
sustainability and health issues
related to livestock, as well as
reduce the numbers of animals
farmed. But the sustainability gains
do not yet match expectations.

62 INSECTS AS FOOD
SNACKING ON SILKWORMS,
LUNCHING ON LOCUSTS
Adding insects to our menus
could help overcome the world’s
food supply problems. But theindustrial production of insects is
controversial: would it beuseful or dangerous?

66 ACTIVISMPRESSURE FROM BELOW
Civil society is a sometimes
underestimated stakeholder inthe food system. Supporting
sustainable production andcriticizing industrialized agriculture,
it influences public opinion andhabits and demands better policies
and international solidarity.
And it can hold governments andcompanies accountable for theiractions, while offering solutions.

68 SURVEY ON YOUTH
CHANGING HABITS
Young people in Germany – the“Fridays for Future generation” – eat
less meat than their elders. Their
attitudes and habits are likely to steer
food consumption and policy inthe coming decades. Results of arepresentative survey.

72 AUTHORS AND SOURCES
FOR DATA AND GRAPHICS
74 ABOUT US

64 MEAT SUBSTITUTESA NEW SECTOR EMERGES
Vegan and vegetarian alternatives
to meat are gaining popularity
fast – making them tastier for
big firms, too. Competition is likely
to flare up around in-vitro
meat: start-ups developing
lab-grown products are sprouting
everywhere.

MEAT ATLAS 2021

7

INTRODUCTIONO

ne of the key demands of
Fridays for Future, the youth
climate movement, is “Listen
to science!” In the age of Covid-19,
governments frequently consult
scientists and adapt policies to theiradvice. Scientists have also beenstressing for over a decade that a
climate- and biodiversity-friendly dietcontains less than half the amountof meat consumed in industrializedcountries today.
However, an ambitious and dedicatedpolitical shift in agriculture and foodpolicy to tackle the climate crisis
seems far away. The food and farming
sector in industrialized countries,
which accounts for about one-thirdof global greenhouse gas emissions,is far from doing its fair share to
reduce them.

If the climate crisis failed to ring
alarm bells, Covid-19 should havedone so. The expansion of industrial
agriculture at the expense of natureputs our global health at risk. The
World Health Organization has been
underlining the dire threat to global
human health of zoonoses (infectious
diseases transmitted via animals),
which are closely linked to industrial
meat and feed production aroundthe globe. Furthermore, the terrible
working conditions in

8 MEAT ATLAS 2021„

The expansion ofindustrial agriculture
at the expense of natureputs our global health at risk.

slaughterhouses came to light during
the first and second waves of theCovid-19 crisis, when meat factories
turned into infection hotspots in many
countries.

T

he fact that the meat industry
keeps profiting throughout allcrises while being subject to little
regulation poses the question as towhom governments really listen to.
While livestock corporations fuel the
climate crisis, deforestation, pesticide
use and biodiversity loss, and while they
drive people off their land, they are still
supported and financed by the world’s
most powerful banks and investors,
many of them from Europe. Policies,
on the other hand – be they on animal
welfare, trade or climate – include
very few restrictions on this damaging
industry. Strict, binding regulations formeat producers are often only achieved
via citizens’ engagement – like the “Endthe Cage Age” campaign. This European
Citizens’ Initiative for a ban on keeping
animals in cages in the EU brought
together over 170 organizations andwas supported by 1.4 million people.
Citizens have long grasped the problem.

The results of a survey commissioned forthis report in Germany show that morethan two-thirds of the younger generation
reject today’s meat industry. Considering
meat production a threat to the climate,they choose vegetarian or vegan diets
twice as often as the population as a whole.
And they see a need for action on the partof the government.

C

ontrarily to what politicians mightclaim, laws and regulations cansteer our consumption decisions
in favour of sustainability and health.
There are numerous instruments for
this: fiscal, informational and legal.
European and national food strategies
should contain such instruments, aswell as those which support sustainable
livestock breeding and a transition of
the industry towards more locallyembedded models in order to create fairand sustainable food environments. They
should also reinforce environmental
and social laws as well as animal welfare
legislation in order to shift the focus
of current industrial meat production
to quality instead of quantity.
Eight years ago, we published the first
Meat Atlas. Since then, a lot has changedin Europe and globally. Industrial meathas become a critical issue in society,the media and science. Consumers are
increasingly turning to vegetarian
products or to sustainably produced meat.

„

Laws and regulations
can steer our consumption
decisions in favour ofsustainability and health.

It is clear that many (especially young)people no longer want to accept the
profit-driven damage caused by themeat industry and are increasinglyinterested in and committed to climate,sustainability, animal welfare and foodsovereignty causes. We consider thisan encouraging step for our future andwant to use this Atlas to strengthen
their commitment with information.

T

his Atlas is intended to support
all those who seek climate justiceand food sovereignty, and whowant to protect nature. Revealing new
data and facts, and providing links
between various key issues, it is a crucial
contribution to the work done by many
to shed light on the problems arisingfrom industrial meat production.

Barbara Unmüßig
Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung
Olaf Bandt
Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland
Jagoda Munić
Friends of the Earth Europe

MEAT ATLAS 2021

9

12 BRIEF LESSONSABOUT MEAT AND THE WORLD
1

Global meat production is increasing. But to protect
BIODIVERSITY AND THE CLIMATE, the developed
world WILL HAVE TO HALVE ITS CONSUMPTION OF MEAT.

2 More than one billion people around the world earn their living by
KEEPING LIVESTOCK. Traditional and nature-friendly animal husbandry
is coming under pressure from INDUSTRIALIZED AGRICULTURE.

3

Almost two-thirds of the world’s 600 million poor livestock
keepers are WOMEN. They face disadvantages because they
have LIMITED ACCESS to land, services and farm ownership.

4 CONFLICTS over land are on the rise, in part because
of industrial meat production. More and more people
are being killed for defending the RIGHT TO LAND.

5 The use of ANTIBIOTICS IN ANIMAL HUSBANDRY is resulting
in more and more MICROBIAL RESISTANCE. This threatens theeffectiveness of antibiotics, one of the most important
types of treatment in human medicine.
6

10 MEAT ATLAS 2021

The leading producers of fodder crops are among
the largest users of PESTICIDES – which contaminate
groundwater and harm BIODIVERSITY.

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / STOCKMAR

7

The five biggest MEAT AND MILK PRODUCERS
emit the same volume of CLIMATE-DAMAGING
GREENHOUSE GASES as Exxon, AN OIL GIANT.

8 RE-WETTING THE PEATLANDS that occupy
3 percent of EU farmland would
avoid climate-damaging gas
emissions by UP TO ONE QUARTER.

||| FRIDAYS FOR
CLIMATE ||||||||||| LIFE FORLIVESTOCK |||||||||||||||| FLYING: LEAVE IT TO INSECTS |||||||||||||||| STOP!

||||||| KOHLRABI, NOT COAL |||||||

9 In many countries, habits, role models and ADVERTISING,
along with cultural traditions, combine to promote meat
consumption. The food industry is PROFITING from the status quo.

10 FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS like public and private banks,pension, and investment funds, support industrial animal
production with HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of euros.

11 MEAT SUBSTITUTES can reducemeat consumption. The market
is growing fast. PLANT-BASED
alternatives currently play a
big role; CELL-BASED meat – not yet.

12 Despite the global impact of meat, no country in the world has a
STRATEGY TO REDUCE CONSUMPTION or TRANSFORM PRODUCTION.
Governments can play a major role through LAWS.

MEAT ATLAS 2021

11

CONSUMPTIONEVERYDAY FOOD AND
LUXURY GOOD

W

orldwide consumption of meat has more thandoubled in the past 20 years, reaching 320 million
tonnes in 2018. The global population has risen,
as have incomes; both factors contribute roughly equally
to rising demand for meat. That’s good news for the meatindustry: consumption is forecast to rise by another 13 percent by 2028.
But for many people around the world, meat is still aluxury item whose consumption depends heavily on income. The global economic crisis caused by the Covid-19
pandemic has caused many people’s incomes to plummet.
The World Bank estimates that the current crisis will push
97 million people below the poverty line, and many millions
more will suffer serious financial shortfalls.
This is also true for China, the world’s biggest meat
consumer. Along with another virus, African swine fever,Covid-19 is the main reason for the reduced consumptionof pork in 2020. The fight against the pandemic caused theChinese economy to grow by only 2.3 percent in 2020 – theweakest pace since 1976.
In most of the developed world, meat consumption has
remained at a high and fairly constant level for decades.

Each person in Germany consumes an average of 60 kg a
year, while in the USA and Australia it is more than 100 kg.
Over the past several years, demand in some developed
countries has been declining slightly due to consumer concerns about health, animal welfare and the environment.
The biggest growth in meat consumption will take placein the developing world. According to the OECD, a club of
mostly wealthy countries, demand in the developing world
will rise by four times as much as in the developed world by
2028. Developing countries start from a much lower basethan their developed counterparts but have faster-growing
populations; nevertheless, their additional consumption
will remain relatively low. This is especially clear in Africa,
where overall demand is rising very quickly, but consumption per person is expected to rise only slightly in the next
10 years – from 17 to 17.5 kg per year.
The most populous country, China, consumes almost
one-third of the world’s meat and has accounted for onethird of the growth in consumption over the last 20 years,
even though its per capita consumption is still less thanhalf that of the USA. Demand in China is likely to continue
to rise, though at a much slower rate due to rising concerns
about obesity and a population that is set to shrink from2030 onwards.
In Africa and Asia, meat consumption will overtake production. Imports will rise, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.
But the global rise in meat imports will largely be driven by

Although they have five times as many people,
developing countries consume less than
twice as much meat as developed ones

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / OECD, FAO

The global demand for meat continues torise due to economic and population growth,
but at a slower pace than 10 years ago.
Poultry accounts for an increasingly large
share of consumption. Large differences
remain in consumption per capita between
countries and among population groups.

A BAD EXAMPLE FROM THE RICH
Meat consumption in developed and developing countries, by meat type, annual average 2017–19, in 1,000 tonnes

beef and veal
pork

29,300poultry
sheep

41,20048,400developed countries

per capita consumption(retail weight),
kilograms per year

68.6
2,700
total: 121,600*

26.6
40,20075,10076,000developing countries**

according to current FAO categories, developed: Canada, USA, Europe, CIS, Japan, Israel, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand; developing: all others

12 MEAT ATLAS 2021

12,300
total: 203,600

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / OWIDLANDSCAPE, ECONOMY, TRADITION
Meat consumption by country, per capita, 2017
Kilograms per year
less than 20
20 – 40
40 – 60
60 – 80
80 – 100over 100

140
kg

120

USA

100

BrazilGermany

Italy
France80

VietnamMexico60

South Africa

MyanmarChina
Iran
TurkeyEgypt

Ethiopia

Tanzania

DR Congo (no data)
0
0

1,000

2,000

Thailand

Pakistan

Kenya

Nigeria

BangladeshIndonesia
India

5,000

Asia (outside of China). The region as a whole is expected toaccount for around 56 percent of world trade by 2029.
The major global trends do not apply equally to all typesof meat. While the share of beef and lamb in total consumption is declining, humans are eating more and more pork
and poultry. Poultry alone will account for around half ofthe global growth in consumption in the next decade. In theUSA, for example, per capita consumption of beef has fallen
by about one-third in the last 30 years, while that of poultry
has more than doubled. This is due, among other things, to
its price advantage and lower fat content. Pork will accountfor around 28 percent of the growth in the next decade, driven mainly by rising consumption in Asia. Many Asian and
African countries, however, consume very little pork due tothe religious beliefs of a significant part of their populations.
The country-level data on overall demand and average
consumption tell only part of the story. Within each country, demand varies greatly according to socioeconomic factors. In industrialized regions, meat consumption per person tends to decrease with higher education and incomes.
In addition, women and young people tend to eat less meat
than their older, male counterparts. In Germany, for example, men on average eat around twice as much meat as
women per day. In the USA – where diets tend to be meatheavy – men still lead consumption by about 50 percent. In

10,00020,00050,000100,000
US dollars

A general rule: the richer a country is, the more meatits inhabitants consume. But other factors, like climate
or religion, also influence per capita consumption

poorer parts of the world, extreme income inequalities arereflected in per capita meat consumption. Among the elite,
consumption levels are similar to those in the OECD countries, while meat is still a luxury for the much more numerous lower and lower-middle classes. That is another reason
meat remains a status symbol for many.

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / OWID

40

South Korea

Japan

Philippines

20

BritainRussiaCountries with over 50 million people by economic
performance in US dollars and meat consumption
in kilograms per year, 2017

TOP OF THE PECKING ORDER
Increase in global consumption by type of meat,with bone, in million tonnes
sheep and goats
cattle and buffaloes
pigspoultry
other

350
300

10.5
15.8
71.6
120.9

250
200
150

127.3

100
50

Meat consumption has increased markedly.
Growing prosperity is almost as
important a factor as population growth

0
1961

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2018

MEAT ATLAS 2021

13

WORLD TRADEIN LORRIES AND SHIPS
Trade in meat and live animals is relatively
new and growing fast. Disease outbreaks,
sanitary restrictions and trade policies canlead to big swings in trade flow. The big four
players are China – which dominates importmarkets – as well as the USA, Brazil and the EU,
which provide most exports.

J

ust under 38 million tonnes of meat, comprisingaround 11 percent of annual global production, aretraded across national borders each year. Although
the vast majority of meat stays in the country where it isproduced, the share traded internationally is growing
steadily. In the 1960s, less than 4 percent of worldwide beef
production was traded across borders; now, it is almost
20 percent. For poultry the share is around 12 percent; forpork, 11 percent.
The reduction of customs tariffs and quotas through theWorld Trade Organization is one reason for the growing

EAST, WEST, HOME‘S BEST
Production and trade of meat,
million tonnes
120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

beef
pork
chicken40

production
trade

30

10

0
2017

2018

2019

2020

2021: April forecast. Without stock changes. Import/export: mean value

14 MEAT ATLAS 2021

2021

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / USDA

20

trade in meat and meat products. But many countries still
use tariffs to protect their meat sector, and strict rules to contain livestock diseases hinder many developing countries
from exporting their meat products. This may be because
they do indeed have problems with particular diseases, or
because they lack the laboratory capacity and institutional
structures to prove that they are disease-free.
In any case, livestock diseases are the main reason for
the fragility of international trade flows in meat. Trademay increase markedly over a very short period, or be cut
off abruptly. The temporary collapse in the market forpoultry in Southeast Asia with the emergence of bird flu in
1997, and the complete collapse of British beef exports in
the 1990s after the spread of BSE in the United Kingdom,show how embargoes can dry up trade flows almost overnight. After the latter outbreak, the European Commission
imposed a worldwide ban on exports of British beef andbeef products.
In contrast, global trade actually profited from the outbreak of African swine fever. The disease caused Chinese
pork production to drop by almost 20 percent. As a result, in
2019, China imported 2 million tonnes – 62 percent – moremeat than in the previous year. World trade rose by around
6.9 percent. The biggest winners were Brazilian producers,which supplied record amounts of poultry and pork to China. The EU also expanded its exports: in the first half of 2020,
its pork exports were 15 percent above the same period in
the previous year, mainly because exports to China doubled. The situation was reversed in late summer 2020, when
African swine fever reached Germany. Customers such as
China, South Korea and Japan stopped imports from Germany. The European Commission revised its positive estimate
for exports for 2020, and forecast a drop of 10 percent by theend of 2021.
The meat trade is also a favoured means of exerting
political pressure. Russia banned the import of meat andcheese from Europe as a consequence of the EU sanctions
following the Russian annexation of Crimea. China slowed
beef imports from Australia after the government in Canberra accused China of being the source of the Covid-19
pandemic. And Saudi Arabia banned poultry imports from
Brazil as a warning to that country not to move its embassyin Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Overall, livestock disease, sanitary restrictions and trade
policies are likely to remain the main factors driving or limiting the development of trade in meat. Things were different in the past. In the 1960s and 1970s, very little meat wastraded internationally due to its perishability. The big shift
occurred through technological advances that made frozen
or refrigerated transport possible.

Though public debate over trade has
been intense, the share of global meat exports
is relatively low and rising only slowly

TOP 5 IMPORTERS AND EXPORTERS
International trade in beef, pork and chicken, 2020, 1,000 tonnes

1,467
Canada 1,543

609 EU

1,412
832

4,546

1,005

5,281

Japan

Ukraine 428
1,516 USA

3,303

Turkey 440

842

549 554South Korea

China

1,341
945

999

2,782

618 Saudi Arabia

Mexico 344

513 378
Hong Kong

India

Thailand

1,284

874

3,741
Brazil
1,178

2,539

imports
beef
pork
chickenArgentina 819

exports
beef
pork
chickenOnly a few countries are engaged strongly in
the international meat trade. They include
Brazil, China, the EU and the USA

Exports are also concentrated in a small number ofcountries. The three biggest exporters, Brazil, the USA andthe EU, will account for around 60 percent of all meat exports by the end of the decade, according to FAO. Demand
for meat is already saturated in many developed countries
and is likely to fall. Depending on how production conditions change, the EU and the US will increasingly focus theirproduction on serving the export market.

BRAZIL: WORLD EXPORT CHAMPION
Share of global meat trade, percent
beef

40

pork

chicken

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

A big portion of the meat that enters theinternational trade – either as living animals
or after slaughter – comes from Brazil

2012
2021: forecast

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019 2020 2021

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / USDA

The number of live animals traded has also risen steadily. In 2017 – the year with the most recent data available– almost 2 billion live animals were traded, and since 2003
the global market has doubled to about 24 billion euros.
Poultry make up by far the greatest amount of livestock
traded, though other species are also shipped live. Pigs are
destined mainly for the USA and Poland, while most sheep
and cattle are sent to the Arab world. Overall, a large proportion of live animals are traded regionally. Some 70 percent of the animals traded by the EU are moved from one
member country to another, with each country handling a
different part of the value chain. Piglets born in Denmark,for example, are taken to Poland for fattening. Land transport is limited to a maximum of 8 hours a day. But there isno time limit for animals loaded onto ships: their journey
may last for weeks.
Worldwide demand for meat is forecast to continue
to grow over the next decade. The OECD and FAO predictthat global meat production will rise by almost 13 percent
between 2019 and 2029, and that international trade willgrow by 12 percent. The most important market player is
China, with its huge demand pulling in around one-third ofworld imports. Developing countries will also import moreas their rapidly rising demand outstrips local supply, and as
many small-scale local producers struggle to compete withcheap imports.

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / USDA

1,476 Australia

MEAT ATLAS 2021

15

MERCOSUR

TRADING AWAY THE ENVIRONMENTI

t took more than 20 years for the European Union and
the Mercosur countries – Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay andParaguay – to negotiate an agreement for their two economic areas. The draft deal envisages eliminating customs
duties, after a transitional period, on 92 percent of imports
from Mercosur to the EU, and on 91 percent of the trade going in the opposite direction. That would greatly ease the export of agricultural products such as ethanol and beef fromSouth America, and of items such as vehicles, machinery andchemicals from Europe to the Mercosur states. If the agreement is approved by the Council of the European Union,
then the European Parliament and the parliaments of EU
member states, as well as the governments of the Mercosur
countries, will also have to give their consent before it cancome into force.
Between 70 and 80 percent of all beef imports in the EU
currently come from Mercosur. The agreement would expand this. On top of the 200,000 tonnes of beef that enter theEuropean Union from the area every year, another 99,000
tonnes could be imported with zero or minimal customs duties. The Sustainability Impact Assessment, published by the

EU in July 2020, forecasts that beef imports will rise by 30 to64 percent under the individual provisions. In a study of its
own, the French government calculates that the facilitatedmarket access for beef from Mercosur could increase deforestation there by at least 5 percent a year over a period of
6 years. Those are far-reaching consequences, even though
beef exports to the EU are a relatively small part of total production in Mercosur – which exceed 11 million tonnes of liveweight and 7.8 million tonnes of carcass weight a year.
Beef is already one of the main drivers of deforestation today. It leads to the destruction of the livelihoods ofindigenous and small-scale farming communities. In the
Amazon, cattle graze on 63 percent of all deforested land.
Half the agricultural products shipped from Brazil to the
EU – mainly soybeans, beef and coffee – can be traced backto deforestation.
Exports of poultry and pork would also increase as a result of the agreement. Some 180,000 tonnes of poultry meat
per year could be imported into Europe duty-free, on top of
the 392,000 tonnes allowed today. Another 25,000 tonnesof pork would be added at a low-tariff rate. This would nearly double the EU’s pork imports from Mercosur, which currently total around 33,000 tonnes a year.
Similar predictions have been made for soybeans, which
are used mainly as livestock feed in the European meat industry. Brazil is the world’s biggest soy exporter. The EU’s

Mercosur does not depend too greatly on the EU as an export
market. As long as China is a big customer, the EU will have
limited influence on Mercosur’s forest protection policies

EUROPE – NOT THE CENTRE OF THE MERCOSUR WORLD
Mercosur member countries’ foreign trade: share of food- and feed-related exports to the EU and the world,
percent of total trade, 2019
commodities
35.3
exports to EU exports to the world
food and feed exports to the EU
meat
food and feed exports to the world
soybean oil
Uruguaysoybeans
width of bars: total trade volume, billion euros
maize
8
1.5
1
30
14.6
23.0
21.7
21.3
Brazil5.5
2.7
Argentina

43.3
5.3

Paraguay
19.1
21.3
11.6

9.1
11.0

11.2

2.8
0.4
5.6
7.0
2.6
differences due to rounding

16 MEAT ATLAS 2021

4.7

0.1
0.2

8.1
1.0
6.7

20.7
5.2

17.5

14.2
5.4

5.0
2.4

4.3

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / EUROSTAT, COMTRADE

The Association Agreement between theEuropean Union and the Mercosur countries
raises concerns with regards to meat andfeed, as well as the rainforest and the climate.
Meanwhile, the EU is worried about cheap
imports, and resistance is growing. Whether
the deal will actually come into force isquestionable.

UNEQUAL TRADERS
Mercosur and the European Union comparedpopulation 2021*
gross domestic product 2021*

European Union

Mercosur

2,002
Brazil

17,371billion US dollars

billion US dollars

Paraguay

population:
448 million

UruguayArgentina

population:
270 million

Latin America
and the Caribbean(non-Mercosur)

Latin America’s trade importance for the EU, 2019
Latin America
and the Caribbean(including Mercosur)

Europe (including EU)

otherEurope (including
intra-EU trade)otherEastern Asia

Eastern Asia
Northern America*

estimate. EU: without UK

Sustainability Impact Assessment predicts that imports ofsoybeans and other oilseeds from Mercosur could rise by
up to 5.9 percent, with serious ecological consequences. According to a 2019 study, almost two-thirds of the pesticides
sold in Brazil are applied in soybean and sugarcane cultivation. The deal with the EU would eliminate duties on pesticides imported into Mercosur, which may now be as highas 14 percent. Trade in pesticides would be strengthened,to the benefit of the European and especially the German
chemical industry.
The EU–Mercosur agreement would not only have anegative impact on forests and biodiversity in parts of SouthAmerica. It would also harm the climate. More carbon dioxide would be emitted because of further deforestation andincreased production and transport. The French impact assessment even shows that under such conditions, the production of a kilogram of beef is responsible for four times
the greenhouse-gas emissions as the equivalent in Europe.
It is not yet certain that the agreement will actually
come into force. The amount of criticism is too great. Farmers in Europe fear that they will not be able to compete be-

Northern America

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / WIKIPEDIA, ITSY

Europe’s trade importance for Mercosur, 2019

In theory, international trade talks take place
between equal partners. In reality, the less dependent
partner has most of the advantages on its sidecause of falling prices. Non-governmental organizations
criticize the preferential treatment given to pesticide exports, as well as the consequences for the climate. More andmore EU member states are also expressing scepticism oreven criticism. In France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Irelandand Austria, governments and parliaments agree that theagreement cannot be ratified in its current form. The German chancellor has also expressed concerns.
In a non-binding resolution, the EU Parliament voted forchanges. The EU Trade Commissioner, Valdis Dombrovskis,
has stated that the agreement would not be reopened andrenegotiated. Amendments would be limited to protocol
annexes, roadmaps and similar details. This has been thecase for other EU agreements. The ratification process has
already been put on hold until after 2021. But that does notmean it has been put on ice, as Bernd Lange, Chair of the EU
Parliament’s Trade Committee, has emphasized.

MEAT ATLAS 2021

17

PRODUCTION

PROBLEM FOODS AND
THEIR PRODUCERSF

or the first time since 1961, global meat production
did not rise in 2019, but actually fell by 2 percent to
325 million tonnes. The main cause was not declining
demand, but an outbreak of African swine fever. In China,
this pig disease led to a 10 percent decrease in meat production, and over 20 percent less pork output.
Before the outbreak, China produced twice as much
pork as the European Union and more than five times asmuch as the United States. Despite the slump in output, China remains the world’s biggest meat producer, at over 88
million tonnes a year, way ahead of the USA, the EU, Brazil
and Russia.
Looking back, global meat production has grown rapidly over the past few decades. In the 1970s, it totalled just
one-third of current levels. At that time, the EU and USA
led the list of producers; however, they were overtaken by
China by 1990. This country has boosted output more thantenfold in the last 50 years. Production in Africa has also
quadrupled since the 1970s, but from a relatively low start-

ing point. The continent now produces around 20 million
tonnes of meat a year.
The increases in productivity over the last decades aremainly a result of technical innovations. Fewer and fewer animals are raised on pasture. A large proportion ofmeat comes from livestock kept indoors or on feedlots,
where large numbers of animals are penned in a small
outdoor area. Intensive and industrial management
have increasingly replaced extensive production methods in many countries. Innovations in the fields of animal
genetics, management and the use of antibiotics havepermitted individual farms to raise more and more animals,
and to increase the amount of meat each animal produces.
While production in most of the developed world islargely mechanized, two types of systems still exist in the
global South: small-scale, extensive producers alongsidecapital-intensive industrialized enterprises. The International Livestock Research Institute estimates that about
600 million people earn their livelihoods from small-scale
livestock production. They sell their animals to customers
in local markets, or raise them for home consumption. They
come into contact with the global value chains of industri-

China drastically reduced its pig meat production
in 2019 due to an African swine fever outbreak. But
growth continues to rise in many parts of the world

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / OWID, FAO

The world’s meat production has grown
rapidly, fed by rising demand andmade possible by technological advancesin livestock farming. But this has hadserious consequences for animal welfare
and small-scale producers.

BOOM BUSINESS
Trends in meat production in major production countries and selectedindividual EU member states,* million tonnes
China

90

9

80

8

70

7

60

6

50

5

Germany
Spain

EU-28

40

Brazil

3

20

2

10

India
Argentina

0
1961

1970

Netherlands

Russia

USA

*

Italy

4

30

1980

1990

2000

2010

PolandFrance

2021

1
0
1961

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

including United Kingdom. 2020: estimate, 2021: forecast. Germany pre-1990: including East Germany. Reduction of East German meat production after unification with West Germany

18 MEAT ATLAS 2021

2019

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / OECD, FAO

FOR ALL THE PORK IN CHINA
Largest producing countries of major animal products, annual average 2017–19,
in 1,000 tonnes
50,50023,10021,800

5,000
3,700
1,600
13,200230

Russia11,90011,8007,300
65013,80070

China

EU-27*

USA

9,100

2,500

3,700

300
4,000

740
20,400India

120

Brazil
2,900
2,100
600

50

Argentina

6,500
4,800
cattle*pigs

poultry

sheep

EU 27 without United Kingdom

al meat production if they lose their local market share to– sometimes cheaper – industrial products.
Looking into the future, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) predicts that
global meat production will continue to grow, though at asomewhat slower rate. It is expected to increase by another40 million tonnes a year by 2029 – one year before the target year for the Sustainable Development Goals. That would
take the total output to around 366 million tonnes a year,
unless policy changes intervene. Although 80 percent of thegrowth is likely to take place in the global South, the biggest
producers will remain China, Brazil, the USA and the members of the European Union. By 2029 these countries might
still produce 60 percent of worldwide meat output. But India, a country that produces and consumes relatively little
meat, has markedly increased its poultry production and is
now one of the world’s 10 largest poultry producers.
While the three most important types of livestock arepigs, cattle and poultry birds, the distribution of livestock
species varies considerably around the world. Countries
with large Muslim and Hindu populations produce and consume very little pork, while pigs account for a large share of
production in China, the EU and the USA.
Poultry remains the fastest-growing sector in the meatindustry. Just 50 years ago, it accounted for only 12 percent

The production of meat and milk
results not only in food, but in problems
for people and the environmentof global meat production. Today, it is 35 percent. In thenext 10 years, poultry is expected to make up almost half of
the increase in total meat output. Low production and retailcosts, as well as a short production cycle, have led to chicken
being the meat of choice for producers and consumers alike.
Moreover, the genetic changes that have been achievedin poultry breeding eclipse those in other livestock species. Comparisons with traditional breeds show that highperformance breeds grow four times faster but need only
half as much feed. But precisely these breeding developments can have serious health consequences for the birds,
and therefore attract criticism from animal welfare organizations. For example, rapid weight gain can lead to joint
and foot problems and bone inflammation.
The industrialization of livestock farming and the rising numbers of farm animals require more and more feed
made from cereals and oilseeds. This in turn makes it necessary to convert forests and pastures into arable land. Its
negative effects on the climate and the environment havemade meat one of the most problematic consumer goodsin the world.

MEAT ATLAS 2021

19

ABATTOIRSCHOPPING BUT NOT CHANGING
Covid-19 outbreaks in abattoirs andprocessing plants are just the latest in along list of problems in the meat industry.
Low wages, hard work, and precarious
employment are the price that workers pay
to supply us with cheap meat. The industry
is attempting to dodge its responsibility
to provide decent conditions for its staff.

In early 2020, it emerged that over 200 of the 3,700 employees at Smithfield in Sioux Falls, one of the biggest pork
processors in the US, had been infected with Covid-19.
After an intervention by the federal government, the plant
was classified as a “critical infrastructure industry” and was
not closed immediately on the grounds that a shutdown
would lead to supply shortages. It was only after 700 workers
had contracted the virus that production was finally halted
for three weeks.
Sioux Falls was no exceptional case. Mass infections ofworkers occurred in numerous slaughterhouses and meat
processing plants around the world. Tens of thousands of

LARGEST SLAUGHTERHOUSES AROUND THE WORLD
Selected abattoirs by capacity, area or year founded

In China’s decentralized
industry structure, itslargest hog slaughterhouse is set to open
in late 2021. Techbank
Food’s plant in Fuyang,
Anhui province, will
have a capacity of
14,000 pigs per day.

In Europe, the Italian-owned
Litera Meat plant in Binéfar
near Huesca, Spain, openedin 2019 with a capacity ofmore than 22,000 pigs perday, or 160,000 a week, surpassing what was previously
the continent’s largest plant,
operated by Danish Crown
in Horsens, Denmark, by
60,000 animals per week.

One of the world’s largest
cattle slaughterhouses
is a plant in Dakota City,
Nebraska, USA. Operated
by Tyson Fresh Meats,
it processes more than
7,000 cattle a day.

India’s largest abattoir bycapacity is said to be themunicipal plant in Deonar
near Mumbai, slaughtering
6,000 goats and sheep perday. The largest plant by area
is Al-Kabeer’s 400-hectare
buffalo slaughterhouse in
Rudraram, Hyderabad.

20 MEAT ATLAS 2021

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / MEDIA REPORTS

The world’s largest abattoir by capacity is a plant in
Tar Heel, North Carolina, USA. Built in 1992 and operated
by the Chinese-owned Smithfield group, it can slaughter
36,000 pigs daily.

workers in the Brazilian meat industry were infected, anddozens died in the first wave of the pandemic. Poultry plants
belonging to the world’s largest meat companies, JBS and
BRF, were criticized for refusing to provide their workers
with the necessary equipment to protect them against infection. The authorities in Rio Grande do Sul linked one-thirdof all Covid-19 cases to local cold-storage facilities. In Mato
Grosso do Sul, one-quarter of the workers in a cattle abattoir
owned by JBS tested positive for the virus. At the main factory of Tönnies, Germany’s biggest pork processor, more than
1,500 of its 6,100 staff were found to be infected.
The Covid crisis has shined a spotlight on the poor working conditions in the meat-processing industry around theworld. A long list of factors has contributed to the spreadof the virus in the industry, including a lack of social distancing, poor housing conditions for workers, a lack of inspections, cold temperatures, and insufficient ventilation.
Management, on the other hand, likes to blame the workers
for the disease outbreaks. Even when there were cases oftuberculosis in German plants in 2018 and 2019, managers denied responsibility. During the Covid-19 crisis, politicians and managers have used racist stereotypes of migrant
workers to “explain” the infections: the “living conditions ofcertain cultures” are supposed to make workers want to live
close together.
Criticism of the labour conditions in the meat industry is
by no means new. In many countries, slaughterhouses employ people whose residence status forces them to accept
low wages and poor working conditions. In many parts ofEurope, labour turnover rates are correspondingly high.
A large proportion of the staff in the meat sector are crossborder or migrant workers from both within and, increasingly, from outside the EU. The work is frequently physically demanding with repetitive hand movements, excessive
working hours and exposure to health hazards.
A report by EFFAT, a European trade union federation,
warns that many workers are employed through temporary
work agencies or subcontractors that enable the meat plants
to escape liability. In some countries, the subcontractors
operate as bogus cooperatives, with the workers classified
as self-employed. The practice of “posting” workers – employing workers in one country but having them performthe work in another – still occurs, though it is becoming lesscommon. “Letterbox” companies are also frequent. These
have a mailing address in one country but conduct theirbusiness in another. Such tricks enable employers to evadeor circumvent stricter regulations concerning remuneration, social security and taxes in the host country.
The enormous expansion of meat production facilities
and abattoirs in recent years has been accompanied by ris-

The enormous economy of scale in slaughterhouses
has resulted in huge units with a
far-flung network of dependent animal suppliers

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / FAOSTATLIVING RAW MATERIALS FOR MEAT FACTORIES WORLDWIDE
Animals slaughtered, 2019, by region, major livestock, million (mn) and billion (bn) headcattlepigs
sheep and goatschickens

724.2 mn

325.5 mn
77.4 mn
40.0 mn

North America

93.3 mn

EuropeAsia

151.8 mn

659.6 mn

3.8 mn63.4 mn

28.6 mn
7.1 mn12.5 mn

Central America & Caribbean

OceaniaSouth America
73.7 mn
60.5 mn

Africa55.8 mn

280.1 mn

8.5 mn13.2 mn

41.7 mn
36.2 mn

21.3 mn

32.7 bn Asia
11.5 bn Europe
10.1 bn North America
9.3 bn South America
4.7 bn Africa
2.9 bn Central America & Caribbean
0.8 bn Oceania

ing numbers of migrants working in the industry. It is also
marked by the internationalization of corporate structures.
For example, Smithfield, the largest pork producer in theWestern world with over 100,000 employees, is now partof WH Group, which is headquartered in Hong Kong. JBS, a
Brazilian beef producer firm with over 200,000 workers, hasbeen active in the US market for years. In the USA, the deterioration in working conditions has been accompanied by
fierce disputes. Between 1994 and 2008, Smithfield was thescene of a long-lasting battle over union rights and decent
working conditions. Even though this struggle ended in defeat for the workers, demands for better labour rights, social
rights and secure residence are still on the table.
To put an end to the poor working conditions in the meat

75 billion animals – the vast majorityof them poultry birds – are killed every year
to satisfy humankind’s hunger for meatindustry, European food trade unions are demanding that
the EU create a legally binding instrument to ensure that
employers are jointly liable throughout the whole subcontracting chain. This should provide for sanctions, back payments and compensation if the industry does not respect labour laws. A European solution is needed because the sector
is mobile. The boom in the German meat industry is rooted
in the shift in production from Denmark and the Netherlands, where wages are higher and collective agreements
generally protect workers better.

MEAT ATLAS 2021

21

MEAT WASTE

A LOT LESS THAN THE WHOLE HOG
The meat industry used to be famous forusing “everything about the hog except
the squeal”. But a large proportion of the
livestock raised for food do not end up as food.
Many die, or are killed, before they reachthe slaughterhouse, and even more meat iswasted between the factory and the plate.

At the start of the 1990s, Europeans were shocked to see
photos of hundreds of thousands of dead cattle. Yet
BSE, or “mad cow” disease, was not the last disease outbreak to result in the culling and disposal of large numbersof animals that had been intended for human consumption.
After BSE came bird flu, and after that, African swine fever.
Experts estimate that this last disease, which is highly contagious in pigs, resulted in the deaths of up to 200 million pigs
in China, either directly or culled as a precaution.
Even without such disease outbreaks, many animals die
before they can be taken to the abattoir. In France alone,
more than 200 million animals are killed every year without
being used as meat. These include animals that die while
they are being reared, or that are culled and disposed of foreconomic reasons. In Germany, up to 200,000 male dairy
calves and 45 million male chicks of layer breeds die because
they would produce too little meat, so are not worth keeping

alive for fattening. In France, over 50 million male chicks are
killed each year directly after they hatch.
On the other hand, performance-oriented breeding andpoor husbandry conditions lead to animals dying during therearing stage. Denmark, a much smaller country than Germany, Spain and France, has the fourth highest pig population in Europe. The average litter size for pigs has risen in recent years to 19.4 piglets per sow – five more within just one
decade. The problem is that the average sow has only 14 or
15 functioning teats. As a result, the piglets are smaller andmore delicate, and many die at birth or within the first few
days of life. The mortality of suckling piglets in Denmark is
around 15 percent, or about 3 million dead animals a year.
In all, 28 percent of animals die at various stages of pregnancy, rearing and fattening.
In Germany, the average litter size is just above 15. Still,around 16 percent of all suckling piglets die. Because of Germany’s higher pig population, that adds up to 8.6 million
dead piglets a year.
A lot of loss occurs after slaughter too, as by no means do
all parts of the animal end up on dinner plates. Because meat

Offal such as pig heads and chicken feet, worth
nearly $30 billion a year, is scorned in producing
countries but finds a ready market elsewhere

UNWANTED AT HOME, BUT WELCOME ABROAD
Global offal markets and main
importer, 2020, million US dollars

Main offal exporters, 2020, million US dollars
2,660

bovine animals, swine, sheep, goats, other livestock
poultry

8,300

755
1,460

867

348
409

Denmark

Canada
3,840

633

USA

Belgium

Spain

Germany
total
main importer

654

3,130

China and Hong Kong

599
France20,4004,487

Poland

808

826

4,440

2,610
802

BrazilNetherlands

633
Australia

22 MEAT ATLAS 2021

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / TRIDGE

ThailandLOSSES BETWEEN STALL AND STOMACH
Meat and dairy waste per food supply chain stage in the EU, 2011,*
million tonnes
processing, manufacturingretail and distribution

consumption

23 %
meat

0.5

2.9

1.7

61.7

9.0

meat

0.5

5%

1.1

0.4

dairy

4.8

150.2

dairy
*

Meat and dairy waste is highest among consumers inprivate households and restaurants. However,
non-edible waste somewhat distorts the picture

value chain. In the developing world, better veterinary careand refrigeration would help. In the developed world, livestock farmers can adopt husbandry methods that avoid highlosses, along with more robust breeds and, in pigs, smaller
litters. Multipurpose breeds of cattle and chickens would
avoid the economic pressure to kill males. An increasing
volume of somewhat dearer eggs from dual-purpose hens
is now coming on the market. These breeds lay fewer eggs,
but the males also produce meat. From 2022 on, shredding
day-old chicks will be banned in France. Germany and Spain
have gone a step further, deciding to ban the killing of dayold chicks.
The waste of food can be avoided primarily through agreater appreciation of its worth. Consumers could, for example, reflect on the need to use the whole animal, as used
to be the case. Instead of always opting for steak or chicken
breast on the menu, they might occasionally choose a lesspopular type of meat or offal. That would also be a gain for
culinary diversity.

INVISIBLE DEAD
Sow and piglet mortality inindustrial pig meat production,
EU, 2019, percent

7,1 % sow mortality

13.2 % pre-weaning mortality

3.3 % rearing mortality
2.8 % finishing mortality

The numbers of animals that die prematurely show theruthlessness of the meat industry. They represent wasted feed
and land used to grow it, and a burden on the environment

including UK

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / AHDB

has become relatively cheap, consumers in many countries
have become choosy: they eat only certain cuts. Along with
Romania, Poland has the lowest meat prices in the European Union. The average Polish consumer ate 77.1 kilogramsof meat and offal in 2019, a rise of 9 percent over 2005. But
the consumption of fat and offal fell by 9 percent in the same
period. Even if these animal parts are not thrown away but
are used in industry, they are no longer food.
Poultry is becoming more and more popular. Per capita Polish consumption in 2019 was 28.3 kilograms, some
21 percent higher than in 2005. Meanwhile, Poland has
become the largest poultry producer in Europe. EU citizens
prefer chicken breasts; other parts, such as wings and drumsticks, are often frozen and exported to Asia and Africa.
Only 60 percent of a slaughtered pig in Germany ends up
as cutlets or sausage on a plate. The parts not suited for human consumption, such as bones, hooves and some internalorgans, are rendered into food for pets or fish, used in thechemical or fertilizer industry, or turned into biofuel. Outof the 8.6 million tonnes of total slaughter weight in 2019,around 2.6 million tonnes of such “animal by-products”
were used in these ways. Further losses occur during wholesale and retail trade, as well as at the consumption stage,as items pass their sell-by dates or food is prepared for consumption but not actually eaten. In 2016, the most recent
data available, 11.9 percent of global meat production was
lost between slaughter and retail.
That amounts to 39 million tonnes, or the equivalent of
115 million cattle or 413 million pigs. Such high losses represent an enormous waste of resources, as these animals
had to be reared and fed, even though they never ended up
as human food. While inadequate refrigeration is the main
problem in the global South in the developed world thedisposal of food that is fit for consumption is mainly toblame. Studies estimate that this accounts for between
4 and 11 percent of the quantity actually consumed in Europe. This is also because meat, with its comparatively cheap
prices, is becoming less and less valued as a type of food.
Losses and waste can be reduced at each stage in themost recent data available, data still in use

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / CALDEIRA ET AL.

primary production

Meat/dairy available in
the EU, million tonnes,
and percentage wasted

MEAT ATLAS 2021

23

LAND CONFLICTS

CUTTING DOWN FORESTS,CARVING UP PASTURES

N

o other consumer products need as much land to produce as meat and milk. Globally, 77 percent of agricultural land is used to raise animals or the crops tofeed them. That means that livestock production is inextricably linked with conflicts over land. According to the British environmental organization Global Witness, 212 campaigners for land rights were killed in 2019. The numbers ofactivists killed have been rising for years.
Conflicts over land can take very different forms. On the
one hand, the expansion of pasture and fodder cropping
threatens land use by indigenous people and smallholders.
On the other, livestock raising is also a traditional production system often used by nomadic communities practicing
pastoralism, which is based on co-existence with natural
ecosystems. This is being threatened by the expansion of industrial agriculture.
Brazil is a prime example of export-oriented livestock
farming leading to land conflicts. The expansion of animal
agriculture at the expense of natural ecosystems is progressing relentlessly in the self-proclaimed agricultural
powerhouse of the world. The exact numbers are controversial, but an estimated 150 to 200 million hectares of land areused for raising livestock. For comparison, “only” 35 million
hectares are used to grow soybeans, and around 4.5 million

are used for maize. The area used to raise cattle in Brazil
alone, 175 million hectares, is about the same as the entire
agricultural area of the European Union.
Because of its sheer scope, cattle raising is the main driver of the destruction of ecosystems and the habitat they provide to indigenous peoples and traditional communities.
The expansion of pastureland and large-scale monocultures
constricts the living spaces of these communities. They areoften driven off their land or find it impossible to continue
their way of life. Since areas for hunting and gathering are
not legally secured, agro-industrial interests find it easy totake them over. Conflicts over land are often accompaniedby conflicts over water. Water is diverted for agriculturaluse, and springs are poisoned by pesticides and chemicalfertilizers, making them unusable for local people.
The expansion of agribusiness in the Amazon region iswell researched and documented. At least two-thirds of deforestation in the area occurs through the creation of pastures for cattle – not only to meet the growing demand for
beef, but also as a strategy for securing title to the land. The
ownership of many forested areas is not clearly regulated,and clearing the forest is in most cases illegal. But Brazilian law states that anyone who uses land can lay claim to it,
and converting it to pasture is the easiest way to demonstrate that use. The situation in Pará, a state in the Amazon
region, illustrates this process. Between 2000 and 2018 it
lost 11.6 million hectares of natural vegetation, while in thesame period cattle pastures grew by 8.3 million hectares – anarea the size of Austria. Once it has become possible to con-

In the perpetrators’ view, only dead activists cannot
ask uncomfortable questions. Governments
often have little interest in investigating these killings

MURDERS AGAINST THE RIGHT TO LIFE

sectorNumber of activists killed for defending land rights and natural resources
against the selected sectors, documented by civil society organization “Global Witness”

46

2017

24 MEAT ATLAS 2021

23

21

207

13

2018

agrobusinesslogging34

168

total (inter alia,
including mining
and extractives)

24

2019

224

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / GLOBAL WITNESSIn South America, natural vegetation
is being turned into pastureland andmonocultures to support an unsustainable
form of livestock production. In Africa
and Asia, a sustainable form of livestockraising is losing ground to industrialized
agriculture. Traditional local
communities are on the losing end.

WHERE MEAT AND FEED ARE MOST DESTRUCTIVE

1Regions in Latin America most affected bydeforestation; drivers and counteractive measures

Maya Forests Mexico, Guatemala

forests
endangered or lost areas

Amazon Venezuela, Guyana
2
Chocó-Darién Colombia, Ecuador
3

Deforestation worldwide
attributable to trade with the EU
2005–2017, average hectares/year

Amazon Brazil

4

Amazon Colombia
5

89,000

6

7

Amazon Peru

Cerrado Brazil

169,100
8
27,700
Amazon Bolivia
soy industry (livestock feed)
beef production (meat)other drivers

9

Gran Chaco Paraguay, Argentina

creating protected areas

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

recognition of indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ tenure rights

1

4

5

6

7

8

9

2

3

present
expandingsmall scale
no data/
not in use

land use zoning

4

5

6

7

8

9

3

1

2

timber legality and assurance systems

5

7

1

3

4

8

9

2

6

deforestation monitoring

2

5

4

6

1

3

7

8

9

fire management

1

5

8

2

3

4

6

7

9

moratoria on forest clearing

5

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

payment for environmental/ecosystem services

1

4

5

9

7

8

2

3

6

voluntary standards and certification

5

8

9

7

1

2

3

4

6

finance for sustainable landscapes

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

8

9

zero deforestation/traceability of supply

4

5

6

1

2

3

7

8

9

solidate ownership claims through the creation of pasture,other investments often follow, such as growing soybeans.
While the production of beef and feed is the most significant cause of conflicts over land in South America, thisis not always the case elsewhere. In much of the world, pastoralism is a traditional practice that relies on co-existencewith natural ecosystems, not their elimination. The significance of pastoralism is often ignored, and as a production
system and way of life it receives very little political support.
More than 200 million people are estimated to practise pastoralism, and they manage 25 percent of the world’s land
surface. Entire countries have been shaped by pastoralism:
some 76 percent of the area of Mongolia is used as pastureland.
That land is often a commons – land with a communal
form of ownership. The lack of individual land-ownership

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / WWF

selected counteractive measures, hurdles and compensations

The legal protection of forests and indigenous rights
is the most common means used to resist
drastic environmental destruction in Latin America

rights is a widespread feature of pastoralist societies. This,and their apparently low productivity, have made themvulnerable to modernization attempts. In many countries,
especially in Africa, “modern” forms of farming with individual land ownership rights have expanded at the expenseof pastoralist societies.
The expansion of large-scale cattle raising in SouthAmerica and the threats to pastoralist societies, especiallyin Africa and Asia, both share a common solution: securing
the rights of traditional communities. These rights are fundamental for land use policies that take climate change andbiodiversity loss seriously as a major global threat.

MEAT ATLAS 2021

25

COMPANIESDOMINATING THE MARKET
FROM FARM TO DISPLAY CASE
Global meat companies play a major rolein determining how meat and feed are
produced, transported and traded. Foodis big business: the 100 largest food andbeverage firms around the world include
10 main meat producers and processors.

The 10 largest companies in the meat sector have their
headquarters in just five countries: Brazil, the USA,
China, Japan and the European Union. But they dominate markets around the world and have a presence in all
the main meat-producing regions. These firms are responsible for the industrial production and slaughter of massive
numbers of animals. The behemoth, Brazil’s JBS, dwarfs all
the others. It has more than 400 branches in 15 countries,and slaughters up to 75,000 cattle, 115,000 pigs, 14 million
poultry birds and 16,000 lambs every day. Together, that
adds up to over 210,000 tonnes of meat a month. Though
the second biggest processor, the US giant Tyson Foods
slaughters far less, it’s still a staggering number of animals:
22,000 cattle, 70,000 pigs and 7.8 million chickens a day.
JBS, Tyson, Cargill and WH Group have branches
throughout Europe. They generate their European profits by selling fresh and frozen meat produced in Europe orimported from countries such as Brazil and Thailand. Brazilian companies BRF and Marfrig distribute directly acrossEurope or through distribution centres. These meat producing giants use mergers and acquisitions to swallow up small
and large firms to consolidate their market power.
Tyson boosted its European presence by buying up BRF’s
European operations. JBS acquired a UK-based pigmeat pro-

cessor to expand its marketshare and is preparing to buy
German meat company Tönnies. European firms also haveturnovers in the billions. Danish Crown (Denmark), Groupe
Bigard (France), Tönnies (Germany), Coren (Spain) and
Westfleisch (Germany) are among the biggest producers ofbeef and pork. Dawn Meats (Ireland) is the European leader
in beef and lamb, while LDC (France), Plukon Food Group(Netherlands), Gruppo Veronesi (Italy) and PHW-Gruppe(Germany) are the biggest poultry processors.
Such market power enables these firms to impose low
producer prices, and sometimes to force farmers to sell at
below their cost of production. That has consequences:
farmers have to raise large numbers of animals so they cankeep the business of their mighty customers, often relying
on public subsidies for support.
In Germany, five companies – Tönnies, Westfleisch,Vion, the Müller Group and Danish Crown – control twothirds of all processed pork. In the US, meat processing isin the hands of a few corporations. For beef, it is JBS, Tyson,
Cargill and Marfrig that together control 85 percent of themarket. JBS, Tyson and Hormel account for 66 percent of thepork, while Tyson, JBS, Sanderson Farms and Purdue handle
51 percent of the chicken.
Agri Benchmark, an international non-profit network,
reported in 2019 that EU farm subsidies enabled farms
to turn an overall profit even though they suffered losses
in their cow- and calf-rearing operations. Beef processing

The US market for feed and meat has
been researched in great depth. Many small
companies are battling against giants

WHALES AND MINNOWS
Combined share of sales for the top four firms in selected US feed and meat industry sectors, 2020*
soybean processing
80 %

ADM

beef processing
73 %

JBS

Tyson

survey undated; publication year

26 MEAT ATLAS 2021

JBS

Tyson

JBS

Tyson

PerdueSanderson

WH Group

Cargill*chicken processing
54 %Cargill
Marfrig

HormelMEAT ATLAS 2021 / HENDRICKSON ET AL.

Bunge

Ag Procecessing

pork processing
67 %STEAKHOUSES AND CASH COWS
Sales of the largest meat and dairy firms 2019/20,
in billion US dollars

12.6

OSI Group

20.1
Dairy Farmersof America

9.5

31.7

Lactalis

Cargill

42.4
Tyson Foods

5.4

18.2

BRF

Kraft Heinz

5.9

13.4

11.9

22.1
Danone8.5

NH Foods

Tönnies Group

21.0

Hormel Foods

10.9

8.6 DMK

Danish Crown

FrieslandCampina

6.3

6.5

Arla

Meiji
Yili

Mengniu*

Nestlé

5.8

17.2

5.5

SodiaalGCMMF

CP Foods

12.6

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / FOODENGINEERINGMAG.COM, RABOBANK

Saputo

23.3

8.5

Vion

7.8

11.8

Marfrig

48.8

13.2

Meat
Dairy

JBS

Fonterra*

Smithfield/WH Group is a US firm with Chinese ownershipfirms suffered even greater losses than the farmers whoraised the cattle. But they benefited more from the subsidies because many of them are also active as producers offeed grain. In 2016, European pork prices averaged just
1.48 euros per kilogram. European pig raisers – except thosein Belgium, Denmark and Spain – lost an average of 7 cents
per kilogram of meat they produced.
Apart from the indirect subsidies, the global meat giants also benefit from special government assistance. JBS,
for example, received 78 million US dollars in paymentsfrom the Trump administration’s farm bailout package
during its trade war with China. Incidentally, 20 percent of
JBS is owned by the Brazilian Development Bank, which isfinanced by the country’s tax revenues. In 2017, Brazilian
prosecutors imposed one of the highest fines in corporate
history for corruption after they discovered that JBS bosses
had bribed almost 1,900 officials to advance their businessinterests.
Some meat giants, such as Cargill, are wholly privately
owned. Others are at least partially listed on the stock exchanges. Financial firms are major investors, underwriters
and lenders to the sector. Over 2,500 investment banks,
private banks and pension funds from around the world

Americas in the lead? Beware of first impressions.
Chinese meat producers that are notlisted on a stock exchange are a big unknown

invested a total of 478 billion US dollars in meat and dairy
companies from 2015–2020, according to Feedback, a
non-governmental organization. The biggest investors include Black Rock, Capital Group, Vanguard and the Norwegian government pension fund.

TRACTORS AND TRADERS
Concentration in global feed- and meat-related industries, 2018
top-4’s revenues, percent
agrochemicals

animal pharma

58.3

Zoetis, Elanco, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck

commercial seeds

farm equipment

10

20

40

42

126

46.2

30

34

53.2

ChemChina, Bayer, Limagrain, Corteva

0

58

65.8

ChemChina, Bayer, BASF, Corteva

Deere, Kubota, CNH, AGCO

Critical connections: one-third of theworld’s arable land is used to grow feed. Cropfirms are a key factor in meat production

overall volume, billion US dollars

50

60

70

80

90

100

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / HOWARD, HENDRICKSON

5.6

11.3

Smithfield/
WH Group*

Itoham Yonekyu

MEAT ATLAS 2021

27

FINANCE

BIG BUCKS FOR BIG FIRMS
Big Meat attracts big money. Both private
and public investors pour money into meatand dairy corporations, further boosting
their market power and fuelling yet more
consolidation in an already concentrated
industry. The environmental and social
damage caused by the industry is largely
overlooked.

and dairy companies are privately owned: the family thatowns Cargill includes 14 billionaires, collectively receiving
around 18 percent of the company’s profits each year. Cargill paid out 1.13 billion dollars to its family owners in July
2020 at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic – at the sametime as many workers in meat-processing plants were falling ill from the disease.
The sector gets financial backing in the form of loans,investments, bonds, underwriting, and revolving credit
facilities – optional credit that banks extend to companies
should they need it. Research by Feedback, a campaign
group, found that in April 2020, 3,000 investors provided
228 billion dollars in backing to the 35 largest meat anddairy corporations. In addition to investment, between 2015
and 2020, loans totalling 167 billion dollars flowed fromover 200 banks to these companies, with banks based in theUSA, France and the UK providing 51 percent of the total
credit. These financial flows directly drive climate change:
together, the 35 corporations emit more greenhouse gases
than the economy of Germany. Thirteen of them also score
weakly on the Farm Animal Risk and Return (FAIRR) Index,
which analyses protein producers across risks, including human rights, climate impact and antimicrobial resistance.
Assets in the industrial meat and dairy sector present achallenge to investors trying to come to terms with climate
risks. The environmental, social, and governance risks associated with JBS, a Brazil based multinational, were enoughto prompt Nordea, a Finnish asset manager, to pull its investments out of the company, citing “its ties to farms in-Unlike small producers, industrial meat and dairy
corporations operate a lucrative business model. Between 2015 and 2020, global meat and dairy companies received over 478 billion US dollars in backing from2,500 investment firms, banks, and pension funds aroundthe globe, in the form of loans, underwriting, investment
or revolving credit. For comparison: this is more than the
365 billion euros the EU spends on its 7-year Common Agricultural Policy budget.
By buying up smaller companies, large meat and dairy
corporations have reduced competition and fuelled theirown growth. Yet, hidden behind retail brands, they arelargely invisible to the public. In the USA, the four largest
corporations – JBS, Tyson, WH Group and Cargill – offer
60 meat-focused brands between them, creating an illusionof choice in a very consolidated market. In the UK, companies such as Cargill and Moy Park supply products sold under brands such as “Willow Farms”, Tesco’s chicken range.
Meanwhile, smaller and independent production continues to shrink: since 2007, one-third of small abattoirs in the
UK have closed.
Who profits from this consolidation? It varies. For publicly listed companies, market expansion holds the promiseof attractive shareholder dividends. But several major meat

The meat processor BRF has been shaken by
domestic crisis and the pandemic in Brazil. Sanderson
Farms is rumoured to want to take it over

PRICES AND PROFITS – WHAT INVESTORS WANT ON THEIR PLATESBasic stock exchange data for large meat product companies publicly traded in the USA
market capitalization,
June 2021
3.7

Sanderson Farms

5 year share price performance+120

5 year profit orlosses, percent

+100

+93

+80

26.4

28.2

Hormel

+40

+40

+20

+28

0

Tyson Foods

-7

-20
-40

5.6
4.6

28 MEAT ATLAS 2021

Pilgrim’s Pride

-60

BRF

-80

-59
July
2016

Jan.
2017

July
2017

Jan.
2018

July
2018

Jan.
2019

July
2019

Jan.
2020

July
2020

Jan.
2021

June
2021

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / FINTEL.IO, YAHOO FINANCE+60

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / FEEDBACK

WHERE THE MONEY FOR THE MEAT INDUSTRY COMES FROM
Biggest financial institutions backing the meat and dairy sector
BNP Paribas

11BlackRockBarclays22

Capital Group

JPMorgan Chase

3

3

Vanguard

Bank of America

44

Sun Life Finacial

HSBC

5

5

Norwegian Government Pension FundRoyal Bank of Canada

6

6

UBS

Citigroup7

7

Credit Suisse

Santander

8

8State Street

9

Third Point

10

BNDES

11

Fidelity Investments

12

T. Rowe Price

Mitsubishi UFJ Financial

underwritingloans
2015–2019,billion US dollars

6 4Canada9
USshareholding
bondholding
April 2020,
billion US dollars

5
Norway12 15 Germany
2 5
United Kingdom
13 14 Netherlands

3 4 7 10
1 2 3 8 9 11 12

8
Spain

1 11 14 France

9
Japan

Morgan Stanley

10

Société Generale

11

Deutsche Bank

12

Rabobank

13

13Zürcher Kantonalbank

ING Group14

14

Crédit Agricole

Credit Suisse

15

15

Deutsche Bank

15 Switzerland
6
7
13

10
Brazil

0

5

10

15

20

30

volved in Amazon deforestation”.
Big Meat and Dairy is not only propped up by vast
swathes of private finance. It is also supported by public institutions, including public-sector pension funds and development banks. Local governments across the UK with net
zero goals continue to invest in industrial meat and dairy
through their pension funds – supporting companies that
undermine local, small-scale farming. Despite stringent criteria for safeguarding investments and maintaining environmental and social accountability, multilateral development banks hold direct investments in industrial livestockcompanies, offer them loans, and provide them with otherforms of financial backing.
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Finance Corporation – the private-sector arm of the World Bank – have lent 2.6 billion
dollars of public money to industrial livestock producers
over the past decade. For regional development banks, thistrend is even more pronounced. Take the Brazilian development bank BNDES, for example: it is the largest minority
shareholder in JBS, which has been accused of trading withranchers on illegally deforested land and displacing Brazil’s indigenous communities. While the livestock sector
receives only 2.5 percent of official development assistance,
the scale of public finance available makes these sums
equivalent to creating whole megafarms across several continents. This is in direct conflict with these banks’ purpose of

25

20

15

10

5

0

High-street banks, global investors andpension funds are bankrolling
destructive livestock corporations

promoting the public interest and their commitment to theUN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
While many financiers have made commitments to environmental policies and targets, the impacts of industrialscale agriculture are yet to be regulated across financial andlegal platforms. The Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures and the Carbon Disclosure Project provide
guidelines for financial institutions and companies to disclose their impacts. But such disclosures are neither mandatory nor comprehensive, nor does disclosure necessarily
lead to action.
Banks and asset managers continue to finance industrial meat and dairy corporations despite direct contradictions between this support and their alignment with the
Sustainable Development Goals, as well as their other environmental, social, and governance commitments. NGOs
and some financial institutions and agri-businesses are
calling for financiers to be better regulated. In late 2020, EU
parliamentarians also called for regulation to govern deforestation and other environmental harms in companies’
supply chains and finance organizations’ investments. The
European Commission is now moving towards a strong legislative proposal for this.

MEAT ATLAS 2021

29

GENDER AND POVERTYYET MORE UNPAID WORKIn many countries, women do most of the
farm work, but they are not allowed to makemost of the decisions. They have to balancecaring for their children and elderly parents
with looking after the chickens and goats.
Livestock can be a welcome source of extra
money, but may also mean more work.
And if selling eggs and milk becomes more
profitable, men very often take charge.

S

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / FAO

mall-scale livestock rearing is an important livelihood for many women in rural communities. The
World Bank calculates that one in five people aroundthe world rely on livestock as their main source of income.
Almost two-thirds of the world’s 600 million poor livestock
keepers are women.
Women’s roles in livestock keeping differ from region
to region, and who owns livestock – men or women – is

MORE WOMEN THAN MEN GO HUNGRY
Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity by gender,
percent
60

Africa55

50

45

female
male

40

35

Latin America

30

25

Asia

20

15

10

Northern America and Europe

strongly dependent on social, cultural and economic factors. The ownership also depends on the type of animal.
Women make up the majority of poor livestock farmers whoraise sheep, goats and Poultry. They have limited access toservices, land and capital. But when rearing these animals
becomes a more important source of family income, theirownership, management and control are often turned overto men.
A dairy intensification project in Tanzania shows the importance of considering gender in value chain development
and reveals the complex interplay between intensification,
empowerment and child nutrition. The project successfullyincreased milk production by smallholders. But as soon as
higher yields made milk a marketable product, its control
moved to men. Women’s control over both milk and income
decreased, and the nutrition of children did not improve.
Structural barriers, gender stereotypes and discrimination may exacerbate the position of women in livestockrelated livelihoods. These barriers are maintained throughsocial norms that deter women from making decisions,travelling to markets or turning to extension agencies foradvice. They deny women access to using, owning or inheriting land and livestock, and prevent them from obtaining
resources such as credit.
The problem is widespread. A survey by the International Livestock Research Institute found that in low- andmiddle-income countries, women made up the majority ofthe poor livestock farming workforce. But they accounted
for under 19 percent of agricultural holders, and received
only 10 percent of total agricultural development funds and5 percent of all agricultural extension services. In Senegal,
according to a study by the think tank IPAR, women own just
13 percent of the land and were granted only 1 percent ofloans for agriculture because they lack titles to the land they
farm. The Global Forest Coalition made similar findings in
Latin America: in Colombia, only 8 percent of the women interviewed owned land, compared to 17 percent in Paraguay,
20 percent in Bolivia, and 40 percent in Chile. Indigenous
women, household heads and young women may also bediscriminated against not only because they are female, but
due to their age, ethnicity, status or gender identity.
Because they lack access to production resources, women are likely to be poor and not have enough to eat – eventhough they devote over 70 percent of their income to household needs. Livestock are one of the few farm resources thatwomen can own and control. They provide nutritious foodeach day that women can use to feed their families. In areas
where it can be hard to earn money in other ways, womencan sell live animals, meat, milk or eggs to earn money to pay
household expenses.

5

0
2014

30 MEAT ATLAS 2021

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Women’s food insecurity has many causes: low
income, low education, unemployment, residence inrural areas, health problems, separation or divorce

Farm size, animal stock and income of single female smallholder farmers
compared with those of male farmers with partners, survey* compiledin the East African countries Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania, 2016–2018

large land, fewer livestock

3.0
0.2

2.0
0.2

female: single respondents
male: respondents withspouse or partner

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / TAVENNER ET AL.

WOMEN’S EFFORTS ON SMALL FARMS

small land, fewer livestock
0.5

0.4

Single female smallholder farmers
are mostly separated, divorced or
widowed, and usually also have tocare for children. Couples have anadditional male worker

0.9

0.2

0.3

0.6

0.7

0.5

0.5

2.0

0.3

0.5

Ethiopia

8.0
Kenya

small land, more livestock
Tanzania

farm size, hectares
livestock holdings,
TLU**
farm income
off-farm income(income sources:
1,000 US dollars per year)

large land, more livestock
0.5

5.0

0.5

8.6

3.0

2.0
1.0

33.0

9.0

7.0
3.0

6.0

15.0

3.0

3.0

survey, 350 female and 1,691 male respondents.
**
TLU: “tropical livestock unit” of about 250 kg liveweight; cow = 1.0 TLU, cattle in herd 0.7, sheep 0.1, goat 0.08, chicken 0.01, with variations*

For small farmers with a few hectares of land,
livestock are crucial. Large animals bring the mostmoney, but they are mostly men’s businesssources. It is not possible to achieve food security and moresustainable food systems without involving women in planning, decision making and implementation. Guaranteeing
women’s ability to engage in small-scale livestock farming
will help them secure steady incomes and a supply of clean
and nutritious food. That will in turn help close the genderinequality gap.

FOWL FOR THE WOMEN, CATTLE FOR THE MEN
Female control over livestock-related decision making in eastern
Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania), 0 = not at all, 1 = entirely
1chicken
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Women mainly have control over small livestock andlow-value products such as chickens and eggs – much ofwhich is eaten at home rather than sold for cash

0survey 2016–2018, 2,859 respondents

goats

cattleMEAT ATLAS 2021 / TAVENNER ET AL.

In many places, women and men typically have different
tasks, with women and girls taking on a greater share of unpaid work such as childcare and domestic chores. This canworsen inequality and poverty for those who work with livestock. Even though the animals may be a source of income,they add to the women’s workloads. The extra burden may
mean they cannot go to school or attend training, which inturn harms their ability to earn money or take part in making
decisions in their communities. In one anti-poverty program
described by the UN Secretary-General where households
were given livestock, the women ended up spending 217 percent more time on the animals – an extra 415 hours a year.
Deforestation in the Amazon and other areas is on therise because of the need to produce meat and soybeans for
global markets. That has reduced local communities’ rights
to the forests and land. Given that women rely heavily onthese and other natural resources – in order to raise livestock, for example – such deforestation and environmental
degradation has had a big impact on them.
The economic and social empowerment of women who
keep livestock depends on a range of factors: securing theirland tenure rights, addressing the burden of unpaid carework, improving their access to education and basic services, and ensuring they can use forests and other natural re-

MEAT ATLAS 2021

31

FEED

SOY, FOREST, AND SAVANNA
More than one-third of all crops worldwide
end up in the stomachs of livestock. That
includes one billion tonnes a year ofsoybeans and maize alone. The feed andlivestock industries want to increase thateven further.

G

lobal meat consumption has been rising for years,
pushing up demand for livestock feed. For intensive
animal agriculture, soybeans are one of the mostimportant sources of protein in feed. Their share of international trade has risen more than fivefold since 2001. Soy isalso used in human food, fuel and industrial materials, butalmost 90 percent ends up in feed troughs.
The biggest soybean producers are Brazil, at 133 million
tonnes, the USA at 117 million, and Argentina at 53 million.
Almost 90 percent of global soybean exports in 2019 camefrom these three countries. At 74 million tonnes, Brazil isthe biggest exporter, followed by the USA. As cultivation has
expanded, so too has the proportion of farmland sown withgenetically modified soybeans. In the USA it is now 94 percent, while in Brazil, 97 percent of the 2017 harvest consisted of genetically modified varieties. Soybeans account foralmost 50 percent of all genetically modified organisms, or
GMOs, worldwide. Rising demand for feed has stimulated
an increase in the soybean acreage of over 70 million hectares in the last 20 years.
China is by far the biggest producer and consumer ofmeat worldwide. It has a correspondingly large appetite
for feed, making it the world’s biggest soybean importer. In
2019 it bought 74 million tonnes of the beans, almost twothirds of all exports. It was followed by the European Union,
with 13 million tonnes. Changes in global trade flows can besimilarly dramatic: between January and May 2020, China
imported almost 37 percent more soybeans from Brazil, andbought less from the USA as a result of trade tensions.
Soybeans are processed into feed and traded by agricultural trading companies that invest in ports, ships andlogistics around the globe. The biggest grain traders are theso-called ABCD companies: Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge,
Cargill, and Louis Dreyfus Commodities. In 2018 they, alongwith the Brazilian trader Amaggi, were responsible for56 percent of Brazilian soybean exports. Because demand isrising and it is difficult to push up yields on current fields,
more land is needed to grow soy. In the 20 years leading
up to 2019, the cultivated area grew from 77 to 125 million
hectares. Soybean cultivation is now the second largest contributor to deforestation worldwide, after livestock farming. It is especially in Brazil and Argentina that forests andgrasslands are being turned into soybean fields.
Between 2006 and 2017, some 220,000 square kilometres were cleared in the Amazon rainforest and the Cerrado savanna, a dry forest in Brazil valuable for its biodiversity. That is the same area as England, Wales and Scotland
combined, or half the size of France. Most of the land wasturned into livestock pasture, but 10 percent was used directly for soybean cultivation, according to a study by the initiative Trase, Transparency for Sustainable Economies. The
massive deforestation in the Cerrado has a simple cause:
the Amazon moratorium, which since 2008 has successfullyprohibited trade in soybeans that come from areas clearedof rainforest – but only in the Amazon. Soybean production

While industrial feed production in the
USA is stagnating, it is booming in
Ukraine and elsewhere in eastern Europe

INTO THE TROUGH
Compound feed production by country and country group,in million tonnes

Change in total,
index 1999=100
300

other
other Americas
Canada
22
USA

61

68

EU-28

91

177

Brazil250

165
other Europe

200

China

2018
150

Brazil35
69
185
other Asia

USA

China
100

24

EU-28

Japan

non-EU Europe
50
1999

32 MEAT ATLAS 2021

2003

2006

2009

2012

2015

2018

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / IFIF

Mexico188MEAT ATLAS 2021 / OECD, FAO

MULTIPURPOSE COMMODITIES
Major agricultural “flex crops” by production and use, selected, average 2017–19,
in million tonnes und percentage share
143

80
15.6 %

12.5 %

77

18

9

3.5 %

512
15.9 %

181

1,141
59.2 %

12.4 %
142

675

511

68.5 %

rice
10.8 % 959

173 28.4 %

609

15

wheat

18.1 %

83
59 71.1 %legumes

29
9.7 %
4.8 %
livestock feed
human foodfuelindustrial/other20.0 %

746

80.9 %

414

maize

149

10.3 %
1.2 %

54

53

22.9 % 22.5 %57.1 % 348

5 2.1 % 236
52.5 %

oilseeds (incl. soybean)

124

roots and tubers

industrial and decentralized production

Only about 40 percent of the production of themost important crops is intended as humanfood. Almost as much is fed to livestock

impact on climate and biodiversity, deforestation also causes disputes over land and violates the rights of indigenous
communities. Global Witness, a non-governmental organization, says that conflicts between local communities andsoybean and livestock farmers are on the rise, along withthreats and violence against those who stand up for theirancestral land and for the climate. In 2019, 24 environmental activists were killed in Brazil – 90 percent of them in the
Amazon region.

BEAN THERE, DONE THAT
Harvested area of the five most important soybean producing
countries, in million hectares
40
35

USA
30

Brazil25

Argentina
20
15

India

10
5

The area sown with soybean alone
has more than doubled since 1990. It is
now three times the size of Germany

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / TNI, USSOY

has simply shifted to the Cerrado.
None of the big grain traders support the demand to extend the moratorium to the Cerrado. Cargill has even spoken out publicly against the idea. And in the Amazon, themoratorium applies only to land that has been deforested
specifically to grow soy. Soybeans that are cultivated onland originally cleared for other reasons are not affected.
That means that most of the soybean expansion is on former
pastureland that used to be forest or savanna.
Progress can quickly be undone. This is shown by theforest fires of 2019 and 2020, which were mostly a resultof slash-and-burn cultivation, including for soybean farming. A comparison of satellite images of the fires with maps
showing the largest meat processing plants and soybean
silos reveals that many fires blazed in the immediate vicinity of those plants, warehouses and other infrastructure.
This was supported by the policies of Brazilian President
Jair Bolsonaro, who has continuously relaxed the country’s
environmental regulations. He has not only welcomed the
expansion of agribusiness in the rainforest and savanna, he
has also legalized it. In 2019, the deforestation rate in Brazilrose to its highest level since 2007/8. Forecasts predict that
it will rise further.
A study published in the respected journal Science in2020 found that 20 percent of the soybeans exported to theEuropean Union from the Amazon and Cerrado come fromland that has been cleared illegally. Meat consumption in
Europe is thus directly linked to deforestation in Brazil, andto the conflicts that result from it. Alongside its negative

0
1990

China
1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

MEAT ATLAS 2021

33

CLIMATE

A LIGHTER HOOFPRINT
Livestock’s share of global greenhouse gas
emissions is understated. The climate footprint of the animals and the feed they need issignificant. There are ways to change that.

A

ccording to the Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations (FAO), livestock was responsible for 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2013. FAO estimates that 45 percent of livestockrelated emissions come from the production and processing of feed, and another 39 percent from enteric fermentation – methane gas produced from the digestive tracts of ruminants such as cattle, sheep and goats. Another 10 percent
is attributed to the storage and management of manure.
Taken together, these emissions make up 56 to 58 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from the food sector –even though livestock contribute to only 18 percent of thecalories and 37 percent of the protein supply of the world’s
human population. According to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, the food sector accounts for 21
to 37 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. In 2018,

CLIMATE BALANCES COMPARED
Greenhouse gas emissions resulting from production ofmeat from three livestock species, constituents converted
into CO2 equivalents, global averages, in percent
cattlepigs

chickens

100

80

feed: rice, CH4
food processing, CO2
direct and indirect energy
requirement, CO260

manure management(incl. storage, preparation)
CH4
N 2O

50

enteric fermentation
by rumiants, CH47040

land-use change:
for pasture, CO2
for soybeans, CO230

fodder, CO220

fertilizer andcrop residues, N2O

10

applied and depositedmanure, N2O

0
CO2: carbon dioxide, CH4: methane, N2O: nitrogen monoxide (laughing gas)

34 MEAT ATLAS 2021

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / ROJAS-DOWNING ET AL.

90

17 percent of EU emissions stemmed from animal farming.
Livestock account for around 70 percent of all agricultural land. Expansion of livestock production into grasslands
for pasture and other ecosystems for growing animal feed
has led to land degradation, deforestation and biodiversity
loss. About 40 percent of global cropland is used to produce
feed. As feed use rises with increased pork and poultry production, land use change has resulted in lost carbon andmore greenhouse gases from manufacturing and the use offertilizers for animal feed. Not just ruminants, but poultry
and pigs therefore have contributed to significant emissions
in the last two decades.
In 2018, two non-profit organizations – GRAIN and theInstitute for Agriculture and Trade Policy – calculated theemissions from 35 of the world’s largest meat and dairy producers. The findings were shocking: just five meat-and-milk
giants, JBS, Tyson, Cargill, Dairy Farmers of America undFonterra, produce more combined emissions per year thanmajor oil players like Exxon, Shell or BP. Taken together, 20
livestock firms are responsible for more greenhouse gas
emissions than Germany, Britain or France.
Around 90 percent of the emissions from meat producers
come from the supply chain or from the animals themselves.
Yet globally, not a single government requires meat producers to document their emissions or standardize their emission reduction targets so as to enable comparisons within
the sector. Instead the sector relies on self-reporting. But
few companies report their emissions, let alone any targets
for reducing them. In 2016, only 3 meat companies had reported some of their emissions from their supply chains (JBS,
Marfrig and NH Foods), and only one of these (NH Foods) had
given credible figures that matched calculations by the researchers. JBS’s reported emissions were only 3 percent ofresearchers’ estimates. In 2016, none of the EU meat firms
had reported their supply chain emissions.
Solutions proposed for livestock’s climate problem fall
into different categories. Meat companies prefer reduced
emissions per kilo of meat produced, known as “emissions
intensity” reduction. This approach relies on further intensification of production by generating more meat per animal
or using less feed per animal without necessarily reducing
the number of animals produced. Agriculture science andvarious NGOs see reducing the production and consumption of animal products as key to climate protection – lessand better is the guiding narrative.
A third complementary approach recommended by scientists to cut down production and consumption of food animals is through undertaking measures that reduce competition between food for humans versus feed for animals. For
example, biomass unsuited for human consumption, such

Beef, pork and chicken contribute to
global warming in very different ways – fromenteric fermentation to fodder and manure

HEAVYWEIGHTS HOTTING IT UP
Greenhouse gas emissions of 20 leading meat and milk firms
compared with emissions of countries and oil corporations,in megatonnes, data from 2015 (countries) and 2016 (firms)

emissions in megatonnes
for comparison
17

22

Tyson

15

Dean Foods

Germany24
Lactalis

41

15
Vion

20

52

22

Dairy Farmers of America

Yili

California Dairies

39

Britain

JBS

35

42

23

Minerva

Shell
France280

Marfrig

578

Exxon
meat andmilk firms
countries
oil corporations

National Beef

Smithfield/WH Group**

Top 5 meatand milk firms

FrieslandCampina
Nestlé

Cargill

902

18

30
15

932

Saputo118
86

Top 20 meatand milk firms

Danish Crown

BP

Fonterra
BRF*

Firms whose reports permitted analysis. ** US company under Chinese ownershipas crop residues, food scraps and plant parts left over fromthe processing of crops, can be turned into livestock feed.
The researchers estimate that this could produce between
9 and 23 grams of animal protein per person per day – compared to a total demand of 50 to 60 grams a day. They also
discovered that such low-cost feeding, combined with the
avoidance of competition between feed and food crop production, could lead to 19 to 50 percent fewer greenhousegas emissions.
In addition, livestock management systems such as“adaptive multi-paddock grazing” have the potential to cut

Failure to reduce the industrial livestock sector
may signficantly jeopardize the planet’s ability
to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius

577
508
507
464
448

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / IATP, GRAIN

19

Arla

Methane from beef and dairy cattle, animal manure,
feed crop expansion and fertilizer use dominate
the greenhouse gas emissions of the agricultural sector

livestock emissions by more than half. In such a system, animals rotate between separate paddocks or grazing areas.
This prevents overgrazing, promotes the growth of fodder
between the grazing cycles, and imitates the movement ofgrazing animals in natural systems. This system has beenshown to improve pasture productivity, carbon sequestration and fodder quality compared to conventional methods that maintain high numbers of livestock on permanentpastures. Eliminating cereals and replacing them withnitrogen-fixing legumes and a mix of perennial grasses in an
integrated livestock management system could also makeproduction more resilient in the face of climate change.

ATTENTION NEEDED TODAY
23 %

14 %

45 %

38 Gt

23 Gt
2050

base year 2016
scenario: global warming
at most 2 degrees Celsius
scenario: global warming
at most 1.5 degrees Celsius

51 Gt

2030

shares of emissions
due to meat and milk sector

2016

31 Gt

27 %

13 Gt
81 %

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / IATP, GRAIN

Greenhouse gas emissions in gigatonnes and shareof meat and milk sector in percent

MEAT ATLAS 2021

35

PESTICIDESBANNED BY BRUSSELS,ALLOWED IN THE AMAZON
Pesticide applications are on the rise acrossthe globe. Some of the most dangerous
substances have been banned in theEuropean Union, but are still being used ona large scale in other parts of the world.
Many are intended for the cultivationof soybean and maize, which are destined
mainly for use as livestock feed.

T

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / FAOSTAT

he worldwide use of pesticides has doubled since 1990,
with over 4 million tonnes of active ingredients now
applied every year to control weeds, insects and otherplant pests. The quantities of pesticides traded are far higher
than this, because the active ingredients are mixed with other chemicals and water to make them easier to apply and toboost their effectiveness. While applications have stagnatedin many parts of the European Union over the last 30 years,
they have increased sharply elsewhere in the world.
This increase results in part from the rising global demand for meat. This in turn stimulates the demand forprotein-rich feed made from soybeans, the main producers of which are the USA, Brazil and Argentina. These three

CHEMICAL REACTIONS
Pesticide applications, in 1,000 tonnes
5,000

world
4,122
4,000

others
3,000

368
EU-28

USA

408
1,704

2,000

China
1,000

377
BrazilArgentina
01990

36 MEAT ATLAS 2021

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

countries are among the world’s biggest pesticide users.
The figures for China are contradictory. The country’s statistics office has given the Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations a figure of 1.7 million tonnes – over
40 percent of global consumption. But an official Chinese
specialized authority reports just 300,000 tonnes. It is unclear if the two numbers can be compared. Regarding herbicides, which are used to control weeds, the USA uses morethan 250,000 tonnes, Brazil nearly 230,000 tonnes, and Argentina 161,000 tonnes. Together, that is nearly 70 percentof the global reported consumption.
Agrochemicals are used to produce many crops in thesecountries. Soybeans, most of which are processed into livestock feed, play a special role. In Brazil, 52 percent of all
pesticide sales are for soybean production. Rising in parallel to soy production, which has increased almost sixfold
since 1990, is pesticide use: nine times as much pesticide issprayed today in Brazil as 30 years ago.
The rise in pesticide consumption in Brazil and Argentina is linked to the introduction of genetically modified soybeans at the end of the 1990s. These plants are resistant toglyphosate, a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide. Glyphosate can be sprayed on soybeans while they are growing in
the field to destroy any weeds that compete with the crop.
But the more glyphosate is applied, the likelier it is that theweeds will become resistant to the spray – forcing farmers tospray even more, and to use different types of weedkillers. A
vicious circle ensues.
It is the pesticide producers that reap the rewards. The
main beneficiaries are Syngenta, headquartered in Switzerland; Bayer and BASF in Germany; and Corteva and FMC
in the USA. These five firms control over 70 percent of theworld market for pesticides, which was valued at an estimated 60 billion US dollars in 2019. Syngenta is the global
market leader, accounting for one quarter of industry sales
alone.
The pesticides sold by the five firms vary in their mode ofaction as well as in the risks they pose. Non-governmentalorganizations estimate that in 2018, the firms generated a
combined 35 percent of global sales from substances thatare particularly damaging to humans or the environment.
The NGO Pesticide Action Network classifies such substances as “highly hazardous” on the basis of assessments by various national and international authorities.
These companies are grouped into a trade association
known as “CropLife International”. They do a particularly
good business in highly hazardous pesticides for growing

173
2018

Global pesticide applications are no longer
rising. For producers that means cutthroat
competition and the search for new markets

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / PUBLIC EYETOP 5 PESTICIDE PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS
Combined turnover of the five biggest international pesticide producers in their five most important markets,in million US dollars, 2018, and share of sold or purchased highly hazardous pesticides, in percent

Canada 625

Germany 649

23.0 %

Bayer Crop Science 4,600

12.0 %
USA 2,890

BASF 2,570

France 784

36.7 %

11.0 %

36.0 %

24.9 %

Corteva 1,850
Brazil 3,330

FMC 97149.0 %

sellers
share of highly hazardous
pesticides

39.2 %

51.5 %

buyersshare of highly hazardous
pesticides

identifiable products of the producers Bayer, BASF, Syngenta (Europe) and Corteva und FMC (USA);in the world‘s largest market, China, local producers have a market share of 90 percent*

feed crops. Applications for soy and maize account for almost half their sales of such pesticides. In Brazil, their biggest market, soybean cultivation accounts for almost twothirds of those sales.
The top seller is glyphosate, classified by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer as “probably carcinogenic”.
Besides Bayer AG, which acquired most of its glyphosate
business through its purchase of the US company Monsanto, hundreds of other companies have long since sold thiscontroversial product. For soybean cultivation in Brazil
alone, 246 glyphosate-containing pesticide products from50 different companies are approved for sale.
Other highly dangerous substances are also in use. Paraquat, for example, is popular. Because of its high acutetoxicity, this herbicide, developed in 1955, has been bannedin over 50 countries, including the European Union, Switzerland, China and, since September 2020, Brazil. Syngenta
and other firms nonetheless still sell it in countries where
regulation and enforcement are weaker. German and US
companies also continue to trade in many pesticides thatare banned in their home markets because of known risks.
The German firm Bayer AG sells insecticides in South America that are banned in the European Union due to their highbee toxicity.
Many of these pesticides are produced in the European
Union and then exported. Under the EU-Mercosur trade
agreement, this trade could increase further because thecustoms duties for chemical products – including pesti-

After a wave of mergers, five big global
pesticide producers remain. Smaller producers areactive mainly in their own national markets

cides – are to be reduced. Nonetheless, the European Commission wants to stop the production of chemicals for export if they are banned in the EU. A first success is in France,
where such a ban will come into force in 2022. Exports from
Switzerland were tightened in 2021, and the export of five
pesticides is now banned.

HAZARDS IN FEED TROUGHS
Pesticide sales and shares of highly hazardous substances inthem, by crop, 5 biggest international producers,*
in billion US dollars and percent
36.2 %

5.0

of which

51.2 %

Glyphosate
Paraquat
Glufosinate
Mancozebsoybean

3.5

0.93

49.7 %of which

Atrazine
Acetochlorothers27.7 %
0.43

maize

Around half of the pesticides applied tosoybean and maize are highly hazardous. Atrazine
has been banned in the EU since 2004*

 identifiable products of the producers Bayer, BASF and Syngenta (Europe),
and Corteva and FMC (USA)MEAT ATLAS 2021 / PUBLIC EYE

32.0 %

Syngenta (ChemChina) 3,410

MEAT ATLAS 2021

37

WATERTHIRSTY ANIMALS, THIRSTY CROPSI

n general, more water is needed to produce meat thanplant-based foods such as grains or beans. The averagewater footprint per calorie for beef is 20 times that ofgrain. But not all meat is the same, and the species of livestock and the management type affect the water requirements considerably.
Producing a kilogram of beef takes an average of 15,415
litres of water. The same amount of sheep or goat meat takes
almost 9,000 litres, a kilo of pork 6,000 litres, and of chicken
4,300 litres. In all, 92 percent of the global water footprint
goes towards agriculture, 29 percent of which is used in animal production. According to another calculation, agriculture uses 70 percent of all available fresh water, three times
as much as 50 years ago.
But one beefsteak is not necessarily the same as another.
The precise water footprint depends on the production system in which the animal was raised. Was the animal kept on
pasture in a mixed system that included crops, or was it in
an industrial system with high animal numbers per hectare,in which over 90 percent of the feed is brought in? Just as
important are the composition and origin of the feed.
Here’s an example. The calculation that a kilogram ofsteak requires 15,415 litres of water assumes that the animal was slaughtered at three years of age. During its lifetime, it will have eaten 1,300 kilograms of feed concentratecomposed of various cereals and soybeans, plus 7,200 kilograms of roughage (grass, hay, silage). It will have drunk
24,000 litres of water. Its housing must also be cleaned andsprayed. But most of the water goes into producing the feed.

NOT A DROP TO DRINK
Global drought risk, indicator including
hazard (probability), exposure(population, cropland, livestock etc.),
and vulnerability (likelihood of suffering
adverse effects), 2019
Drought likelihood
high (0.8–1)
medium-high (0.6–0.8)
medium (0.4–0.6)
low-medium (0.2–0.4)
low (0–0.2)

38 MEAT ATLAS 2021

arid, low
water usage
urban centres

In making these calculations, we must remember thata cow that has spent its life on a pasture in a humid region
will have a relatively large water footprint because the ample rainfall on its pasture is credited to the animal. Plus, it
uses its pasture feed fairly inefficiently and takes a long time
to reach slaughter weight. This means we should look at thewater footprint more closely.
Experts distinguish between “green”, “blue” and “grey”
water. Green water is the rainfall that is available to plantsfrom precipitation. Blue water is the volume needed for irrigation. Grey water is the volume that would hypotheticallybe needed to dilute contaminants to a harmless level so theywould comply with limits for water quality.
When calculating the water footprint of meat production, we must know whether it arises from green, blue
or grey water in order to judge whether the limited water
available is being overexploited. Yes, two-thirds of the
Earth’s surface is covered with water, but most of it is salt
water in the oceans. Only a tiny proportion, 0.4 percent, isfresh water that circulates in local, regional and global water cycles and is available to plants, animals, and us.
Because cattle kept in industrial systems convert theirfeed concentrate relatively efficiently, they generally havea smaller water footprint than cattle kept in other systems,
including ecological production where the animals spend
a lot of time out grazing. But industrial systems rely on feedfrom arable crops that are irrigated, fertilized and sprayedwith pesticides. That means that the footprint for feed production for industrial livestock raising includes a large proportion of blue and grey water. The blue water footprintof feed concentrate is 43 times that of roughage; the grey
water footprint is 61 times as much. That makes meat frompasture-raised animals preferable to that of industriallyraised animals because it uses less water overall.

People, industry, irrigation and livestock:
they all need water. Climatechange makes water stress much worse

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / EC

All animal products have a water footprint:
the amount of water needed to produce
them. It is not just the total amount thatis important, but the types of water that areneeded. There is enough “green” water.
But the volumes of “blue” and “grey” water
should be kept low.

Water used in production of agricultural products, global averages, by categories of use,
in litres per kilogram of animal or plant producta bathtub contains
about 140 litres of water

green: naturally occurring rain or groundwater
blue: groundwater or surface water extracted and used for artificial
irrigation and production and not returned to a water bodygrey: water that is contaminated during production andwhich would be required to be restored to acceptable quality
eggs 3,265

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / FAO, MEKONNEN ET AL.

PROBLEMS IN BLUE AND GREY

butter 5,553

pigs 5,988

milk 1,020
chickens 4,325

sheep, goats 8,763

cattle 15,415

Problems for the ecosystem and for soils arise in dry
regions if blue water is used to grow feed crops, which arethen removed from the regional cycles. Ruminants fed withfeed grown under irrigation are found mainly in the USA,
China and India. Pigs raised under industrial management– which uses a lot of water – come mainly from the northeastern USA, Europe and China.
The consequences for rivers, wetlands and groundwater levels in these regions are devastating. According to the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,the midwestern USA and western China suffer from soil
salinity due to irrigation with groundwater. Nitrogen andphosphorus used as fertilizers are washed down rivers into
the sea, where they give rise to dead zones. In these ma-

Pork and beef have the biggest blueand grey water footprints. For fodder crops,
it is the protein-rich legumes

rine deserts, explosive algal blooms use up all the oxygen.
Deprived of oxygen, marine animals and plants die. There
are around 400 such dead zones around the world. The biggest is in the Arabian Sea, covering almost the whole of the
Gulf of Oman. In the Gulf of Mexico in the USA, pollutants
carried down the Mississippi create a dead zone each yearthat covers over 15,000 square kilometres. And wheneverland-based water reservoirs, such as forests in Brazil andpeatlands around the world, are converted into cropland,
the overuse of water resources is especially severe.

MEAT ATLAS 2021

39

FERTILIZERSTOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING
Nitrogen pollution from livestock manure
is an increasing problem in many partsof the world. Countries in the European
Union have lots of ideas on how to reducesuch contamination of their environments.
One approach is through closer monitoringof industrial livestock producers andrestricting the amount of manure slurrythat crop farmers are allowed to apply.

R

ivers, streams and lakes in many parts of Europe arepolluted with nitrogen. One of the main causes isindustrial livestock farming, which produces large
amounts of slurry and manure which are used as fertilizer
for crops. The nitrogen they contain is a nutrient that plants
need to grow. But if too much is applied, it leaches down
into the soil. Under unfavourable circumstances, it can end
up as nitrates in the groundwater and ultimately in the sea.
The less nitrogen that the manure releases into the environment, the greater its value as a fertilizer, and the lessof a threat it poses to water bodies. Optimal fertilization
depends heavily on the timing and on the methods used.
The loss of nitrogen into the atmosphere in the form of ammonia gas can be reduced if manure tanks are covered, orif the slurry is worked into the ground immediately after it
is spread on a field. In standing crops, this is best done byinjecting it into the soil rather than spreading it broadly on
the surface. Farms that use the right techniques can significantly reduce their losses.
In practice, animal manure is not regarded as an adequate fertilizer to fulfil the plant demand in intensive production. Mineral fertilizers are therefore also applied to

DEAD ZONES

cropland dedicated to feedless than 5 percent
less than 20 percent
20–50 percent
more than 50 percent
hypoxic zone due to nitrogen and phosphate loads

40 MEAT ATLAS 2021

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / FAO

Mississippi drainage basin, land use, and Gulf of Mexico, water pollution

fields. This can also lead to excessive nitrogen loads thatcan contaminate the groundwater. The European Union’s
Nitrate Directive currently specifies a limit of 50 milligramsof nitrate per litre of drinking water, and a guideline valueof a maximum of 2.8 milligrams of total nitrogen in surface
water.
The EU’s legal maximum total nitrogen level for animal
manure is 170 kilograms per hectare. Applications of mineral fertilizers add to the amount of nitrogen. In many European countries, more than 100 kilograms of nitrogen surplus is spread on fields each year, exceeding the maximum
and guideline levels for nitrates in groundwater. This is especially the case in regions with intensive livestock farming
practices. Denmark, Germany and the Benelux countries,
with their high concentrations of livestock, are particularly
affected. They have had to take decisive countermeasuresand adapt their regulations in recent years in order to comply with EU agricultural and environmental policies.
In Denmark, where export-oriented animal production
is an important sector in the economy, the authorities havebeen taking effective action since 1985. Nitrate concentrations that sometimes exceeded 200 milligrams per litre insoil layers near the groundwater level have been halved overthe past 10 years. Farmers are now obliged to keep digital records of their fertilizer plans. These plans must be based on
the expected yield levels and had to be 10 to 20 percent below the calculated economic optimum until 2015. Spreading slurry in autumn, after the main harvest, is largely prohibited because the plants need scarcely any nitrogen then.
These restrictions have triggered a comprehensive modernization of the machinery and equipment fleet in order to incorporate the manure effectively into the soil.
The use of low-emission application methods is now
mandatory in many countries in western Europe, such as
Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands. This has also beentrue for arable land in Germany since 2020, but will not
apply to grassland until 2025. To prevent an unchecked
increase in livestock farming on vulnerable soils, the Netherlands imposes regional limits for the amount of manurethat may be applied. If the amount per hectare is too high,the manure must be separated into solids and liquids at a
separation plant. The manure can then be more efficiently
exported to regions with fewer livestock and used in crop
farming outside the country, if necessary.
In addition to capping the amounts of fertilizer, it makes
sense to adjust how crops are grown. In Denmark, a minimum of six percent of the agricultural area must be devoted to “catch crops”. These are crops that bind nitrogen in
their biomass over winter and prevent it from being leachedaway. Depending on the cultivation system, legumes can be

The oversized footprint of factory
farms: growing feed in the Corn Belt andspreading slurry in the Gulf of Mexico

WASTED CHEMICALS, FALLEN TREES

183

world

163

China

Uzbekistan

159
Egypt

Colombia70

169 144243 198

Belgium

144367

Bangladesh

Several industries use various
nitrogen-containing compounds.
Improper disposal of wastematerial may add to nitrateconcentration in groundwater

Netherlands
Deforestation reduces the abilityof soils to retain nitrogen in rainfall

Anthropogenic sources of nitratecontamination in groundwater, percent
croplanddeforestation

60 %Overuse and improper timing of
fertilizer applications are the sourceof most nitrates in groundwaterused as a catch crop to a certain extent. Legumes are plants
whose roots host symbiotic bacteria that are able to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere. This enables the farm to avoid theneed to apply additional synthetic nitrogen that would haveto be produced in an energy-intensive way.
Other options open to farmers include “precision farming” techniques, and shifting the winter sowing of grains
to as early a date as possible. Precision farming methods include using special sensors in the field in order to apply anamount of fertilizer that meets the plants’ precise requirements. Sowing earlier allows the plants to take up more nitrogen before the winter months. No matter the approach,
it is necessary to monitor performance with the help of farmdata. In Demark, exceeding the legal limits for nitrogen incurs a levy of at least 1.30 euros per kilogram. In additional
to regulations, many EU countries offer free advice to farmers on how to protect water. Starting with a fairly high levelcompared to other European countries, the Netherlands
has been able to cut its applications of mineral fertilizer by
50 percent since 1990.
Despite such successes, official support for voluntarymeasures will lead to marked improvements only if protecting the environment pays off for livestock farmers andif they can factor it in over the long term. From the pointof view of water protection, environmentally friendly live-

Too many animals, too much nitrogen:even if the over-fertilization ends, Europe’s
soils would still need decades to recover

7%

220

domestic wastewaterand septic tanks

industrial
waste

20 %

13 %

In areas with large numbersof people, faecal waste is the
major source of nitrate pollution

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / SHUKLA/SAXENA, OWID

United Kingdom

Costa Rica

Czechia

In western Europe, manure is a major problem
for groundwater. In large parts of the world,the main issue is the use of artificial fertilizers

stock production can succeed only through policy instruments. Those include capping the surpluses of nitrogenand phosphorus that a farm is allowed to produce, and reducing EU agricultural subsidies for farms that exceed thelimits.

RED ZONES
Nitrogen contamination of soils in the EU*, 2010

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / EUROSTAT

Chemical and mineral nutrient nitrogen use in selected countries
and globally, kilograms per hectare of cropland, 2018low
mediumhighvery high*with United Kingdom, excluding Sweden and Finland

MEAT ATLAS 2021

41

REWETTINGGIVE PEAT A CHANCE
Across the globe, peatlands are being
drained for farming and raising livestock.
But dried-out peat emits huge amountsof greenhouse gases. Agricultural
policy should initiate a transition to theclimate-friendly use of these areas.

Over the millennia, waterlogged land has given riseto ecosystems that transform partly decomposed
plant biomass into peat, and in doing so, store hugeamounts of carbon in the ground. Although peatlands cover
only 3 percent of the world’s land surface, they contain twice
as much carbon as the biomass of all the forests which spread
across 30 percent of world’s land. Natural wet peatlands aretrue multitalents. By filtering out nutrients and pollutants,
they act as the “kidneys” of the landscape. They are important water reservoirs, and cool the surrounding area. Last
but not least, they serve as a home for rare flora and fauna.
But peatlands have been, and still are being, drained inorder to extract peat, to make the land usable for farming
and forestry, and to gain new land for settlement. Permanently lowering the water levels allows air to penetrate thepeat layers. The carbon these layers contain oxidizes and isemitted as CO2, exacerbating climate change. The peat isconsumed in the process, and the surface of the land sinks:
by 1–2 cm per year in Central Europe, and up to five times
faster in the tropics. After hundreds of years of use, the surface of peatlands in the Netherlands now lies several metres
below sea level. In dried-out peat layers, devastating fires
may smoulder for months on end. Indonesia is known as theglobal hotspot with the highest CO2 emissions from peatlands, while the European Union is in second place. Within

the EU, it is Germany, where 98 percent of peatlands havebeen drained, that accounts for the highest emissions.
Some 15 percent of the world’s peatlands have been
drained, and half of those have been converted to agricultural use. Even though carbon-rich soils account for just
3 percent of the European Union’s agricultural area, theirdrainage is responsible for 25 percent of greenhouse gas
emissions from agriculture and agricultural land use.
Most of the peatland soils drained for agricultural purposes in Europe are used for raising livestock. In some regions, such as southern Germany, Denmark, the United
Kingdom and Switzerland, they are important for farming
vegetables, potatoes and grains. In addition to being repurposed as meadows and pastures, peatlands are also used to
grow fodder such as silage maize.
Dairy farms place high demands on the quality of theircattle feed, and especially on its energy content. The intensive use of peatlands for dairying is found in northwestern
Germany, Finland, and especially in the Netherlands. The
city of Gouda, which gave its name to the world-famous
Dutch cheese, lies in the middle of a peat bog that was
drained in the 11th century. With greenhouse gas emissions of 20 to 50 tonnes of CO2-equivalent per year, eachhectare of intensive grassland and cropland on peat soils is
especially damaging to the climate, and is also of negligible
value in terms of biodiversity. These emissions increase thefootprint of a kilogram of milk produced on peatland by
4 kilograms of CO2. That makes it around five times that of

Human activities such as drainage and the destructionof native vegetation cause changes in ecological processes,
ecosystem structure and species composition

Environmental and social
impacts of peatland drainage,
main consequences andselected components

greenhousegasemissionsbiodiversity
loss
peatlanddrainageharms
aquatic
speciesincreases
carbon loss
via watertransports
contaminantsandpollutants

worsens
drinking water
quality

42 MEAT ATLAS 2021

salt water
intrusion

landdegradation

productivity
loss

raises greenhouse gas
emissionskills animals
and plants

makes
fires more
frequent

generates
haze and toxic
substances

land loss/
subsidence

increases riskof flooding
and droughts

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / IZQUIERDO

THE DANGERS OF
DRAINING THE SWAMPINVISIBLY HARMFUL

12 %Greenhouse gas emissions from peat soils used for farming, by EU member state,
million tonnes CO2 equivalent, 2019, and their share of total agricultural emissions
Share of total agriculture,in percent
peat soils used for farming
greenhouse gas emissions
from these areas
Greenhouse gasemissions,million tonnes
0 to 0.5
over 0.5 to 5
over 5 to 20
over 20 to 40

62 %
5%

Finland
5%

38 %
4%

65 %

Sweden29 %Estonia

Ireland6%

Denmark

32 %

53 %

41 %
7%

25 %

71 %
Latvia

15 %
34 %

3%

6%

4%

Lithuania

PolandMEAT ATLAS 2021 / GREIFSWALD MIRE CENTRE

7%

37 %

Netherlands
Germany

4%
1%

EU 28

49 %

24 %
Romania

Hungary

Around 50 million hectares of peatland have so
far been lost through human activity.
Most have converted to arable and grazing land

Peatlands cover just a small part of the EU’s agriculturalland. Rewetting them would minimize the emissionof a disproportionate amount of climate-damaging gas

play. Paludiculture and the periodic flooding of land could
be supported in the future, while subsidies for draining
peatlands should be withdrawn. Farms will need support
to withstand such changes, starting with individual advice
and investment, through to appropriate remuneration for
their environmental and climate services. Protecting peatlands is not just the responsibility of individual farmers; it isa task for society as a whole.

DRAINING THE SWAMP
Global conversion of peatlands, area in million hectares
and proportion in percent, rounded
5 peat extraction
10 %1.5 flood areas
and reservoirs

3%

25 farming

15 forestry

50 %
30 %

2 urbanization andinfrastructure5%2%
1 other

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / GEC, WI

milk produced on mineral soils, which is between 0.6 and1.5 kilograms a year. The higher footprint applies to otherdairy products as well. For a kilogram of cheese, made from
9 litres of milk, the annual CO2 footprint is 45 kilograms,compared to 9 kilograms for non-peatland cheese. For akilogram of butter, made from 18 litres of milk, it is 97 kilograms rather than 25.
For the productive and climate-friendly use of peatland
areas, alternatives other than animal husbandry are needed. The answer may be “paludiculture” – from palus, the Latin word for swamp. Various types of plants are being tested
that are suitable for cultivation on peatland sites that havebeen rewetted. Raw materials from paludiculture could
contribute to the decarbonization of our economy. They
include Sphagnum mosses, which can be grown on former
bog grasslands, and which could replace peat being thepredominant substrate in horticulture. Grasses and sedges
from wet meadows can be used to produce fibre for paperand cardboard, disposable tableware and building panels.
Reed and cattail can supply raw materials for construction
and insulation.
In the European Union, it is the Common Agricultural Policy that determines whether peatlands are used in amanner that is both climate-compatible and socially acceptable. Scientists and civil society organizations are largely in agreement that funding practices have a key role to

MEAT ATLAS 2021

43

ANTIBIOTICSUSELESS MEDICINES
Antibiotics help to treat many diseases.
The big problem: in both humans andanimals, pathogens can develop antibiotic
resistance – a fatal danger. And in industrial
livestock production, these drugs
are still not being used carefully enough.

T

he global Covid-19 crisis has shown how dangerous it
can be if there is a lack of effective medicines to treat
people with diseases. Another global health crisis,
one that already kills 700,000 people a year, is caused bybacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. The effectivenessof these medicines is limited because they are overused orwrongly applied, and the germs have become resistant tothem. The World Health Organization has for years been
warning of the spread of resistant strains of pathogens.
A large part of the problem is that 73 percent of the an-

LURKING IN THE COOLER
Pathogens resistant to antibiotics and Highest Priority Critically
Important Antibiotics (HP-CIAs) in chicken from three leading
EU meat suppliers, number of samples and results in percent, 2020

number of samples
without antibiotic-resistant microbeswith microbes resistant to antibiotics and
HP-CIAs from the quinolone group

54

56

55

165

41 %
total
PHW Group,
Germany, incl.
“Wiesenhof”

43 %

49 %
64 %

12 %
26 %

Plukon Group,
Netherlands,
incl. “Friki”
16 %

45 %

33 %

44 MEAT ATLAS 2021

35 %
25 %

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / GERMANWATCH

11 %LDC Group,France, incl.
“Le Gaulois”

tibiotics sold worldwide are used on animals, not to treat
illness in humans. The proportion of industrial animal agriculture that routinely uses antibiotics is rising. Market analyses for pharmaceutical companies reveal that the global
market for veterinary medicines has risen by 5 to 6 percent
per year in recent years. If governments do not step in to
regulate this more strictly, researchers predict a 67 percent
increase in antibiotic use for livestock between 2010 and
2030.
Bacteria are constantly adapting. They develop genes
for resistance, and they can pass these on to other bacteria,
even from one species to another. That is especially a problem for zoonoses – pathogens that can infect both animals
and humans – which can transfer resistance from the animal kingdom into the human body.
Resistance in livestock farms has increased markedly
since the turn of the millennium in many countries. Parts
of China and India are currently in the lead, but the numbers in Brazil and Kenya are also rising quickly. The World
Health Organization warns that the excessive and inappropriate use of antibiotics in livestock is increasingly threatening their effectiveness in humans. That is because in animal husbandry, the bacteria develop resistance against thesame antibiotics that are routinely used to treat infectious
diseases in humans.
The use of so-called Highest Priority Critically Important
Antibiotics (HP-CIAs) poses special problems. The World
Health Organization recommends that these emergency
antibiotics should be reserved for use in humans for cases
where other antibiotics are ineffective. Although the EU
Parliament has been calling for stricter rules for the application of HP-CIAs in stables for years, the EU Commission has
not yet effectively regulated their use.
According to a study by the non-governmental organization Germanwatch, antibiotic-resistant pathogens were
found in 51 percent of chicken samples from major poultry
producers in five EU countries. Some 35 percent of the laboratory samples even had pathogens that were resistant to
HP-CIAs and which could therefore render these last-ditch
remedies ineffective. Meat from the poultry industry drags
the resistant pathogens into the food chain, and therefore
into consumers’ kitchens. Humans could pick up the multiresistant pathogens while preparing or eating contaminated meat. The resistant microbes may cause severe infections,against which hardly any antibiotics are effective. Or thegenes that cause resistance can remain in the person’s gut
and render the medications used to treat other infections
ineffective.
Livestock farms and abattoir employees, veterinarians,
and residents of areas with large numbers of animals are

Half of all chicken is contaminated with antibioticresistant pathogens. One-third even harbours microbesthat are resistant to the most valuable antibiotics

GROWTH OF THE WRONG SORTCountries with more than 1,000 tonnes of antibiotics sales for the production of animal-sourced foods, 2013 and expected increase to 2030,
in tonnes
1,850
1,581
11,561
9,476

1,285
1,127

2,334
2,202

Canada

Spain

USA

1,603
1,527
Germany
1,398
1,319

Russia
2,349
1,807
Iran

China

Italy

2,285
1,385

124,338
78,200

4,792
2,633

9.092
6.448

MexicoMEAT ATLAS 2021 / VAN BOECKEL ET AL.

Brazil
India

2030
2013

Almost half of the antibiotics given to
animals in the USA are not used to treat diseases
but to prevent them – or to boost growth

China’s meat producers feed their animals antibiotics
primarily as growth stimulants. That amounts
to half of the total worldwide use of these products

veterinary doctors, consumer groups and environmental
protection organizations around the world are calling for
better laws to protect animals, a ban on the use of HP-CIAsin livestock, and high levies on other antibiotics, so thatanimal welfare that uses as few antibiotics as possible becomes more attractive to the farming industry.

UNSCRUPULOUS APPLICATION
Use of antibiotics in the USA, 2017 (humans), 2018 (animals),in percent
humanscattlepigs
chickens
turkeysotheranimals

2.4 %
9.4 %
2.8 %

22.0 %

22.7 %
37.3 %
no medical reason*
16.0 %
1.7 %
1.5 %
4.5 %

*

e.g., prophylaxis for complete herds, use for fattening

17.0 %
40.7 %
medical reasons

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / NRDC

affected by resistant pathogens especially often. The riskof contracting these pathogens is 100 times higher for
people who work in livestock enclosures than for people
in nearby areas who have no contact to animals. The Covid-19 crisis has revealed the miserable working conditions
for staff in many abattoirs. On top of that are the aboveaverage health risks these workers face as a result of resistant pathogens.
Since 2007, no new class of antibiotics against infections
in humans and animals has come onto the market. So there
are no new mechanisms of action, and no new active substances. On the contrary: the patent protection for many
antibiotics has expired, and the drugs are cheaply available.
From a business point of view, it is worthwhile to researchand produce new antibiotics only if they are used as often
as possible. The logic of the market therefore contradicts
the goal of maintaining the effectiveness of available treatments for as long as feasible so they can be used only inemergencies.
Antibiotics reduce the costs of livestock production in
many ways. They can compensate for shortcomings in hygiene, management and care of the animals in the shortterm, yet account for only one to three percent of the total
production costs. Some countries, including Brazil, permit
their use to improve performance. The treated animals
make better use of their feed and gain weight more quickly. This is forbidden in the European Union. Human and

MEAT ATLAS 2021

45

PANDEMICS

DANGEROUS CONTACTS
Livestock production and meat consumption
stimulate outbreaks of diseases that canbe transmitted from wild animals to humans.
Such zoonoses can have catastrophic
consequences – as Covid-19 has shown.

T

CHRONOLOGY OF ANIMAL-TO-HUMAN DISEASES
Discovery of first major outbreak of well-known
zoonotic diseases, original species and intermediate host1878

avian influenza (HPAI) birds

1920sacquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)
primates

1931

infectious bronchitis poultry

1937

West Nile fever birds, horses

1947

Zika fever monkeys, then mosquitoes

1976

Ebola bats, monkeys

1986

mad cow disease (spongiform encephalopathy, BSE)

1994

Hendra virus flying foxes, horses

1997

bird flu (H5N1), a form of avian influenza flying foxes, pets

1998

Nipah virus flying foxes, pets

2003

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)

2012

Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) bats, thencattle, sheepbats, then civets

presumably
dromedaries

2016

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / UNEP, WIKIPEDIA

he International Organization for Animal Health estimates that 60 percent of all infectious diseases inhumans are zoonotic: they can be transmitted fromanimals to humans and vice versa. They cause some 2.5 billion cases of illness in humans each year, from malaria to
Covid-19 – and 2.7 million deaths.
One of the best-known zoonotic diseases is rabies. It is
still present in many countries. But many other zoonotic
diseases have emerged only recently, like bird flu, severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), West Nile virus, and“mad cow” disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or
BSE). Then, of course, there is Covid-19, which is thought tohave originated at a wildlife market in the Chinese city of

Wuhan, where the virus is said to have jumped to humans,possibly through the consumption of bushmeat.
The circumstances of meat production and consumption play a central role in the transmission of zoonoses tohumans. Research has found that almost 75 percent of thevarious known zoonoses can be traced to wildlife – fromconsuming the meat of wild animals, for example. Because
more and more land is being used for agricultural production and the habitat of wild animals is being destroyed, thespaces occupied by wild animals and humans increasingly
overlap. This increases the risk of people contracting diseases from infected animals. Intermediate hosts such as ticks
and mosquitoes also play a role. Unless there is a change inpolicy, the share of zoonotic diseases in the human disease
burden will rise as the human population of the world increases and as consumption patterns shift towards moremeat.
An example of the connection between environmental
destruction and zoonoses is the well-researched outbreakof Nipah disease in Malaysia. Between August and October
1997, slash-and-burn agriculture and a severe drought inneighbouring Indonesia destroyed about 5 million hectaresof forest. Huge plumes of smoke prevented large numbersof flowers and fruits in Malaysia’s forests from flourishing.
Flying foxes, carriers of the Nipah virus, therefore sought
feed in nearby mango plantations. There, the virus wastransmitted – through either their saliva or their urine – todomestic pigs who also fed on the mangoes. The pigs in turninfected farmers, who fell ill from a form of encephalitis.
This brain infection caused hundreds of deaths; the mortality rate was around 40 percent.
Increased human presence, a reduction in wildlife habitat and a higher number of domestic animals: these threefactors make the transmission of diseases from animals
to humans more likely. According to a study published in
the scientific journal Nature, the clearing or draining ofland for farming, as well as agricultural production, canbe linked to over 25 percent of all infectious diseases andmore than 50 percent of all zoonotic infectious diseases inhumans.
Industrial livestock production also raises the risk of
disease transmission. While the world’s human population
has doubled in the last 50 years, global meat production has
more than tripled. In 2017, the world had some 1.5 billion
cows, one billion pigs, almost 23 billion poultry birds andmore than 2 billion sheep and goats. Often, many tens of
thousands of animals are kept together in confined spaces.
The World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations have for years
warned of the dangers of pandemics in connection with in-swine acute diarrhea syndrome (SADS)
presumably bats, pigs

2019

46 MEAT ATLAS 2021

novel coronavirus (Covid-19) wildlife, still undetermined

It is not always clear whichanimal a virus comes from and whether
there are intermediate hosts

WHERE THE NEXT PANDEMIC MAY START
Risk of the emergence of diseases that originate in animals and are dangerous for humans, geographical location of hotspots

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / UNEP

high
risk

low
risk

Where many people and many livestock come into
contact with pathogens that originate in wildlife, therisk of an outbreak of an infectious disease is highdustrial livestock farming, especially regarding poultry andpigs. Intensive forms of management, where the genetic
variability of the animals is low, are particularly problematic. If a virus enters such a farm, it can spread easily because
it can find many suitable host cells in one fell swoop. Close
contact then creates a high risk for humans too.
The trade in live animals and meat products can also
spread zoonoses around the world. The Scientific Task Forceon Avian Influenza and Wild Birds, which works with theUnited Nations, is convinced that the viruses that cause avian flu are not only transmitted by wild and migratory birds.
It also sees a threat in the international trade in poultry, as

well as in infections on poultry farms. The viruses enter thewild from there and are transmitted to wild birds.
How dangerous avian flu is depends on the pathogen
on one hand, and on the amount of human contact withdiseased or dead birds on the other. Since 2003, around 850
people globally have fallen ill from avian flu caused by thepathogen H5N1. More than half of them, 450 people, havedied. But if human-to-human infection were to occur, millions of deaths could result. The spread of Covid-19 has atleast shown what has often been ignored: to reduce the risk
of future pandemics, the biodiversity of our planet must
be protected and industrial livestock production must betransformed.

Infections that are transmitted from wildlife
to humans tend to fall into particular
categories – though they are of varying severity

THE MORE FIELDS AND PASTURES, THE MORE INFECTIONS
Main causes of the spread of zoonoses in 183 documented cases, 1940 to 2004

collapse of public health system: lossof treatment and prevention measurespopulation growth and human behaviour:
settlements and roads near wildlife habitats

others

3%
3%

7%
31 %

4%

climate and weather: conducive conditions for the
spread of pathogens in original and intermediate hosts

6%

war and hunger: taking refuge in forests,
battles and search for food there, consequences of injuries and hunger

7%

susceptibility of humans to infections: inadequate
sanitation, overcrowding in remote industrial settlements,
resistant pathogens resulting from use of antibiotics

land-use changes:
expansion of agriculturalland, urbanization, deforestation, fragmentation of landscapes

15 %
11 %

agriculture:grazing animals
near forests andswamps, herd
infections, changes
to wildlife habitats
through fencing

13 %international: export of live
wildlife and wildlife products

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / LOH ET AL.

bushmeat: consumption of the meat of wildand exotic animals close to their habitat

MEAT ATLAS 2021

47

PASTORALISM

BOUNTY FROM A BARREN LANDT

he origins of pastoralism can be traced back morethan 10,000 years. The practice emerged on the edgesof the earliest permanent settlements in the Middle
East. It was probably women who first domesticated goatsand sheep by raising orphaned lambs and kids. Later, partsof the community started following the flocks to seasonal
pastures in the desert. They formed the origins of numerous herding cultures that have ever since produced products such as meat, milk, wool, skins, fertilizer and fuel.
The term pastoralism – the often-mobile, extensive
keeping of locally adapted animals on natural bush andgrassland – refers to both an economic activity and a cultural identity. There are pastoralists on all continents except Antarctica, particularly in dry, steep, cold or hot areas
with few other economic uses. They herd alpacas, camels,
cattle, goats, sheep, reindeer, water buffalo and yaks. They
inhabit over 26 million square kilometres – more than the
combined areas of the USA, China and the European Union.
Although pastoralism mainly uses marginal areas for

production, it plays a central role in many countries. In Burkina Faso, over 70 percent of livestock are maintained in
pastoral systems; in Niger and Chad it is over 80 percent; in
Sudan, Tanzania and Somalia, over 90 percent. In India, thecountry with the largest number of poor livestock keepers,
more than half the milk and 70 percent of the meat comesfrom pastoral production.
An estimated 200 million people live as pastoralists.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that they manage about a billion animals. In parts of Africa and Asia that are dry all year roundor that have pronounced dry seasons, as well as in the Andes in South America and in the Arctic, these animals area major source of food and income for many people. In thenorthern Sahel, pastoralists have a more secure source ofboth food and income than sedentary farmers in the same
region.
For the welfare of their animals, pastoralists accept many
hardships and a lifestyle with few material belongings. Theybase their decisions about grazing areas and routes on traditional knowledge and on their experience with animal
behaviour, weather conditions and the nutritional value

For Mongolian pastoralists, goats
and cattle bring in about the same amountof money, but cattle take less work

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / GONCHIGSUMLAA

Mobile herders move with their herds orflocks in the remotest of pastures. This formof animal production, known as pastoralism,is economically important and climatefriendly, but it is under severe threat.

HERD PERFORMANCE
Income sources from pastoralist livestock keeping in Bulgan Province, Mongolia,
200 representatively selected from 943 households, 2016, data: 2012
profit per sheep unit* (euros)

output per household and year
81

goats
sheep
cattlehorsescamels31

including labour costs
excluding labour costs

5147
meat (kilograms)

307

goats

sheep

6.9
28.4
5.2
12.9
18.4

cattlemilk (litres)

24
25

wool (kilograms)
7

244
goats: cashmere, horses: horsehair

48 MEAT ATLAS 2021

horses

1.9
3.0

camels

1.6
2.3

1,876

2
10

6

5

27.3

*

 sheep units (SU) permit comparisonsamong animal species. Conversions:
1 camel = 7 SU, 1 cow/horse = 5 SU,
1 sheep = 1 SU, 1 goat = 0.9 SU(adult animals)

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / PRAPSFEED THE CITIESLivestock managed and traded by pastoralists in West Africa and the Sahel,
selected, million animals
cattle traded per year
over 300,000
over 100,000 to 300,000
20,000 to 100,000
under 20,000

Mauritania

18

2goats and sheep traded per year
over 2 million
over 300,000 to 2 million
over 100,000 to 300,000
20,000 to 100,000

10

Mali

11 3
Senegal

33

26

11
8
Niger

Burkina Faso

23

GambiaGuineaBissau

5

2
3
Benin

GuineaLiberia

Sierra Leone

cattle and buffalo

3
Côte d’Ivoire

Chad

9

6
2

10

2

10
Ghana

5
Togo

Nigeria

20

114

Central African
Republic
Cameroon

Africasheep and goatsof the vegetation. Social networks are also important. They
are built up over generations and make access to particulargrazing areas possible.
Pastoralism is of particular importance to the ecology.
The manure distributed by grazing animals plays an important role in the landscape. It sustains insects, which in turnare food for birds, amphibians and reptiles. Grazed pastureis a vital carbon sink.
The pastoral way of life is threatened mainly by the increasing fragmentation of the grazing lands. Rising demand for agricultural products since around 2005 has led
to a conversion to cropland and significant investment
in industrial farming on the most valuable grazing lands.
Only rarely do pastoralists have a say in what happens to
the grazing lands they have used for generations. The state
often claims ownership of the land for itself and decides oninvestments and use.
In times of climate change, pastoralists need as many
additional options as possible to adapt their mobility andgrazing methods to new feed, water and weather conditions. Some scientists assert that pastoralists are among
the groups worldwide that are most threatened by climate

Livestock connects – herds of cattle, and flocks ofsheep and goats, are the most important intraregional
economic factor in West Africa and the Sahelchange. Altered temperature and precipitation patterns arechanging feed and water resources and affect the incidenceof diseases and the reproductive performance of the animals, and thus the herd size. A decline in animal numbers
reduces the food security and income of the herders. Other
specialists, on the other hand, regard the mobile economic
model and lifestyle as an especially useful way to adapt tothe consequences of climate change.
Pastoralism is gaining increasing support from scientists and from UN organizations such as FAO. But the political conditions in many countries are not conducive. Few
countries formally recognize the herders’ rights to theirgrazing lands or integrate them into their rural development policies. For pastoralists, however, land rights thatstrengthen the communal use of land and the promotionof knowledge sharing among the stakeholders would be
the best recipe for sustainable living in times of climatechange.

MEAT ATLAS 2021

49

PASTORALISM IN INDIARANGELAND, NOT WASTELAND
India is the world’s largest exporter ofbuffalo, sheep and goat meat. Remarkably,
the majority of this output is produced in
traditional agropastoral systems.

India’s farm animal population includes 193 million cattle, 149 million goats, 110 million buffalo, 74 million
sheep, 9 million pigs, 300,000 camels and 58,000 yaks.
Around 77 percent of these animals are kept in extensive
systems, meaning they are either herded or left to range on
their own on common land. These animals produce about
53 percent of India’s milk and 74 percent of its meat. The
livestock sector comprises 4.5 percent of India’s GDP, with
two-thirds coming from such pastoralist production.
India is a collage of pastoralist cultures, and among its
myriad castes and communities, some 46 have distinct pastoralist identities. They distinguish themselves from farmers by not owning land – or they have only very small plots.
Instead, they use their herds or flocks to harvest “waste” biomass, grazing on harvested fields, in the forest or on uncultivated land. A tremendous variety of such systems exists.
They include transhumance (seasonal migrations, such as
between lowlands and mountains), nomadic and seminomadic movements, and village-based herding. Precise
figures are lacking, but an estimated 1 percent of India’s
population, or around 13 million people, are practising
pastoralists for whom managing and breeding livestock is ahereditary profession that goes back countless generations.
Many of these communities believe that their primeval ancestor was divinely created for the express purpose of taking
care of livestock. From this connection, they derive a senseof responsibility for the welfare of their animals.
Pastoralists are present in all parts of India. In thehigh-altitude deserts of Ladakh, herders keep yaks, sheep
and goats. Other pastoralists move with their buffalo, sheep
and goats between villages in the Himalayan foothills in thewinter and alpine pastures in the summer. In the Thar Desert in India’s west, herders breed sheep, camels, goats andcattle. Some of them undertake long-distance migration
across states. In Odisha in the east, a number of communities herd pigs over harvested paddy fields.
Pastoralists have developed a significant proportion ofIndia’s livestock breeds: 73 out of 200 officially recognized
breeds, according to one count. These breeds are very special, being on the one hand very alert, resilient, hardy andindependent, but also bonded to their herders in a symbiotic relationship.
Herders need to ensure they can use grazing areas
throughout the year. They also need to market their animals,
meat and milk. To do this, they have to maintain extensivesocial networks with farmers and landowners, within theirown community, and with local communities and traders.
Pastoralism is important for crop cultivation and longterm soil fertility. The animals distribute manure directly

50 MEAT ATLAS 2021

on the fields where they are penned overnight. For someherders, manure is actually their main source of income,as farmers compensate pastoralists for this service in cash
or in kind. The value of this manure as a source of nitrogen,phosphorus and potassium has been estimated at a massive
45 billion US dollars a year.
Pastoralists also play an important role in conserving
wild biodiversity and in creating and upholding domestic
animal diversity. Their livestock convert native vegetation
directly into food, without having to go through the intermediate stages of clearing land, ploughing and raisingcrops. The animals also disperse seeds that get caught intheir wool or hides and then fall off elsewhere. Pastoralists have learned to live with wildlife, including predators.
Herders on the Deccan Plateau even worship the wolves
that sometimes feed on their sheep.
The Indian government does not recognize “pastoralism” as an official category, so it does not collect data on
it. The government operates under the assumption thatmost livestock are stall-fed and kept by sedentary farmers.
It makes no special efforts to protect or secure the resourcebase of pastoralists: forests, village grazing grounds, fallow fields, and so-called “wastelands”, which are actuallyoften rangelands that sustain major livestock populations.
All these common-pool resources are shrinking rapidly –fenced, expropriated, built on, or barred for herders. Many
pastoralists traditionally have their animals graze in forests
during monsoon season, when fields are being cultivated.
But the authorities believe that they damage the forests, so
no pastoralist community has yet received grazing rights
under the Forest Rights Act. Government veterinary services often do not reach migratory communities. And an
emerging threat is the use of village grazing grounds andagricultural land for alternative energy projects, especiallyhuge areas covered in solar panels.
Due to several reasons young people prefer to migrate to cities rather than taking up herding – though areverse movement has also been seen as a consequence ofCovid-19. Camel herders are in an especially severe situation, as demand for draft animals has fallen and there areno other marketing options for their products.
Despite the absence of policy support, pastoralism has
shown itself to be remarkably resilient in many parts of thecountry, even expanding in some areas, such as the Deccan Plateau, to respond to the growing urban demand formeat. By contrast, pastoralism has declined in the western
drylands, including Rajasthan and Gujarat. But thanks tothe activities of civil society organizations, awareness ofthe economic and ecological significance of pastoralism isgradually growing.

Official data on India’s livestock do not reflect
the management systems used. The importanceof pastoralists often goes unrecognizedMEAT ATLAS 2021 / LPP, RLN

UNPERCEIVED FORMS OF LIVESTOCK FARMING
Distribution of Indian castes and communities with specialized pastoralist identities– transhumance, nomadic, semi-nomadic and village-based – and animals reared
LadakhJammu and Kashmir
Bakkarwal, Changpa, Gaddi, Gujjar

buffalo
Himachal Pradesh
Punjabcattlecamels goats sheep

yaks ducks(taken up pastoralism recently)

traditional pastoralist groups

Gaddi, Gujjar

pigs

Gaddi, Gavli, Gujjar, Rebari

Uttarakhand
Bhotia, Gaddi, Van Gujjar

Haryana
Gaderia, Gavli, Rebari

SikkimArunachal Pradesh

BhuttaRajasthan

Monpa

Uttar Pradesh

Gayrim Gujjar, Raika/Rebari, Rath, Sindhi Muslim

Gaderia, Van Gujjar, Yadav

Bihar

Gaderia

JharkandMadya Pradesh
GujaratWest Bengal

Gaderia, Gavli (Baagali, Santhali)

Banjara, Dhangar, Gaderia, Rebari
Gaderia (Kond, Saathali)

Ahir, Bharwad, Charan,Jatt, Mer, Rebari, Sama

Chattisgarh
Dhangar, Golla, Kuruma, Rebari

OdishaGhasi, Golla, Gouda, Kela, Khedia,
Leheri (Gand, Kandh, Santhali)

Maharashtra
Dhangar, Gavli, Golakar, Kurma,
Lambandani, Nandiwala/Golla

Telangana
Banjara, Golla, Kuruma, Lambadani

Andhra Pradesh

Goa

Banjara, Golla, Kuruma, Lambadani

Gavli, Golla, Kuruba, Mesabedar (Lambadani,
Lingayat, Madiwalar, Muslims, Valmiki)

Livestock in pastoralist systems,
million (mn) heads, and percent
of respective livestock in India

Karnatakacattle79 %Tamil Nadu
Golla, Kuruba, Toda, Yadava

Kerala7 mnpigs 100 %0,08 mn

164 mnyaks 100 %buffalo 59 %sheep 95 %

60 mn

goats

80 %

103 mn61 mn
0,26 mndonkeys 100 %0,35 mncamels 100 %MEAT ATLAS 2021

51

ACTIVE STATE

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF
TRANSFORMING THE MEAT SYSTEM
Representative surveys in various countries
have found a surprising amount of public
support for reduced consumption of meat.
Policymakers must find the right package
and sequence of measures to stimulate thetransition to a more sustainable future.

If the world is to hit the Paris climate targets and achieve
the UN Sustainable Development Goals, we will have to
reduce the amount of meat we produce and consume.
This especially applies to the industrialized countries. Public policy must play a key role. On the supply side, potential measures include stricter animal welfare and environmental standards, targeted subsidies for environmentallyfriendly production, support for plant-based options, andrestrictions on the number of animals that can be kept per
hectare. On the demand side, possible policies include discounts for plant-based products, higher taxes on meat, labels to reflect the sustainability of products, and rules to increase the share of vegetarian meals in public eateries likecompany restaurants or school cafeterias.
Such measures need to be combined into holistic policy packages. The main barrier is not technical but political.
The dominant theme of “consumer responsibility” plays
into the hands of powerful interest groups which benefit
from the current system and try to limit state intervention
in food consumption. Politicians are afraid of conflict withsuch groups and want to avoid a public backlash against
policies that interfere in people’s daily lives. Yet researchon public opinion in China, Brazil, the EU, India, Japan,
South Africa, Switzerland, and the United States shows thatpeople are in fact willing to reduce their meat consumption
and are more accepting of policy changes than is commonly assumed. A recent survey for the European Investment
Bank of 30,000 respondents in 30 countries, for example,
found that 78 percent of Chinese respondents, 65 percentof those in the EU, and 54 percent of those in the UnitedStates, supported reductions in red meat consumption tofight climate change.
Similarly, a study by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology found that over 50 percent of citizens in China,
Germany and the United States supported measures to reduce meat consumption, even if they would mean higher
prices and interference in their private lives. Particularly
welcomed were measures that covered both production
and consumption, such as a combination of higher animal
welfare standards, increased taxes on meat, discounts onplant-based meat substitutes, and financial support to help
low-income households purchase environmentally friendly
food products.
The survey found great differences in public support for
the various policy proposals: support for the most popular
package was 55 percent higher than for the least popular.
That means that packaging the policies in the right way,

Because many people already believe the climate isa reason to eat less beef and pork, governments haveenough public support to reduce meat consumption

DOWNSIZING THE RED MEAT PORTIONS
Responses to a survey, 2019, percent

have done so alreadyintend to do so

China
USA
EU

54

92

68
65

79

Italy

73

France

72

Spain

66

Poland67

Germany

66

Participants: China, USA: 1,000, EU: 28,088, other: 2,000

52 MEAT ATLAS 2021

78

87
83
82
80
78

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / EIB“Have you reduced
your red meatintake to fightclimate change?“

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / FESENFELD ET AL.

ENDORSING POLICY PACKAGES
Proposals for less meat consumption
in the USA, Germany and China, survey*, 2018

clear support, percent

USA

Germany

52.1 %

China

50.3 %

54.8 %

medium tax increase(15 percent higher price of meat products)

high tax increase (30 percent
higher price of meat products)

revenues used for public programs for low income households
at least 75 percent vegetarian
meals in public cafeterias

no rules for public cafeterias

reducing prices of vegetarian meat alternatives by 30 percent

organic animal farming standards for producers

frequent information campaigns

halving meat producer subsidies*elimination of meatproducer subsidies

4,874 participants; Germany and USA: representative of adult citizens’ population; China: representative of adult higher-income and urban citizens’ populationand introducing them in the right order, will help reduce
political risks and build supportive coalitions. Policymakers
need to explain the reasons for demand-side policies to reduce meat consumption – e.g. by highlighting the climate
mitigation benefits, rather than trying to reframe and hide
the costs.
The survey found that support for meat substitutes (suchas targeted producer subsidies) and incentives for plantbased diets (via tax discounts) was also high in China, Germany and the USA. Such measures could trigger changes in
consumption and attitudes that could make more stringent
demand-side policies, such as higher taxes on meat, politically feasible.
A recent study in China and the USA highlights thatgrowing personal experience with plant-based meat substitutes is essential for transforming the meat system. If someone has already tried plant-based meat substitutes, they are

In China, Germany, and the USA, a majorityof respondents support stringent policy packages
to reduce the consumption of pork and beef

more likely to reduce their intake of meat and to support
policies that cut meat consumption.
Policies could also increase the availability of vegetarian
dishes in public eateries, for example, lower the consumer
cost of plant-based options, and create coalitions between
the producers of such products, retailers, investors, NGOs,
and consumer groups. A combination of campaigns andproduct labelling, together with the greater availability ofmeat substitutes and vegetarian dishes, could trigger a virtuous cycle of change. Greater public support for change
and awareness of meat-related sustainability issues could
then open windows of opportunity to push for more transformative policies.

MEAT ATLAS 2021

53

THE EUROPEAN UNIONCOMMON LIVESTOCK POLICY
Intensive livestock production createsenvironmental and animal welfare problems.
Reforms currently being considered to theEU’s Common Agricultural Policy do not
go nearly far enough to resolve these. But
improvements can be made even within thecurrent system.

– from a sizeable majority of 58 percent of respondents in
Luxembourg to a near-unanimous 94 percent in Portugal.
But doing more to protect animals would not be cheap: theScientific Advisory Council for Agricultural Policy, a body
attached to the German Ministry of Food and Agriculture,
estimates that significant improvements in animal welfare
would cost between 3 and 5 billion euros a year in Germany
alone. That is between 13 and 23 percent of current production costs.
Both production and consumption should be reduced tolower emissions of greenhouse gases. This is especially important with ruminants, which produce a lot of emissions
per kilo of meat or litre of milk produced. A political andeconomic strategy that recognizes the scale of these challenges does not yet exist, either at the EU level or in any ofthe member states. Large differences in livestock production and consumption between countries mean that planning and implementing such a strategy must be the task ofgovernments in each member state. The Common Agricultural Policy would have to provide a suitable framework forsuch an effort.
The Common Agricultural Policy consists of two “pillars”. Pillar I makes direct payments to farmers and is tied
mainly to the area farmed, not to the services that farming
provides. Pillar II, which covers rural development, offers
the possibility of granting annual premiums to farmers forAt 40 percent, livestock account for a big chunk of thevalue of the EU’s agricultural output. The importanceof livestock varies from one member state to another: from 21 percent in predominantly arable Romania, to75 percent in Ireland with its many sheep and cattle. The
number of animals per unit of area also differs, along withthe problems associated with high stocking rates. The Netherlands has a high concentration of livestock, along withnorthern Italy and the northwestern parts of Germany andFrance.
Such concentrations lead to environmental problems,such as nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in water. Producing and consuming a lot of meat, milk and eggs emits
significantly more greenhouse gas compared to diets basedon plants. And animal welfare problems are widespread.
There are no systematic, EU-wide surveys, but individual
studies point to common health issues: joint diseases andtail biting in pig-fattening operations, lameness in cattle,
and foot problems in poultry.
Surveys show that 82 percent of EU citizens think that
more should be done to protect animal welfare in livestock
production. This sentiment is widely shared across Europe

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / EU

At just under 60 billion dollars, financial support forfarming now makes up around 40 percent of the EU
budget. Thirty years ago, it was almost twice that share

IN NEED OF TUNING
EU Common Agricultural Policy instruments, time periods by numbers of EU members, in billion euros, not inflation-adjusted
Export refunds (subsidies)
Market support via price guarantees
for many farm products
Market measures for price and weather crises
EU-12

60

Coupled direct payments
Decoupled direct payments
Direct payments (low obligations)
Flexibility for rural development

EU-15

EU-25

Rural development
Flexibility for direct payments
Next generation EU injection

EU-27

EU-28

EU-27

50

40

30

20

10

0
1990

54 MEAT ATLAS 2021

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

PRODUCTIVE LIVES

1.1

Livestock numbers in the EU and their distribution by member country,
selected, 2020,* million animals

1.4
1.4
SE

13.4 1.5
DK

3.7

6.5 IE

11.5

3.9 1.7
6.2

NL

2.3 BE

26.1

17.8
7.3
FR
1.7
2.3
2.2
PT

32.8
2.7
ES

1.4

1.3
CZ 1.5

DE
1.9

13.7

15.4

2.8 AT
2.9

IT

HU

10.5 1.9RO

1.0 HR

6.4
6.6

total EU*

11.7 PL

1.5

11.3

1,007

6.3

1.3

8.5

1.6

BG

7.0
1.1
8.3
3.6

Livestock numbers over one million only. Numbers at end of year; numbers slaughteredeach year is several times higher for species with rapid reproduction. *Chickens: 2019GR

AT: Austria, BE: Belgium, BG: Bulgaria, CZ: Czechia, DE: Germany, DK: Denmark, ES: Spain, FI: Finland, FR: France, GR: Greece,
HR: Croatia, HU: Hungary, IE: Ireland, IT: Italy, NL: Netherlands, PL: Poland, PT: Portugal, RO: Romania, SE: Sweden

animal-friendly management. This can include providing
grazing areas, allowing animals more space for movement,
and enriching their environment – providing pigs with deep
straw bedding or bales to keep them occupied, for example.
But this flexibility is in fact rarely used. Between 2014 and2020, only 1.5 percent of the Pillar II funds, or 205 million
euros a year, were spent on animal welfare premiums. Evenin welfare-conscious Germany, the figure was below 2 percent. That contrasts with area subsidies of 40 billion euros
for the EU as a whole.
This comparison shows how poorly the EU’s farmbudget is geared to the services that agriculture provides
and the problems that it faces. Livestock farmers are up
against particularly great challenges, with increasing obligations to protect groundwater and surface water, theclimate, biodiversity and animal welfare. These requirements cannot be met merely by imposing more rules andregulations. Doing so would lead to significantly higher
production costs and the increased import of cheap products from countries that do not have such stringent controls. That would negate the intended environmental andanimal welfare benefits by shifting the problems abroad.
The Common Agricultural Policy budget should be urgently reformed to reward compliance with the requirements and to cover part of the costs of doing so. Instead,a large part of the budget goes towards flat-rate subsidies

3.8

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / EUROSTAT, FAOSTAT

cattle
pigs
sheep
goats
chickens

FI

Fateful trend: Direct EU payments to farmers
stimulate industrial animal production, not better
maintenance of grazing areas and animal welfare

on land. In many member states, it is also spent on coupledpayments for ruminants, such as suckler cows.
Unfortunately, negotiations among the key EU-level decisionmakers – the European Parliament, Council and Commission – did not result in a fundamental shift away fromflat-rate subsidies tied to land area. But even with the current post-2021 CAP, member states have many options totarget the budget towards supporting animal welfare andenvironmental services provided by farms.
First, to ensure that more money is available to pay forservices, member states can shift up to 25 percent from direct payments to Pillar II for agri-environmental and animal
welfare programs. Second, eco-schemes in Pillar I and conditionality can be designed ambitiously. Third, the possibility to link part of the direct payments to production should
aim strictly at animal welfare and environmental protection measures, such as the maintenance of grazing areas.
Such payments should be based on grazed land and notbound to animal numbers or specific species. In conclusion,
member states can and should not hide behind CAP regulations, but make full use of existing flexibility to target themoney towards societal objectives.

MEAT ATLAS 2021

55

LABELTHREE STARS FOR A BETTER LIFE
Buy meat from a supermarket, and you canprobably choose between organic and nonorganic. But with the non-organic products,
you have no way of telling whether the
animal was treated well, or was stuck in a pen
with little room to move. Calls are growing formeat labels that show the conditions underwhich the animals are raised.

In business economics, it is called a “lack of market differentiation”. Consumers are willing to pay more for a
product only if they are confident that the price reflects
better production and animal welfare standards. Yet farmers whose products meet standards beyond the legal minimum – but do not qualify as organic – cannot communicate
this to supermarket shoppers. They face a dilemma. If theycannot convince customers that their product is better,they cannot charge a higher price for it. They have no incentive to invest in improving animal welfare.
Whether animals are kept under suitable conditions issomething that the customer cannot tell by looking at themeat itself. So it has to be shown on a label on the packaging. Credibility and safety are the most important featuresof such labels. For producers, the decision to use a label isaccompanied by significant investments in their husbandrysystems: in buildings, equipment and feed. The investments
must pay off in the long run through heightened market
demand for their product. Both sides – producers and consumers – need reliability, which only a compulsory official
labelling scheme can provide.
Many civil society organizations claim that a uniform,
obligatory scheme would make it possible to initiate a restructuring of animal management throughout the European Union. There is already an EU-wide labelling systemfor eggs according to the type of husbandry: from 0 for organic production, up (or rather, down) to 3 for cage farming. This has influenced consumer behaviour in many EU
countries. It immediately forced retailers to decide which

products they wanted to stock, which in turn led to husbandry practices that were environmentally friendlier andmore sensitive to animal welfare. In 2020, 18 percent of theeggs sold in the EU came from husbandry systems 0 and 1 –the organic and free-range categories.
Despite the success with eggs, politicians and the livestock industry have major reservations about mandatory,
Europe-wide standards for meat. One reason is that in some
EU member states, there is little public debate regarding
higher animal welfare standards and the restructuring of
livestock operations that this would require. Because of thesingle European market, it is not possible to establish national mandatory labelling schemes in each country andallow the different requirements to exist side by side.
A way out could be to set up voluntary national labelling
schemes. Such an approach would not conflict with European law, but it has the disadvantage that only some of themeat on the market would be subject to labelling. While the“better” meat would probably carry a label, meat from lessdesirable management forms would not – and would sell
at lower prices. Despite this drawback, voluntary labelling
schemes can still be successful.
In the Netherlands, a label with one, two or three stars,
similar to that for eggs, has been introduced for meat.
“Beter Leven”, or “Better Life”, is the name of the scheme introduced by the Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals.
It has a high market penetration. In some supermarkets,
over 90 percent of the meat products carry the label. Organically produced meat has three stars, the highest level.
This scheme proves that an animal welfare label focused onconventionally produced meat can also open opportunities
for organic products: contrary to the fears of the Dutch organic sector, the market share of organic meat has actuallyrisen since the introduction of the voluntary animal welfare

Market opportunities for “Better Life” products have
not yet been fully exploited, even if buyers are somewhat
sceptical about promoting animal welfare

NOT YET ENOUGH
Popularity of the animal welfare label “Better Life” (“Beter leven”) in the
Netherlands, survey among the public and supermarket customers, 2019
“The addition of the ‘Better Life’ markto meat products is a good development.”
18 %

47 %

3%
29 %

completely agree
somewhat agree

neutralsomewhat disagreecompletely disagree“For me, the ‘Better life’ mark is more
important than the price of the product.”
5%

19 %

39 %

26 %

11 %

“My regular supermarket should only offer
meat products with the ‘Better Life’ mark.”
13 %

27 %

38 %

Public: 1,068 respondents, customers: 1,209 respondents

56 MEAT ATLAS 2021

“Surely my buying habits haveno impact on animal welfare.”
14 %

8%

4 % 15 %

38 %

32 %

11 %

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / GFK

3%

CLEAR MARKING, CLEAR CONSEQUENCES

Distribution of housing systems for laying hens in top 6
EU producer countries, and total laying hens, million, 2020

Laying hens by labelled housing systems in the EU,
percent
2.7

3.0

4.1

3.7

3.8

3.8

6.1

9.7

10.6

9.4

12.5

12.2

13.9

11.9

16.8

20.8

26.6

25.9

26.4

26.6

34.0

20.1

40.5

57.8

57.4

Netherlands 33.1
Poland 50.2

55.7
Germany 56.2

48.1

45.5

France** 48.3

0.2
2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Spain 47.2
2014

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / EC

19.4
Italy 41.0

2020

2012: EU-wide ban on battery cages. Until 2009, included in “furnished cages” (larger than battery cages). *furnished cages, until 2011 also battery cages. **2019label. Between 2014 and 2019, the percentage of customers
buying Beter Leven products remained the same: between
70 and 81 percent, depending on the type of product. But
the proportion of customers who bought the labelled items“regularly”, “mostly” or “always” rose from 45 to 55 percent,and the number of male customers rose significantly.
In France, the voluntary, government-supported “Label
Rouge” for poultry from small-scale, animal-friendly farms
also has a high market penetration. Two-thirds of the whole
chickens sold in France come from Label Rouge farms, and97 percent of consumers are aware of the label. In Denmark,60 percent of the population was aware of the label “Bedre
Dyrevelfærd” (Better Animal Welfare) just a few years after
it was introduced. This is a voluntary state labelling system
for meat raised under animal-friendly conditions, whichuses one, two or three hearts as symbols. For the lowest level (one heart), the farm must keep sows free-range, refrainfrom docking tails, and provide more space and straw for
the animals than required by law.
In Germany, the Ministry of Agriculture has been delaying the introduction of an official label for years, referring
the issue to the European Union. Yet 4 out of 5 respondents
support compulsory labelling for all animal-based foods.
Meanwhile, food retailers have become active and haveintroduced their own labelling system. Higher categories,
such as “Neuland” and organic labels, have been introduced, but in reality they are rarely on offer, so consumer
choice remains limited.
An EU-wide government labelling scheme would
achieve better differentiation in the internal market, moretransparency and better marketing opportunities for producers. A common solution would ease the long-overdue

The management of layer hens in the EU
has changed markedly in the last 10 years.
Less than half are now kept in group cages

restructuring of livestock management. It could be accompanied by financial support using EU funds.
With regard to imports, the rules of the World Trade Organization must be observed. A compulsory welfare label
could be construed as protectionism and a barrier to trade.
One solution is to combine it with the traceability of products, which is now a universal requirement in international trade in meat. Specialists are studying whether it would
be possible to include the husbandry system in the productcode, alongside the country of origin and farm identity. The
World Trade Organization would likely have no objection
to this. Animal welfare labels are a good step forwards in improving meat production and consumption, however, theyneed to be accompanied by stricter laws.

PROMISED AND PAID
Market shares of quality poultry “Label Rouge” including
animal welfare criteria, France, 2016, percent
Label Rougeorganic

4

12

16
59
13
10

When it comes to whole chickens, the high-priced
Rouge label dominates. For chicken parts, popular among
poorer customers, the picture is quite different

extensive indoor
intensive indoor (“standard”)

whole chicken
61

chicken parts
25

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / FAO

70.8

housing system (code)organic (0)free range (1)barn (2)“furnishedcage” * (3)MEAT ATLAS 2021

57

EU STRATEGIESA GOOD START, BUT
COULD TRY HARDER
As part of its Green Deal, the European
Commission has proposed a “Farm to Fork
Strategy”. This is the EU’s most coherent
attempt yet to respond to the fundamental
challenges plaguing the food system.
But much will depend on converting
grand-sounding words into actual policies.

A

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / ECnnounced in 2019, the European Green Deal is aset of policy initiatives by the European Commission to make the European Union the world’s first“climate-neutral bloc” by 2050, and to tackle other environment-related challenges. In May 2020, as part of theGreen Deal, the Commission proposed a “Farm to Fork
Strategy” for a “fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system”. This aims to achieve a range of goals by
2030: cut the overall use and risk of chemical pesticides by
50 percent, farm 25 percent of the EU’s agricultural landorganically, reduce nutrient losses (especially of nitrogenand phosphorus) by at least half, lower the use of fertilizers
by 20 percent, and halve per capita food waste at retail andconsumer levels.
Farm to Fork also addresses the livestock sector. It aims
to reduce the contribution of livestock to climate change,
limit biodiversity loss and pollution, lower the use of antibiotics, and increase animal welfare. The Commission wants
to reduce the EU’s dependency on imported feed, such as
soybeans grown on deforested land. It aims to do this by

GOOD INTENTIONS
Main 2030 targets of the EU Commission’s“farm to fork” strategy, 2020

- 50 %

pesticide use- 50 %

nutrient losses- 20 %- 50 %

antimicrobial use

organic farming

58 MEAT ATLAS 2021

fertilizer use+ 25 %

promoting plant proteins grown in Europe, as well as alternative feeds such as insects, algae and byproducts fromthe bio-economy. Other measures include enforcing environmental rules and addressing nutrient pollution. Antimicrobial resistance linked to the excessive and inappropriate use of antibiotics in animal and human healthcare
leads to an estimated 33,000 human deaths in the EU every
year. To avoid this, the Commission wants to halve sales of
antimicrobials for livestock and in aquaculture by 2030. It
is considering revising animal welfare legislation and rules
on animal transport and slaughter, and introducing product labels for animal welfare.
Current meat consumption patterns in Europe are unsustainable in terms of both health and the environment.
Average intakes of red meat exceed World Health Organization recommendations, while consumption of wholegrain cereals, fruit and vegetables, legumes and nuts is
too low. The Farm to Fork Strategy wants to change consumption through information, improved availability andprices, and tax incentives.
Despite these measures, civil society organizations criticize the Farm to Fork Strategy as insufficient to solve theproblems of industrial animal farming and consumption.
They say it only makes minor tweaks to the current, unsustainable system.
Plus, policies that conflict with parts of the Farm to Fork
Strategy are still in place. Between 18 and 20 percent of
payments under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy go
to livestock farms or farms that produce animal fodder,which supports the concentration of meat and dairy production in fewer and larger farms. The next funding period
for the Common Agricultural Policy gives more responsibility to Member States for allocating money, and much
will depend on their national strategic plans. But so far,no member country has a dedicated plan to transform thelivestock sector and adapt it to the Commission’s climate
and biodiversity goals. And plans for integrated nutrient
management depend on tools that are not yet part of theregulations.
As the EU attempts to open up new market opportunities for European farmers, a large part of its promotional
spending is still directed towards livestock. While mostmoney indeed goes towards promoting organic products
and the climate and environmental aspects of the agri-foodsector, 138.7 million euros, or 24 percent of the total money
used for promotion in 2016–19, was devoted to meat andanimal products.

With organic farming, consumer demand alone
may ensure the desired expansion. With the otherprojects, the Commission has to make a real effort

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / EUROSTATORGANIC FARMING IN THE EU
Total agricultural area and key product groups,
percent of organic area of
total utilized agricultural area

highest andlowest top three member countries,* 2019

percent change,
2012–2019

utilized agricultural areaby type of management **4.2 %only organic

EE 22.3

SE 20.4
IE 1.6
UK 2.63.4 %some organic

PL -22.6
CZ +14.2

AT 25.3
BG 2.3EU-28 8,5

92.4 %
only non-organic

GR +14.3

fresh vegetables

live bovine animals

EE 6.2

SE 6.6

BG +200.9

HR +238.9
EU-28 +45.8

organic production as share of
total products in category: cereals

EU-27

HU +132.1

SE 23.7

SE 19.4

IE < 1

IE < 1

NL 6.0DE 9.2

CZ < 1

LV 25.1

PL < 1SK < 1

HU < 1
BG < 1

RO < 1
GR 26.9

no data

GR 5.0

live dairy cows

CY < 1no datalive pigs

sheep and goats
EE 43.3

SE 18.8

DK 3.9LT < 1

LV 36.2

IE < 1AT 22.0

HR < 1

FR 3.2

RO < 1

HU 1.1

RO < 1

BG < 1

PT < 1no data

CZ 40.2

AT 2.7

GR 19.7

CY < 1

AT: Austria, BG: Bulgaria, CY: Cyprus, CZ: Czech Republic, DE: Germany, DK: Denmark, EE: Estonia, FR: France, GR: Greece, HR: Croatia, HU: Hungary, IE: Ireland, IT: Italy, LT: Lithuania,
LV: Latvia, NL: Netherlands, PL: Poland, PT: Portugal, RO: Romania, SE: Sweden, SK: Slovakia, UK: United Kingdom*

without Malta; UK included when reported ** 2016

Current trade agreements reflect the strength of the
EU’s marriage to industrial livestock. They give high priority to new markets for pork and poultry, as well as importsof cheap feed. Current discussions on the free trade agreement with the Mercosur region illustrate that reaching theFarm to Fork goals will require changes not only in agriculture and food policy, but also in how the EU conducts international trade.
The Farm to Fork Strategy is a document of the European Commission and is not binding. The legislative measures

Many meadows and pastures can lead to highorganic shares of a country’s total area. But the hardcurrency is cereals, vegetables and livestockthat will come out of the strategy would need to propose
concrete ways to contribute to those objectives. Support
from national policymakers is vital, but the signals are
mixed. In October 2020, the EU agriculture ministers welcomed the strategy but did not commit to working towards
its objectives.

MEAT ATLAS 2021

59

LAB MEATCELLSTOCK VS LIVESTOCK
Lab-grown meat is a disruptive innovationthat could help resolve sustainability
and health issues related to livestock, aswell as reduce the numbers of animals
farmed. But the sustainability gains do not
yet match expectations.

Cell-based (or “cultured” or “cellular”) meat is an
emerging technology that takes certain types ofcells from animal muscle and cultures them in thelab. Fed with the right mix of ingredients, these cells growand multiply to produce meat. This avoids the hassle, andthe ethical concerns, of raising or hunting animals to killthem.
Its proponents say that cultured meat can fulfil the rising
global demand for meat, and that it is healthier and moresustainable than livestock raising, as well as being betterfor animal welfare. The first studies supported such claims.
Compared to conventional meat production in Europe, cultured meat was found to use 7–45 percent less energy, emit
78–96 percent less greenhouse gas, and use 99 percent lessland and 82–96 percent less water. Although muscle takenfrom animals would still be required, far fewer livestock
would have to be slaughtered, with consequent gains foranimal welfare. And advocates have claimed that the final
product is safer than conventional meat: a fully controlled
lab environment would reduce the risk of food-borne diseases and eliminate the need for antibiotics.
But these purported benefits may be exaggerated. Morerecent studies show that producing cell-based meat is very
energy-intensive. Taking the whole product life cycle into
account, the energy demand is far higher than that ofconventional meat production. Depending on the energy

source, culturing meat may emit even more greenhousegases than raising animals does. Livestock emit methane,a potent greenhouse gas, but one that does not stay in theatmosphere for a long time. Cell culture, on the other hand,produces carbon dioxide, which persists for hundreds ofyears. That makes any potential emissions advantage of cultured meat unclear.
Another potential problem is pathogens. These might
not be eliminated by lab-grown meat, but may simply
change in nature. Keeping out contamination may prove a
problem when manufacturing is moved to factory scale.
If cultured cells are to proliferate and create the muscle
mass that an animal builds over years, they must be stimulated with growth factors. These include sex hormones. No
limit currently exists for such hormones in cellular-based
meat, but the European Union has prohibited their use inconventional meat production since 1981 due to their human health risks. And no method has yet been developed toensure that cellular meat contains crucial micronutrients,
such as vitamin B12 and iron, that are specific to animal
products.
A rapid shift from conventional to cell-based meatseems improbable in the near future. Unlike livestock farming, cell-based meat requires a lot of expensive new investment. Industry projections assume price parity between
conventional and cell-based meat by the early 2030s – but
this appears optimistic. The same projections assume thatthe overall market for meat alternatives is growing fast.
But even by 2035, cell-based meat is projected to add justContrary to previous assumptions, producing lab-grownmeat takes a lot more energy than conventional meat.
The figures for water use have also been revised upwards

PROGRESS BUT QUESTION MARKS
Ecological damage due to production of in-vitro meat:
new figures based on improved analysis, 2011 and 2014.
100 percent reference: European beef

cattle

sheep

pigs

poultrylab meat

2011

2014

100

80

60

20

0
2011
latest data

60 MEAT ATLAS 2021

2014

energy use

2011

2014

greenhouse gas emissions

2011

2014

land usewater use

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / TUOMISTO ET AL.

40

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / VIER PFOTEN, STOCKMARBURGERS FROM THE PETRI DISH
Production of in-vitro meat, simplified
The stem cells are grown in anutrient solution of sugar, aminoacids, minerals and vitamins,
supplemented with growth serum.

Muscle tissue is takenfrom a living cow
and adult stem cells
are extracted.

The growth serum comes fromthe blood of living foetuses.
The dam is slaughtered andthe foetus is killed in theprocess. Algae may soon bea substitute for the foetal blood.

The muscle
fibres grow inbioreactors.
Scaffolds exert
tension that trains
the muscles.

Maybe lab meat can function without having
to kill any animals. A problem remains: themelding of biotechnology and gene technology

sive job losses in livestock farming and meat processing. It is
unclear how many new jobs would be created by lab-grownmeat industries.
From an ecological point of view, extensive and sustainable livestock farming maintains landscapes, conserves biomes and protects agrobiodiversity. Advocates oflab-grown meat promote the idea that people necessarily
damage nature. But livestock play an important role inagroecological practices that protect ecosystems and livelihoods.

BIOTECH AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING
Range of climate impacts caused by food production,kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilogram of protein
beefsheep meat
pork
poultry
lab-grown meat
fish
eggs
milk
meat substitutes*

In-vitro meat tends to have a smaller carbon dioxide
footprint than the average for conventional meat.
Only beans produce less CO2 at the high end of estimates* plant-based, e.g., soybean products

beans
0

50

100

150

200

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / TUOMISTO ET AL.

6 million tonnes to the 97 million tonnes of all meat alternatives – though its share will grow rapidly after that.
While some analysts expect the market for cultured meat
to approach 100 billion US dollars by 2030, their figures
are based on assumptions such as dramatically reduced
costs, increased scale of production, and broader consumer acceptance. Even some of the most optimistic forecasters
do not expect lab-grown alternatives to be comparable tomeat in taste, texture and price until 2032.
Depending on how much of the market they capture,meat alternatives will affect various aspects of the livestockindustry: economics, market dominance, employment andecology. Cell-based meats are capital-intensive, so may become highly concentrated in the hands of a few large investors. These fundings have totalled more than $1 billion
since 2013. Current investors in cell-based meat start-ups
include some of the world’s biggest meat processors andanimal-feed firms, such as Tyson and Cargill. They also include billionaires such as Bill Gates (Microsoft), Sergey Brin
(Google) and Li Ka-shing (CK Hutchison, a Hong Kong conglomerate).
If the market share of meat alternatives increases steadily over the next two or three decades, it could lead to a significant overhaul of employment in food production: froma system primarily dependent on farmers, farm workers,
meat processors and veterinarians to one based on chemists, cell biologists, engineers, and factory and warehouse
workers. Although farmers and farm workers would still beneeded to produce raw ingredients or inputs for meat alternatives, a decline in livestock production could lead to mas-

A grinder converts thefibres into a mass of mincedmeat that can be madeinto burgers or sausage:a standard process.

MEAT ATLAS 2021

61

INSECTS AS FOOD

SNACKING ON SILKWORMS,
LUNCHING ON LOCUSTS

M

ealworm-protein bars, insectburgers and noodles
made from insect flour: flip through lifestyle magazines and you might easily think that entomophagy– the consumption of insects – has arrived in Europe. But it
is rather the mixture of newsworthiness, the exotic, and the“yuck factor” that makes the consumption of insects such a
popular media topic. In Europe, insects are not something
the vast majority of people expect to see on their plates.
Things are different in much of the rest of the world. In
over 130 countries and for an estimated 2 billion people,
beetles, maggots and crickets are a traditional part of theeveryday diet. Insects deliver valuable vitamins and minerals, along with lots of protein. Because a wide range of insects are available at different seasons, such a diet is always
varied.
Companies that want to popularize insect-based foodsin the West put forward convincing arguments: ecologicalbenefits, animal protection, and above all, the high protein
content of such foods. The number of these firms has risen
sharply in recent years. The European Union’s Novel Foods
Regulation of 2015 created conditions that permit the easier approval of individual insect species as food from thestart of 2018. In doing so, it followed the lead of the Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),

which for the past 10 years has promoted the idea of using insects as a major food source so as to feed the world’s
growing human population. As of May 2021, the first-everEU-wide approval of insects for human consumption was
granted for yellow mealworms (Tenebrio molitor). ‘Transition measures’ in the 2018 regulation are allowing theuse of insects at national level already. Three other insects– lesser mealworms (Alphitobius diaperinus), house crickets(Acheta domesticus), and migratory locusts (Locusta migratoria) – are sold in some EU countries. Further applications
were made in 2019, for instance for the larvae of the blacksoldier fly (Hermetia illucens).
From an evolutionary point of view, insects are one ofhumanity’s oldest sources of protein. A large number of
insect species are potentially very valuable foods, though
their protein content and the amount of vitamins, unsaturated fatty acids (omega 3 and 6) and minerals they containvaries considerably according to the species, feeding andstage in the life cycle (egg, larva, pupa or adult).
In Western industrialized countries it is mainly small
start-ups that are trying to establish themselves on themarket with the first, relatively expensive, insect-based
products. These firms hope to cut their costs and boost
their sales through more efficient breeding methods andindustrial-style production techniques. The authors of astudy by Barclays, a British bank, predict that the “insect

Unbeknownst to consumers, most mealworms
that are raised for humanconsumption in Europe are made into flour

FOOD FOR THOUGHT
Larvae of the mealworm beetle (Tenebrio molitor) compared to other animal-based foods, nutrients per 100 grams,
and environmental comparison as a multiple of the impact of mealworms, comparative value: protein
mealworms

beef

247

chicken

19.4
169

1

milk

20.6 20.1

1
5.5–12.5

7.9–14.1

1.5–3.9

2.6–3.5

1.3–2.7

2.3–2.9

1.8–2.8

1.8–3.2

19.9

186
152

energy content (kilocalories)

62 MEAT ATLAS 2021

pork

protein content (grams)

greenhouse gases

land use

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / OONINCX, PAYNE ET AL.

Adding insects to our menus could help
overcome the world’s food-supply
problems. But the industrial productionof insects is controversial: would it beuseful or dangerous?

GRILLED, BOILED OR STEAMED
Number of insect and spider species recorded as being consumed by humans, 201745
othersno consumption,
no data
1 to 99
100 to 199
200 to 299
300 and more

15
spiders37
cockroaches

37
flies

59
termites659

61
dragonflies

362

321
ants, bees, wasps

protein market” in Europe and North America might beworth as much as 8 billion US dollars by 2030, making it attractive for large food manufacturers.
Unlike in Asia, Africa and South and Central America, entomophagy in Europe and North America israrely seen from a culinary point of view. The target
consumers in Europe are mainly people who want to avoid
eating meat or consuming other animal products for ecological or ethical reasons. In contrast to the slaughter ofcattle or pigs, cold-blooded insects are chilled so they fall
into a natural torpor and die without experiencing pain or
stress.
At the same time, most species of insects can be raiseden masse in factories. Breeding insects requires less space,
feed, water and energy than traditional livestock-keeping –at least in theory. In practice, there is a shortage of empirical
data, even in countries where insects are a regular part ofthe menu. There, most of the insects consumed are caught
from the wild. Insects are indeed bred in China, Southeast
Asia and southern Africa, but the proportion of farm insects
accounts for only 2 percent of total consumption.
Most insect farms in Asia are run by small-scale farmers. Their experience is often not applicable to European
conditions. They often do not raise their mini-livestock in
enclosed facilities, but rely instead on the local climaticconditions and on ecosystems such as mangroves. That is
especially true for many beetles and larvae that are of greater culinary interest than the species currently approved forMarket researchers expect the
turnover of edible insects to double
in value in just five years

278

237

grasshoppers, locusts

true bugs

Eating insects is commonplacethroughout the world. But in a few places,
especially in Europe, it is taboo

consumption in Europe. Examples are the deep-fried water
beetles regarded as a delicacy in northern Thailand, andthe eggs of waterbugs, sold in Central and South America as“Mexican caviar”.
The demand for edible insects is rising, and there is adanger of overstretching natural populations, causing acollapse in numbers, as has happened with overfishing in
the oceans. It is also questionable whether the global hunger for insects can be satisfied by industrialized farming.
And experts warn that raising insects could repeat the same
mistakes as with pigs, chickens and cattle, which have led to
the loss of genetic diversity and the emergence of unexpected diseases that can destroy entire stocks.

BIG MONEY FROM SMALL CREATURES
Forecast market value of edible insects worldwide,
estimates in million US dollars

1,182

954
771

623
503

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / STATISTA

caterpillars

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / JONGEMA

beetles

MEAT ATLAS 2021

63

MEAT SUBSTITUTESA NEW SECTOR EMERGES
Vegan and vegetarian alternatives to meat
are gaining popularity fast – making
them tastier for big firms, too. Competitionis likely to flare up around in-vitro meat:
start-ups developing lab-grown products
are sprouting everywhere.

T

he market for meat substitutes is changing faster thanever before. Experts predict a global annual growthin plant-based alternatives of 20 to 30 percent in the
coming years. Worldwide sales already totalled 4.6 billion
US dollars in 2017. That is still peanuts compared to thetrillion-dollar global market for meat. But that market is
growing much more slowly, and is even stagnating in somecountries.
Alternatives to meat are becoming more popular forseveral reasons. The meat industry is coming under criticism for its working conditions, the livestock industry that it
is based on, and its impact on the climate and environment.
At the same time, meat alternatives have improved bothtechnically and in terms of their taste and texture, and awide range of different products is now on offer.
Products that have been available for years, such as seitan (made from wheat gluten), Quorn (fermented fungal
protein) and tofu have been joined on supermarket shelvesby new ones that closely resemble real meat. These containproteins that are modified to resemble muscle fibres. New
ingredients are also coming to the fore, such as proteinsfrom peas and lupins, or heme proteins derived from plants
which, like the hemoglobin in blood, give the finished foodstuff a reddish hue and a meaty taste.
In-vitro meat is not yet in supermarkets, but it is on thefront burner for investors. By the end of 2019, 55 firms werealready involved in creating laboratory meat products fromanimal stem cells. Twenty of these firms were infant startups founded that same year. In December 2020, Singapore
became the first country in the world to approve lab-grownmeat for sale, following tests by its food authorities.
The role that meat substitutes will play globally depends
largely on how demand develops and whether consumers
accept these products. In 2021, a review of 91 scientific articles by Wageningen Economic Research in the Netherlands
found that consumer acceptance depended on the meat alternative in question. The acceptance of insect-based products was lowest compared to conventional meat, followedby cultured meat. Pulses and plant-based alternative proteins were the most readily accepted. Factors influencing
acceptance included taste and health, familiarity, attitudes,
food neophobia (the fear of unfamiliar food), disgust, andsocial norms.
Compared to conventional meat, substitutes are in general a lot more environmentally friendly. Purely plant-based
meat substitutes – items that also contain no eggs or milk
– score the best. Compared to beef, their production emits
90 percent less greenhouse gas and requires much less water and land. But such products are often highly processedand contain many additives. Insect-based meat substitutes
rate somewhat lower than plant-based products in studies.
The health and environmental impacts of in-vitro meat are
still difficult to assess, as the research is still in its infancy.
Whether meat substitutes will determine the food system of the future depends on which companies will shape

The search for substitutes for animal
products such as milk and eggs is justas intense as for meat and sausages

NEW GREEN PRODUCTS: PLANT-BASED DRINKS AND EGGS
Soy and other plant alternative
milk sales in western markets,billion US dollars

1,600

6

1,400

5

1,200

Irelandsoy milk
other plantbased milks

no VAT-based
discrimination
higher VAT
for soy milk
gap

4

1,000
800

Finland

Value-added tax rates for soy and dairy
milk compared, gap in percent

Denmark

Netherlands
Belgium

Austria
Italy

600

2

Portugal200
0+150 %

02015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

64 MEAT ATLAS 2021

Slovakia+100 %

Spain

400
1

+100 %

Germany

France3+171 %+450 %+85 %Greece2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021* 2022**

forecasts

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / FT, PROVEG

Global venture capital funding
for plant-based dairy and eggs,
million US dollars

MAJOR TRENDS IN A MAJOR SHIFT
Primary products targeted for commercializationof plant-based meat alternatives by established companies,
2019, percent

Global market trends for meat and meat substitutes,
in trillion US dollars und percent, and average annual
growth to 2040, forecast
cultured (lab) meatvegan substitute products
conventional meat

beef

unspecified

growth, longterm average

19 %
1.8

+3 %
seafood

11 %

22 %

1.4
1.2

7%
3%

turkey1.6

chicken

lamb

15 %

10 %

35 %

22 %

10 %
18 %

23 %

25 %

pork
90 %

72 %

2025

2030

55 %

40 %

2035

2040

Venture capital invested in cultivated meat worldwide,
and investments in plant-based food in the USA alone,
million US dollars per year

Number of newly founded US companies that claim theirproduct boasts a meat-like taste and texture, or that brandtheir products with meat-like names to attract customers

800

2013

plant-based, USA
cultivated meat, global

700
600

2
4

2014

8

2015

500
400

11

2016

300

7

2017

200

0
2010
*

5

2018

100

2019
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019 2020*

first quarter only

the market, which in turn depends on future agriculture
policies and financial muscle. The market presence of large
and established players may lead to their products gaining
acceptance more quickly. The size and number of firms also
influences the diversity or monopolization of the market– with all the associated consequences. A large number of
new players and start-ups are currently jostling for positionon the market. Large corporations from the technology andfood sectors, such as Google, Nestlé and Cargill, are investing. Pharmaceutical companies are also becoming active
and are developing culture media for the production of
in-vitro meat.
PHW Group is one example. The largest German poultry grower and processor has gone into partnership with
Beyond Meat as well as Super Meats, which is working on
in-vitro poultry meat production. North America’s biggest
meat producer, Tyson, has also invested in Beyond Meat

3

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / CHOUDHURY ET AL., KEARNEY, GFI

23 %Industry and investors expect
long-term growth. Strong fluctuations
can be seen in the short termand has introduced its own brand of meat substitutes,
called Raised & Rooted. The agricultural group Cargill hastaken a stake in Memphis Meats, an in-vitro meat firm. The
food giant Nestlé has launched a vegan range under thebrand “Garden Gourmet”. And in November 2020, McDonald’s announced a vegan burger: the “McPlant” was firsttested in Canada and is on sale in Europe now.
The animal welfare organization PETA does not want towait for similar steps to be taken by other companies. In May
2020, it bought shares in the meat firms Tyson and Smithfields so it can play the role of a critical shareholder and encourage the companies to make a stronger commitment toplant-based meat substitutes.

MEAT ATLAS 2021

65

ACTIVISMPRESSURE FROM BELOW
Civil society is a sometimes underestimatedstakeholder in the food system.
Supporting sustainable production andcriticizing industrialized agriculture,
it influences public opinion and habitsand demands better policies andinternational solidarity. And it can holdgovernments and companies accountable
for their actions, while offering solutions.

Evidence of problems related to intensive livestock
farming is mounting. An increasing number of civilsociety organizations and activists are becoming involved in this issue, including farmers’ organizations, community groups, animal rights and welfare activists, healthgroups, vegan and vegetarian groups, and organizations
concerned with climate and the environment. While theirinterests and goals differ, they all demand more sustainable
and sensitive animal production, and less consumption ofanimal products.
Farmers’ organizations in Europe are concerned about
the economics of livestock raising and the recurrent crisesthat have hit dairy, beef and pig farmers over the past decade. They are pushing for the transformation of the animalfarming sector. The European Milk Board and the European Coordination Via Campesina, which represent thousands of farmers across the European Union, are alarmed
by the drop in prices that producers are being paid. The
Milk Board proposes that producers voluntarily reduce
the production of milk during severe crises, and receive
compensation for every litre of milk they do not produce.

Via Campesina highlights the importance of revising regulation and competition rules to protect small-scale farmers. The two farmers’ organizations want processing andmarketing to be re-localized to give farmers more directcontact with consumers.
Organizations promoting animal welfare and animal rights are prominent. The End the Cage Age initiative
brought together over 170 organizations calling for a ban
on keeping animals in cages in the EU. The campaign was
supported by 1.4 million citizens, making it only the sixth
European Citizens’ Initiative (a mechanism for citizens’ involvement in policymaking) to surpass 1 million signatures
among the 75 such proposals in the last 8 years. It was thefirst successful initiative to focus on animal welfare. The European Commission must now spell out what action it willtake to address the issue of cage farming.
Various initiatives at national, regional and local levels
are looking for ways to deal with the negative impacts ofindustrial animal farming. In Spain, for example, a national
platform that brings together neighbourhood movements
and communities calls for a moratorium on industrial livestock. In the UK, the Eating Better Alliance comprises over
60 groups concerned about health, environment, animal
welfare and social justice. It wants a 50 percent reduction inmeat and dairy consumption in the UK by 2030, and a transition to “better” meat and dairy. It advocates sustainable foodand farming policies, demands improvements from foodbusinesses, and inspires people to make positive changes.

Frequent food scandals have unsettled
China’s consumers. New forms of self-organization
are becoming increasingly popular

COOPERATIVE NETWORKS IN THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Scale, form and distribution of community-supported agriculture in China, 201932 farmers markets

55

2
25 eco-product sales platforms

4

6

23 Beijing City
13 3 93

1
13
12 consumer organisations

39
Sichuan

8 eco-organic restaurants
In community-supported agriculture (CSA), consumers pay in advance, and farms supply safe
agricultural products to them. CSA directly links farmers and consumers for their mutual benefit.
This concept of critical consumption as opposed to anonymous industrialized food production
emerged in Japan and the USA. It reached Hong Kong and has spread in China since 2003.

66 MEAT ATLAS 2021

7

13

16 Shanghai

14

4

6

8
1

8
5

13

7

19 Fujian
5
1

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / TANG ET AL.

254 CSA farms

European Citizens’ Initiative “End the Cage Age” for a ban on cruel caged farming,
percentage of caged animals per country and numberof organizations helping collect signatures required

Finland4

2

SwedenEstonia4
Ireland

Registration: September
2018, signature collection until September
2019. Validation: October
2020. In June 2021, theEuropean Parliament
endorsed the initiativewith 558 votes in favour,
37 against, and 85
abstentions. The next
step is for the European
Commission to react.

1

11
caged animals, shareof all farmed animals
3–17 percent
31–53 percent
61–99 percent

Netherlands

5

6

75
Belgium

1

Czech
Republic

Luxembourg

23

Austria1214Kept in cages: poultry,
rabbits, sows in farrowing
crates or stalls, calves inpens. The initiative wants
a ban to be implemented
by 2027.

PolandGermany

FrancePortugal

1

Lithuania

number of organizations involved
1.0 million
minimum
EU wideparticipation
required

LatviaDenmark1

1.4 million
signatures
gathered*

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / END THE CAGE AGE

1

SOMEONE LET ME OUT OF MY CAGE

3

Slovenia

102

Slovacia

Hungary0
1
Romania

Croatia120

Bulgaria

Italy

3

Spain

38
Greeceexceeding the threshold number of signatures in 18 EU member states, out of seven required

For some of these organizations, animals are part of asustainable farming model. But some animal rights andwelfare organizations, together with parts of the vegetarianand vegan movements, regard rearing animals as unethical: they say it should not happen at all. Some see a solution
in meat alternatives and in lab-grown meat; others warn ofthe effects these would have on farming in general. They
worry that people will become further disconnected fromtheir food, that farmers will be excluded, and industrialized
food manufacturing and big investors in this growing sector will come to dominate.
The sustainable meat movement is increasingly organized internationally. Intensive meat production in industrialized countries has effects elsewhere, and industrial
meat production is also becoming an issue in the developing world. Calls to reduce the number of farm animals go
beyond Europe, reaching countries like Brazil, Argentina
and Paraguay, where activists join forces with European
civil society to demand an end to unsustainable production
methods. One recent campaign has opposed a trade agreement between Mercosur and the EU, which is expected toincrease the production and trade of animal products andto trigger further deforestation in Latin America.
The role of livestock in emitting greenhouse gases is a focus for organizations working on the environment and climate change. These organizations see agriculture and food

The small farmers’ movement La Via Campesina
campaigns for food sovereignty and is said
to be the biggest social movement worldwide

0

Malta

Cyprus1

Since 2011, only six grassroots issues have gone all theway through the European Citizens’ Initiative process.
“End the Cage Age” is the first on animal welfare

systems as critical elements in the crises of human rights,
biodiversity and climate. They demand urgent action frompolicymakers across the world. Many of these organizations
have come together to call on the European Commission todevelop an action plan to promote less and better consumption and production of meat, dairy and eggs, to shift awayfrom industrial farming, and to support better animal farming and healthy, plant-rich diets.

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / VIA CAMPESINA*OVER 200 MILLION STRONG
Regional groupings of La Via Campesina in 81 countries

North America
Central America
South America

Caribbean
EuropeEmerging regions

W & C Africa
S & E Africa
S AsiaSE & E Asia

MEAT ATLAS 2021

67

SURVEY ON YOUTH

CHANGING HABITS
Young people in Germany – the “Fridays for
Future generation” – eat less meat thantheir elders. Their attitudes and habits
are likely to steer food consumption andpolicy in the coming decades. Results of arepresentative survey.

T

EATING WITH GENERATION Z
Food consumption of youth and young adults in threeindustrialized countries, 2016–2019
United Kingdom: dietary
practices of 2,000 shoppersin supermarkets aged 16
to 24, percent

Canada: dietary
practices of 2,566 persons
aged 16 to 30 in 5 major
cities, percent

5 % vegan

2.5 % vegan

11 % vegetarian

6.6 % vegetarian
4.5 % pescatarian

18 % flexitarian

86.4 % flexitarian, omnivore

66 % omnivore

Greece: preferences of 252 university students who live awayfrom their families, aged 18 to 23, on a scale from 1 = no to 7 = yes
eat meat maximum
twice per week

4.34
3.94

eat organic meateat plant-based
meat substitutes

3.6

willing to takeprotein from insects

2.54
1

68 MEAT ATLAS 2021

2

3

4

5

6

7

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / BRITAINTHINKS, VERGEER ET AL., KAMENIDOU ET AL.

he consumption of animal products – meat, milk
and eggs – in wealthy countries should be reduced
to about one-quarter of today’s level. That is the result of a study by leading environmental and nutrition researchers, who have worked out how much animal-based
food in our diets would be globally acceptable. The answer:
25 percent of the current average for the developed world,a figure that is a long way off for many Europeans.
Within the European Union, people in Spain currently
eat the most meat, followed by those in Portugal and Germany. Slovakians and Bulgarians eat the least. In most EU
countries, the consumption of pork and beef is slowly declining, while that of poultry is still rising.
Detailed consumption data are needed to design policies

that encourage changes in dietary patterns. Above all, a goodunderstanding of the younger generation is important, as
diets are based on habits that generally do not change muchas people get older. But such information is scarce. Very few
reliable data exist on the number of vegetarians, vegans andflexitarians in various European countries. A survey in 2020
by a vegan food company estimated that some 4.4 percentof the population in Germany has a vegetarian diet. In Austria, it was 3.7 percent; in Portugal, 2.0 percent, with lower
numbers reported in the other countries surveyed. These figures are a rough approximation: other studies in individual
countries have yielded significantly higher numbers. Somestudies in Germany estimate that 6 percent of the country’s
population is vegetarian or vegan.
To gain a better understanding of the younger generation, the University of Göttingen in Germany questioned
1,227 young Germans between 15 and 29 years of age in
October 2020 about their intake of meat and milk and theirmotives for consumption. The online survey was representative for Germany in terms of gender, region and education.
The results show that forgoing meat is the trend among
adolescents and young adults. Some 10.4 percent of respondents had vegetarian diets, and another 2.3 percent
were vegan. Together, just under 13 percent did not eat
meat – more than twice as many as in the German population as a whole. The climate movement “Fridays for Future”
and related developments have become important drivers
for the rise in plant-based eating habits. Around one-thirdof the vegetarians and vegans in the survey had switched tomeat-free diets only in the previous year.
Flexitarians, who make up around 25 percent of young
Germans, also contribute to lower meat consumption. Theyeat meat only occasionally, mainly at social gatherings.
When they do, they like to know where the meat comesfrom. Of those young people who do eat meat, 44 percent
say they want to reduce their intake in the future.
Who are vegetarians and vegans? Around 70 percent ofrespondents in both categories are women. Younger people and students are somewhat more strongly represented.
Those interested in technology and skilled trades tend to
eat more meat. But on the whole, there are relatively minor
differences between sociodemographic groups. Nor did thesurvey reveal a split between urban and rural areas.
Rather, meat consumption is strongly related to political attitudes. People who eat little meat tend to be moreconcerned about the environment, and especially about
nutrition and animal welfare. Among vegans, 75 percent
say they are part of the climate protection movement; almost 50 percent of vegetarians say the same, while only
15 percent of omnivores do so. Some 42 percent of vegetar-

Just a few years ago, there were no reliable
studies on young people’s meat consumption
patterns. That is about to changeSurvey of 15-to-29-year olds in Germany about climate protests, diets and livestock keeping“Fridays for
Future is an
importantmovement.”

26,2 %
4,5 %

24,4 %

12,3 %

23,4 %

30,3 %

21,3 %

completely agree
somewhat agree“I am part of it.”12,5 %

neutral13,5 %MEAT ATLAS 2021 / ZÜHLSDORF

YOUNG, FREE AND CRITICAL

31,7 %

somewhat disagreecompletely disagree

2,3 % vegan
10,4 %

vegetarian59,5 %“I am a...”25,7 %

flexitarian37,7 %

40,5 %

omnivores

62,3 %

flexitarians
women
men

61,7 % omnivore

29,6 %

30,6 %
69,4 %

70,4 %

vegetarians

vegans3,9 %“I have eaten this type of diet.”

starting this year
for several years
for many years / always

omnivores

6,6 %89,3 %

flexitarians

35,3 %

42,5 %

22,1 %

vegetarians

29,8 %

37,9 %

32,3 %

vegans28,6 %

39,3 %

32,1 %

Differences due to roundingians, and 63 percent of those who prefer a vegan diet, arecommitted to fighting food waste, while only 29 percent ofmeat eaters say they are.
For Germany, the survey reveals that meat consumption
is a political issue and not a question of individual tastes.
Supporters of vegetarian and vegan diets are clearly moreconcerned about sustainability and regard themselves as
pioneers of sustainable consumption patterns.
The survey found large differences regarding attitudes
on the future of livestock farming as a whole. Nearly all –96 percent – of vegans, and 49 percent of vegetarians, would
like to get rid of the practice altogether. For flexitarians it isjust 15 percent, and among omnivores just 4 percent. What
unites this generation is the rejection of the current formof animal agriculture. Almost no one thinks it is acceptable. “Less but better meat” is the preferred route for the
non-vegetarians.
Young people in Germany see the state as having ashared responsibility for sustainable diets. Accordingly,
there was clear agreement on many, but not all, of the policy options included in the survey that might support sus-

The school strike has influenced millions of young
people. New preferences are emerging: the desire forclimate-conscious diets and an interventionist state

tainable consumption. The respondents approved of a climate label for food and stricter animal welfare laws, as wellas legalizing “dumpster diving” (taking food from waste
containers) and making animal welfare labels mandatory.
But they were more sceptical of the idea of a compulsory“veggie day”.
On the whole, it seems that many young people are willing to take the path of change. Two options are emerging
for the future of livestock: a vegetarian scenario, and animal- and climate-friendly farming. Within European Union
policy circles, there is increasing discussion about the links
between food consumption and agriculture – which the EU
Commission describes as the “farm-to-fork” strategy. But
signals to the contrary come from the EU Parliament: in attempts to restrict the product labelling of meat and milk alternatives, for example. It will be interesting to see how far
young climate activists get involved in food policy.

MEAT ATLAS 2021

69

MAKING ENDS TO MEAT
Survey of 15-to-29-year olds in Germany about climate protests, diets and livestock keeping

completely agree
somewhat agree

neutralsomewhat disagreecompletely disagree

3.3
6.1“The state should
encourage people
to eat a moreclimate-friendly diet.”

32.9

19.3

completely agree,somewhat agree“There should begovernment-sponsored
campaigns to reducemeat consumption.”

flexitarians
27.1 %%
1.1
38.5

omnivores

3.4“Policies should ensurethat food is produced
in an environmentallyfriendly way.”

0.8
4.4
22.4

36.1

%

39.6

vegans“Animals should be kept
in a species-appropriate
way, even if that makes
meat more expensive.”

4.5

34.0

17.8

80.8 %

9.1

omnivores
17.7

89.3 %

94.4 %
vegetarians%

vegans“The food retailindustry is unfair
to farmers.”

12.3

flexitarians
88.2 %%
1.2“I do not wish to
support the meatindustry.”*

vegetarians

40.5

36.3

4.5

46.2 %

69.7 %

15.3“Livestock keeping
is basically OK as
it is.”

49.0 %

42.6“The working conditionsin the meat industry
repel me.”flexitarians
80.1 %

64.4 %

%
56.3

1.5

omnivores

4.9
92.2 %
22.2
%

37.3

95.8 %

vegetarians
vegans34.2

Differences due to rounding. * Vegetarians and vegans only

70 MEAT ATLAS 2021

MEAT ATLAS 2021 / ZÜHLSDORF“Substitute products
taste good, or I could
imagine that theytaste good.”

14.6 %

12.1 %

19.3 %

30.6 %

25.6 %

29.8 %

31.8 %

29.7 %“Substitute products
don’t reduce my appetite
for the real thing.”

13.2 % 11.8 %17.3 %

27.6 %

13.2 %

19.4 %

meat

14.4 %

18.1 %

28.7 %

20.8 %

18.0 %

sausage

14.3 %

21.9 %

26.6 %

18.2 %

19.0 %

31.8 %

23.4 %

16.4 %

24.6 %

48.9 %

7.9 % 20.4 %

milk
4.1 %

14.4

“The state should
tax meat to push up
its price and use themoney to protect theclimate.”

15.8

20.7
%

“Supermarkets should
give preference to veggie
items in product shelvesand display them more
prominently.”

24.4

flexitarians

omnivores

24.8

10.9

17.1

“Advertising for climateharming products such asmeat should be banned.”“There should
be a compulsory
label to reflect
animal welfare.”

7.0
19.1

vegans30.7

3.3“Only picturesthat reflect reality
should be allowedin the marketing ofanimal products.”

vegetarians

%

26.0

88.9 %

63.4 %
15.4

37.4

flexitarians
80.6 %

69.9 %%
2.3
33.2

omnivores

3.3
88.0 %

13.5%“I think that climatefriendly food should belabelled more clearly.”

38.4

42.5

88.9 %

vegetarians
vegansMEAT ATLAS 2021

71

AUTHORS AND SOURCES
FOR DATA AND GRAPHICS
All online links were last checked in August 2021.
See page 2 for the websites where you can downloada clickable PDF of this atlas. Unfortunately, somedata base query results don’t come with identifying
internet addresses. Lengthy links have been shortenedusing the bitly web address conversion service.

12–13 CONSUMPTIONEVERYDAY FOOD AND LUXURY GOOD
by Lisa Tostado
p.12: OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2020–29,
p.16, Annex C, p.10. https://bit.ly/3owfvzc. –p.13: top, bottom: Our World in Data, Meat andDairy Production, https://bit.ly/2IjaQkR.

14–15 WORLD TRADEIN LORRIES AND SHIPS by Christine Chemnitz
p.14, p.15 top: USDA Livestock and Poultry: World
Markets and Trade, April 9, 2021, https://bit.ly/2VV8mAd,
pp.4–5, 9–10, 14–15. – p.15 bottom: ibid. p.1.

16–17 MERCOSUR
TRADING AWAY THE ENVIRONMENT
by Bettina Müller and Lia Polotzek
p.16: Eurostat database query, https://bit.ly/3mc58mw.
UN Comtrade database query, https://comtrade.un.org.
– p.17 upper part: Wikipedia, lower part: UN, 2019
International Trade Statistics Yearbook, vol. 1,
https://bit.ly/3mc58mw, pp.24, 28.

18–19 PRODUCTION
PROBLEM FOODS AND THEIR PRODUCERS
by Christine Chemnitz
p.18: Our World in Data, Meat and Dairy Production,
https://bit.ly/2IjaQkR. Faostat database query,https://bit.ly/2Xv8qXv. – p.19: OECD-FAO Agricultural
Outlook 2020–29, https://bit.ly/3owfvzc, pp.52–58.

20–21 ABATTOIRSCHOPPING BUT NOT CHANGING
by Peter Birke
p.20: media reports. – p.21: Faostat database query,https://bit.ly/2Xv8qXv.

22–23 MEAT WASTE
A LOT LESS THAN THE WHOLE HOG
by Jonas Luckmann
p.22: Tridge trade data explorer query, HS 206, HS 207,https://bit.ly/3sogsgp. – p.23 top: Carla Caldeira et al.,Quantification of food waste per product group along
the food supply chain in the European Union: a mass flow
analysis, 2019, https://bit.ly/3xVgr4H. – p.23 bottom:
AHDB, 2019 pig cost of production on selected countries,
https://bit.ly/2W65LTm, p.20.

72 MEAT ATLAS 2021

24–25 LAND CONFLICTS
CUTTING DOWN FORESTS, CARVING UP
PASTURES by Thomas Fatheuer
p.24: Global Witness, At what cost? Irresponsible
business and the murder of land and environmental
defenders in 2017, https://bit.ly/2W2ymti, p.13. Id.,
Enemies of the state?, https://bit.ly/3mb6NZn, p.8. Id.,
Defending Tomorrow. 2020, https://bit.ly/3m7zNBn,
p.9. – p.25: WWF, Deforestation Fronts,
https://bit.ly/3mcfAu4, pp.26, 31. Id., Stepping up?
https://bit.ly/2W0W3SE, p.7.

26–27 COMPANIESDOMINATING THE MARKET FROM FARM TODISPLAY CASE by Shefali Sharma
p.26: Mary K. Hendrickson et al., The Food System,
2020, p.9. – p.27 top: foodengineeringmag.com,
https://bit.ly/3go1h0D. Rabobank, https://bit.ly/2L4bsf8. –p.27 bottom: Philip H. Howard, Mary K. Hendrickson:
The state of concentration on global food andagriculture industries, 2020, https://bit.ly/3AKJIRk.

28–29 FINANCE
BIG BUCKS FOR BIG FIRMS by Mia Watanabe
p.28: Fintel database query, https://bit.ly/3k2jenH.
Yahoo finance database query, https://yhoo.it/3CYQjcG.
– p.29: Feedback: Butchering the planet, 2020,
https://bit.ly/3AOun2f, p.10.

30–31 GENDER AND POVERTYYET MORE UNPAID WORK
by Milena Bernal Rubio and Isis Alvarez
p.30: FAO, The State of food security and nutrition in
the world, 2020, https://bit.ly/3squk9L, p.25. – p.31 top:
Katie Tavenner et al., Intensifying inequality?, 2019,https://bit.ly/37Tnpwk. TLU: Peregrine Rothman-Ostrow
et al., Tropical Livestock Units, 2020, https://bit.ly/3xPSv2E.
– p.31 bottom: Katie Tavenner et al., Intensifying
Inequality?, 2019, https://bit.ly/3mawn0F.

32–33 FEED
SOY, FOREST, AND SAVANNA by Silvie Lang
p.32: International Feed Industry Federation, Global
Feed Statistics, https://bit.ly/2LedLfR. – p.33 top: OECDFAO Agricultural Outlook 2020–29, https://bit.ly/3owfvzc,
p.28. – p.33 bottom: Transnational Institute,
Flex Crops: A Primer, 2018, https://bit.ly/345vgFV p.10.
ussoy.org, Long-Term world soybean outlook, 2019,https://bit.ly/2ImYnga.

34–35 CLIMATEA LIGHTER HOOFPRINT by Shefali Sharma
p.34: M. Rojas-Downing et al., Climate change andlivestock, https://bit.ly/3mPTon0, https://bit.ly/36NpTgf.

– p.35 top, bottom: IATP, GRAIN, Big Meat and Dairy’s
Supersized Climate Footprint, https://bit.ly/3qsfq1z.

36–37 PESTICIDESBANNED BY BRUSSELS, ALLOWED IN THE
AMAZON by Carla Hoinkes
p.36: Faostat database query, https://bit.ly/2VIXamf.
p.37 top, bottom: Public Eye, Milliarden-Umsätze
mit Pestiziden, die krebserregend sind oder Bienen
vergiften, 2020, https://bit.ly/3giFyaq.

38–39 WATERTHIRSTY ANIMALS, THIRSTY CROPS
by Heike Holdinghausen
p.38: Reliefweb, Global Drought Risk and Water
Stress, 2019, https://bit.ly/2W7giy5. p.39: FAO, The
State of Food and Agriculture 2020, Mekonnen et al.,https://bit.ly/3lOB8ZO, p.11.

40–41 FERTILIZERSTOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING
by Thorsten Reinsch
p.40: FAO, Livestock’s Long Shadow,
https://bit.ly/2XvLRC5, p.212. – p.41 top, upper part:
Our World in Data, Fertilizers, https://bit.ly/2VVdmot,
lower part: Saurabh Shukla, Abhishek Saxena,
Global Status of Nitrate Contamination in Groundwater,
https://bit.ly/2UrGByl, p.6. – p.41 bottom: European
Atlas of Soil Biodiversity, 2010, https://bit.ly/3iTz6cI, p.62.

42–43 REWETTINGGIVE PEAT A CHANCE by Sabine Wichmannp.42: GRID Arendal, Environmental and social
impacts of peatland drainage, https://bit.ly/3soQt8q. –p.43 top: Greifswald Mire Center, Peatlands in the EU.
Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) after 2020,
https://bit.ly/2JRCcz9. – p.43 bottom: Global
Environment Centre, Wetlands International,
Assessment on Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate
Change, 2008, https://bit.ly/3mPqZxA.

44–45 ANTIBIOTICSUSELESS MEDICINES by Reinhild Benning
p.44: Germanwatch, Hähnchenfleisch im Test auf
Resistenzen gegen Reserveantibiotika, 2020,
https://bit.ly/3mS0veE. – p.45 top: Natural Resources
Defense Council, David Wallinga et al., Very HighLivestock Antibiotic Use Undercuts Effective Drugs,
2019, https://on.nrdc.org/3lPOAN4. Giorgia Guglielmi,
Are antibiotics turning livestock into superbug
factories?, 2017, https://bit.ly/2JYvNlt. – p.45 bottom:
Natural Resources Defense Council, David Wallinga
et al., New Data: Animal vs. Human Antibiotic Use
Remains Lopsided, 2020, https://on.nrdc.org/37Gfq5f.

https://bit.ly/36MQnya, p.22. H. Loh et al., Targeting
Transmission Pathways for Emerging Zoonotic
Disease Surveillance and Control, https://bit.ly/36KIqtx ,p.432.

48–49 PASTORALISM
BOUNTY FROM A BARREN LAND
by Ilse Köhler-Rollefson
p.48: Ganzorig Gonchigsumlaa, Competitiveness of
pastoral livestock, https://bit.ly/39UhB7Y, pp.8-9, 16,
55. – p.49: PRAPS/Inter-réseaux, Pastoral Livestock Farmingin Sahel and West Africa, https://bit.ly/39PS7J0, pp.3, 12.

50–51 PASTORALISM IN INDIARANGELAND, NOT WASTELANDby Ilse Köhler-Rollefson and Kamal Kishore
p.51: League for Pastoral Peoples and Endogenous
Livestock Development, Accounting for pastoralists in
India, 2020, https://bit.ly/3m8m11m.

52–53 ACTIVE STATE
THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF TRANSFORMING
THE MEAT SYSTEM by Lukas Paul Fesenfeld
p.52: The EIB Climate Survey 2019-2020,
https://bit.ly/37OZhez, p.30. – p.53: Lukas Paul Fesenfeld etal., Policy Packaging can make food system transformation
feasible, 2020, https://bit.ly/3yZzWKA. Supplementary
information, https://bit.ly/3yb2Q9F.

54–55 THE EUROPEAN UNIONCOMMON LIVESTOCK POLICY by Harald Grethe
p.54: EC, Overview of CAP Reform 2014-2020, 2013,https://bit.ly/3gaBxWS, p.4. EC, CAP in the EU budget,
https://bit.ly/3xV0ITf. – p.55: Eurostat queries:
https://bit.ly/2W7hJwt (cattle), https://bit.ly/3y0h6BH(pigs), https://bit.ly/37XZ5cF (sheep), https://bit.ly/3D6ijeO.
Chicken data by Faostat query, https://bit.ly/3iVEdcx.

56–57 LABELTHREE STARS FOR A BETTER LIFE
by Katrin Wenz
p.56: GfK, De Kracht van Beter Leven Keurmerk,
2020, https://bit.ly/3AOXxOH. – p.57 top: EC CIRCABC
data base query, https://bit.ly/3j0MrQx. EC, EU Market
Situation for Eggs, 2021, https://bit.ly/3CXRppp, sheet 7. –p.57 bottom: FAO, The Benefits of a Public Label, 2019,https://bit.ly/3m9gPub, sheet 4.

58–59 EU STRATEGIESA GOOD START, BUT COULD TRY HARDER
by Stanka Becheva and Lisa Tostado
p.58: EC, 2030 Targets for sustainable food production,
https://bit.ly/3iX2ajQ. – p.59: Eurostat, Organic farming
statistics, 2021, https://bit.ly/2VVg8tT.

46–47 PANDEMICS
DANGEROUS CONTACTS
by Inka Dewitz and Christine Chemnitz

60–61 LAB MEATCELLSTOCK VS LIVESTOCK
by Francesco Ajena und Philip Howard

p.46: UNEP, Preventing the next pandemic, 2020,
https://bit.ly/37Fau0D, pp.22-23. – p.47 top: id., p.14.
– p.47 bottom: UNEP Frontiers 2016 Report,

p.60: Hanna L. Tuomisto et al., Environmental Impacts ofCultured Meat Production. Environmental Science &Technology 2011, http://bit.ly/1ktmchR, pp. 6117-6123. Id.,

MEAT ATLAS 2021

73

Environmental impacts of cultured meat:alternative production scenarios, LCA Food 2014,
pp.1360–1366, https://bit.ly/3CXULsg. – p.61 top: Vier
Pfoten, In-Vitro-Fleisch, http://bit.ly/2kpmFJX. –p.61 bottom: Hanna L. Tuomisto et al., Environmental
impacts of cultured meat: alternative production
scenarios, LCA Food 2014, https://bit.ly/3zhuXp2, p.1364.

62–63 INSECTS AS FOOD
SNACKING ON SILKWORMS, LUNCHING
ON LOCUSTS by Hanni Rützler
p.62: Dennis G.A.B. Oonincx, Imke J.M. de Boer,
Environmental Impact of the Production of Mealworms
as a Protein Source for Humans – A Life Cycle Assessment,
2012, http://bit.ly/34bqt2H. C.L.R. Payne et al.,
Are edible insects more or less ‘healthy’ than commonly
consumed meats? A comparison using two nutrient
profiling models (...), 2015, http://bit.ly/2PbEhWA.
Thorben Grau et al., Sustainable farming of themealworm Tenebrio molitor for the production of foodand feed, 2017, https://bit.ly/37QcZgW. – p.63 top:
Yde Jongema, List of edible insects of the world,
2017, http://bit.ly/2BCDWTv. – p.63 bottom: Statista,
M. Shahbandeh, Forecast market value of edible insects
worldwide from 2018 to 2023, 2018, http://bit.ly/2Pa9z02.

64–65 MEAT SUBSTITUTESA NEW SECTOR EMERGES by Stephanie Wunderp.64: Judith Evans, Emiko Terazono, How to milk a pea:
the battle for the plant-based drinks market. Financial
Times, May 9, 2021. ProVeg, Plant Milk Report, 2019,https://bit.ly/3mckTcY, p.29. – p.65 clockwise: Deepak
Choudhury et al., Commerzialization of Plant-Based Meat

Alternatives, 2020, https://bit.ly/3CTb49P, p.3. Kearney,
Kearny-Studie zur Zukunft des Fleischmarktsbis 2040, https://bit.ly/37Cq516. Good Food Institute,ew GFI State of the Industry Reports show alternative
proteins are poised to flourish post-Covid-19, 2020,
https://bit.ly/37PkDsb. Choudhury, see above.

66–67 ACTIVISMPRESSURE FROM BELOW by Stanka Becheva
p.66: Haiying Tang et al., Current Status andDevelopment Strategy for Community-Supported
Agricultur (CSA) in China, 2019, https://bit.ly/3yYa8yr,
pp.3-4. – p.67 top: End the cage age website,
https://bit.ly/3sonbqF. – p.67 bottom: La Via Campesina
website, https://bit.ly/37TQyHL.

68–72 SURVEY ON YOUTH
CHANGING HABITS by Achim Spiller,
Anke Zühlsdorf, Kristin Jürkenbeck andMaureen Schulze
p.68: Britainthinks, Future Consumer: Food andGeneration Z, 2019, https://bit.ly/3iRUKy2,
p.62. Laura Vergeer et al., Vegetarianism and othereating practices among youth and young adults in major
Canadian cities, 2019, https://bit.ly/3mfxmwy,
p.612. Irene H. Kamenidou et al., Segmenting theGeneration Z Cohort University Students Based on
Sustainable Food Consumption Behavior: A Preliminary
Study, 2019, https://bit.ly/3xTKdqA, p.8. – pp.69–71:
Universität Göttingen and Zühlsdorf + Partner,
Fleischkonsum in der Generation Fridays for Future,
survey results for the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, 2020,
unpublished.

HEINRICH-BÖLLSTIFTUNGFRIENDS OF
THE EARTH EUROPE

Fostering democracy and upholding
human rights, taking action to preventthe destruction of the global ecosystem,
advancing equality between womenand men, securing peace through conflict
prevention in crisis zones, and defending
the freedom of individuals against
excessive state and economic power –these are the objectives that drive theideas and actions of the Heinrich Böll
Foundation. We are closely tied
to the German Green Party (Alliance 90/
The Greens), and maintain a worldwide
network with currently 32 international
offices and well over 160 partner projects
in approximately 60 countries.
Our Study Program considers itself aworkshop for the future; its activities
include providing support to especiallytalented students and academicians.

Friends of the Earth Europe is the largest
grassroots environmental networkin Europe, uniting more than 30 nationalorganisations. We campaign on today’surgent environmental and social
issues. We challenge the current modelof economic and corporate globalization,and promote solutions that will help
to create environmentally sustainable
and socially just societies. We advocate
for an ecological and fair agriculturethat protects natural resources, supports
small scale family farms, and halts
exploitation of developing countries.
We are engaged to reform the EU’s
agricultural policy. We work towards
environmental, social, economic
and political justice and equal accessto resources and opportunities on local,
national, and international levels.

Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung
Schumannstr. 8, 10117 Berlin, Germany
www.boell.de

Friends of the Earth Europe
Rue d’Edimbourg 26, 1050 Brussels, Belgium,www.foeeurope.org

74 MEAT ATLAS 2021

BUND FÜR UMWELT
UND NATURSCHUTZ
DEUTSCHLAND
We view ourselves as a driving force for
ecological renewal, social justice andsustainable development. We work topromote small-scale, ecological farming
practices, healthy food production, action
on climate change, forest and waterway
preservation, the expansion ofrenewable energies and the protectionof endangered habitats and species.
With more than 660,000 members andsupporters, BUND is one of the largest
environmental organizations inGermany. With 16 regional chapters and
2,000 local groups, it is present andactive throughout the country. BUND isa member of the Friends of the EarthInternational (FoEI) network and has
partner organizations in 72 countries.
Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND)
Kaiserin-Augusta-Allee 5, 10553 Berlin, Germany
www.bund.net

PUBLISHED IN ENGLISH
MEAT ATLAS
Facts and figures about the animals we eat

2021

EUROPEAN
MOBILITY ATLAS
Facts and fi
Figuresgures about
about transport
Transportand
andmobility
MobilityininEurope
EuropeEUROPEAN MOBILITY ATLAS 2021

MEAT ATLAS 2021
European Union

Further editions:
German: Federal Republic of Germany
eu.boell.org/European-Mobility-Atlas

eu.boell.org/meatatlas

INSECT ATLAS
Facts and figures about friends and foes in farming

AGRICULTURE ATLAS

Facts and figures on EU farming policy

Facts and Figures on the Threats to Our Marine Ecosystems

2017

SOIL ATLAS
Facts and figures about earth, land and fields

2015

1

EUROPEAN MOBILITY ATLAS 2019

Further editions:
German: Federal Republic of Germany

OCEAN ATLAS

2021

OCEAN ATLAS 2017
United States of America

SOIL ATLAS 2015
European Union

Further editions:
German: Federal Republic of Germany
French: France/Senegal/Tunesia
Spanish: Latin America
Arabic: Palestine
Chinese: China
Khmer: Cambodia
Russian: Russian Federation
Turkish: Turkey

Further editions:
German: Federal Republic of Germany, Austria
French: France
Czech: Czech Republicboell.de/soilatlas

2019

2020

boell.de/ocean-atlas

MEAT ATLAS
Facts and ﬁgures about the animals we eat

AGRIFOOD ATLAS
Facts and figures about the corporations that control what we eat

2017

REFORMSFOR A
BLE
SUSTAINA
FUTUREINSECT ATLAS 2020
European Union

AGRICULTURE ATLAS 2019
European Union

Further editions:
German: Federal Republic of Germany, Austria

Further editions:
French: European Union
Spanish: European Union
German: Federal Republic of German, Austria
Italian: Italy
Polish: Poland

boell.de/insectatlasboell.de/agriculture-atlas

MEAT ATLAS 2013
European Union

AGRIFOOD ATLAS 2017
European Union
Further editions:
German: Federal Republic of Germany
Portuguese: Brasiliaboell.de/meat-atlasboell.de/agrifood-atlas

ENERGY ATLAS
Facts and figures about renewables in Europe

2018

COAL ATLAS
Facts and figures on a fossil fuel2015

PLASTIC ATLAS 2019
United States of America
Further editions:
German: Federal Republic of Germany
English: Asia, Nigeria, Palestine
French: France/Marocco/Senegal/Tunesia
Spanish: El Savador
Portuguese: Brasilia
Arabic: Palestine
Burmese: Myanmar
Bulgarian: Bulgaria
Chinese: China
Georgian: Georgia
Greek: Greece
Khmer: Cambodia
Russian: Russian Federation
Czech: Czech Republic/Slowakia
boell.de/plasticatlas

HOW WE ARE
COOKINGATE
THE CLIM

ENERGY ATLAS 2018
European Union
Further editions:
German: Federal Republic of German
French: France
Czech: Czech Republicboell.de/energy-atlas

COAL ATLAS 2015
European Union
Further editions:
English: Nigeria
German: Federal Republic of Germany
Spanish: Latin America
Bosnian: Bosnia-Herzegowina/
Macedonia/Albania
Czech: Czech Republic
Polish: Poland
boell.de/coalatlas

Further editions:
German: Federal Republic of Germany
French: France
Portuguese: Latin America
Spanish: Latin America
Czech: Czech Republic
Turkish: Turkey

8.000

4.122
7.000

Survey results show that forgoing meat is
the trend among adolescents and young adults.

6.000

from: CHANGING HABITS, page 68
5.000

Low wages, hard work, and precarious employment
are the price that workers pay to supply us with cheap meat.

4.000

from: CHOPPING BUT NOT CHANGING, page 20
368

3.000

2.9

408
1.704

2.000

14,6 %
30,6 %
1.000

0
1990

12,1 %

29.8 %
377

25,6 %

31.8 %

11,8 %

14,4 %

18,1 %
1.5

28,7 %

20,8 %

18

13,2 %

14,3 %

21,9 %

26,6 %

18,2 %

19

23,4 %

16

13.2 %
17.3 %

22.8

173
1995

2000

2005

19,32010%

29,72015%

2018

27.6 %

19,4 % 7,9 % 20,4 %4,1 %Livestock production and meat consumption stimulate outbreaksof diseases transmitted from wild animals to humans.
from: DANGEROUS CONTACTS, page 46

Current trade agreements reflect the EU’s
marriage to industrial livestock.
from: A GOOD START, BUT COULD TRY HARDER, page 58

9,1
31,8 %