What are the true costs of our food system?

The hidden costs of our food system add up to a staggering $15-20 trillion annually. This includes global external health costs (unhealthy diets, obesity, malnutrition, antimicrobial resistance, and zoonotic diseases), and environmental costs (greenhouse gas emissions, soil depletion, water use, and air, water, and soil pollution). Nearly half of the world's ice-free land is dedicated to animal agriculture, driving deforestation, water pollution, and biodiversity loss (IPCC Climate Change and Land, 2019).

Shifting to healthier, more sustainable diets in line with the EAT-Lancet guidelines could unlock $5-10 trillion in net benefits every year--the equivalent of 4-8% of global GDP in 2020 (Ruggeri Laderchi et al., 2024). Illegal logging, overfishing, and wildlife trade--often tied to expanding livestock production--cost the global economy up to $2 trillion annually in lost ecosystem services. (World Bank, 2019).

Governemnts also prop up this broken system: in 2016-2018, the governments of the 79 countries for which data are available (accounting for 83% of global production) spent $638 billion annually in agriculture subsidies (Gautam et al., 2022). The true global number likely exceeds $1 trillion annually and 90% causes harm to natural areas.

A dietary shift away from animal-sourced foods isn't just about ethics, it could save $7.3 trillion by reducing healthcare costs, lost productivity, and ecosystem damage while cutting carbon emissions (Lucas et al., 2023).

Could more people be employed and fed by plant-based systems?

Plant-based agriculture creates significantly more jobs than livestock production, by nearly a 5 to 1 ratio (Saget et al., 2020). Furthermore, a shift to plant-based food systems would free up 3.1 billion hectares of land--an area larger than Africa (Poore & Nemecek, 2018).

Right now, we're caught in a widly inefficient system: 90% of calories and 83% of protein are lost when we feed crops to animals instead of eating them directly (Shepon et al., 2018). If we used this land to grow food for people instead, we could feed 3.5 billion more people while using far less land (Cassidy et al., 2013).

So, should we be clinging to a system that wastes resources and limits food security? Or is it time to rethink what "sustainable livelihoods" really mean?

Rural communities have traditionally relied on cows, but is that the full picuture?

The reliance on cows by rural communities overlooks critical realites (Goldman, Waterfall, & Nagra, 2025).

• Food insecurity is rampant--fewer than 5% of Maasai households report having enough to eat
• Despite a historically meat-and meat-heavy diet, nutrient deficiencies, anemia, and stunting remain widespread
• Cattle reliance has contributed to land degradation and resource conflicts, making survival even harder.

Expanding plant-based food systems and ecosystem restoration could actually strengthen rural communities, improve food security, and build climate resilience (IPCC Climate Change and Land, 2019). Are cows really the key to survival--or are they keeping rural communities trapped in a cycle of food insecurity and environmental decline?

Population growth and rising incomes will push our food system to the brink

Right now, livestock takes up 83% of global farmland but provides only 17% of the world's calories and diverts 40% of all crops grown to feed animals instead of people (Poore & Nemecek, 2018) (Cassidy et al., 2013).

Aniam agriculture isn't just inefficent, it's the #1 driver of deforestation, habitat destruction, and biodiversity loss (Machovina, Feely & Ripple, 2015). Producing animal protein requires 20 times mor land and emits 20 tmes more greenhouse gases per gram of protein than plant-based alternatives like legumes (Poore & Nemecek, 2018).

If we want to feed a growing population while protecting the planet, shifting to plant-based food systems would feed more people on less land while reducing global emisssions by up to 28% annually (Xu et al., 2021).

Yes, the global population is growing, but there's another population explosion we don't talk about enough: livestock.

In 1960, about 8 billion farmed animals were killed for food each year. Today, that number has skyrocketed to over 80 billion-a tenfold increase. By 2050, it's expected to reach 120 billion (Weis, 2016).

This growth comes at a devastating cost:

• Wildlife populations have plummeted by 73% in just 50 years, with Latin America seeing a staggering 95% decline (WWF, 2024).
• The livestock industry is the leading cause of habitat loss and species extinction worldwide (Coimbra et al.,2020). This is largely due to increased demand for feed crops.
• Rigt now, only 4% of the world's mammals are wild animals--62% are livstock, and 34% are humans (Bar-On et al., 2018). Farmed animals and humans outweigh wild mammals 23 to 1, squeezing wildlife out of their habitats (Ritchie, 2022).
• Poultry biomass is now three times greater than ALL wild bird species combined (Bennet et al., 2018).

While better access to education and family planning can help manage human population growth, curbing the livestock boom is just as critical. Our food system isn't just feeding people, it's reshaping the planet.

Global grazing of cattle only returns 2% of the global calorie supply and 5% of the protein consumed.

Grazing land has massive carbon drawdown potential. If we rewilded the 3.5 billion hectares used for animal agriculture (37% of all ice-free land), we could remove the equivalent of 16 years' worth of fossil fuel emissions--about 8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year (Poore & Nemecek, 2018). Restoring native grasslands alone could sequester up to 268 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, or seven years' worth of global fossil fuel emissions (Hayek et al., 2024).

We actually need this land to meet climate goals. To keep globabl warming below 1.5C, we must sequester 10 billion tonnes of CO2 by 2050--and rewilding grazing land in combination with plant-based diets could get us 80% of the way there (Poore & Nemecek, 2018).

Much of this land used to be forests. About 42% of so-called "marginal" land used for grazing was once forested or woody savanna, but slash burning for feed crops and cattle have degraded it so badly that native ecosystems struglle to regrow (Searchinger et al., 2019).

Grazing cattle is the single largest source of methane emissions, land degradation, and wildlife habitat loss (Machovina, Feely & Ripple, 2015). The consumption of animal products accounts for more than half of biodiversity loss within key biodiversity areas, and lightly grazed pastures contribue the most (Sun et al., 2022).

We actually have more land for crops than we think. At least one-third of current grazing land could support crops (Roberts, 2022). Even when counting only livestock feed that humans could eat, livestock still consume more human-edible protein than they produce (Baber et al., 2018) . This is also true by unit of calorie, zinc, and iron (Berners-Lee et al., 2018).

Dairy production in India has not solved malnutrition--despite being the largest producer and consumer of milk.

Despite it's vast dairy industry, a quarter of the world's malnourished population reside in India (FAO, 2024) . Notably, nearly half of India's children under the age of 5 suffer from stunting or being underweight, demonstrating that milk is not a universal solution to malnutrition (2021 Global Nutrition Report, 2021) .

Meanwhile,

• 40% of global crops are lost by feeding them to livestock instead of people (Cassidy et al., 2013).
• Animal agriculture takes up 83% of farmland but provides only 17% of global calories (Poore & Nemecek, 2018).
• A plant-forward food system would address malnutrition more effectively while using far less land, water, and resources.

Fortified plant-based alternatives--like soy milk--could be produced at a fraction of the cost, land, and water use of dairy. If we truly want to end malnutrition, it's time to rethink how we allocate our food resources.

The idea that animal-sourced foods are the only way to get essential nutrients is outdated and misleading.

A well-planned plant-based diet provides all essential nutrients, often with fewer health risks and a lower environmental impact (Raj et al., 2025). Let's break it down:

• Protein: Legumes, tofu, tempeh, and whole grains contain all essential amino acids--without the cholesterol and high saturated fat found in animal proteins.
• Iron: Lentils, seeds, and fortified cereals provide plenty of iron, and pairing them with vitamin-C rich foods boosts absorption.
• Omega-3s: Flaxseeds, chia seeds, hemp seeds, walnuts, and algae-based supplements deliver sufficient amounts of ALA, EPA, and DHA.
• Calcium and Vitamin D: Fortified plant milks, tofu, leafy greens, and sunlight or fortified foods for vitamin D ensure adequate intake withou the saturated fat of dairy (Lanou, Barnard & Raymond, 2008).
• B12: Easily obtained from fortified foods, nutritional yeast (nooch), or supplmenents, just like many omnivores also rely on due to soil depletion affecting B12 levels in animals.

Plant-based diets reduce risks of of chronic disease while being more sustainable, using 20x less land and emitting 20x fewer GHGs per gram of protein than beef (Poore & Nemecek, 2018). The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics affirms that vegan diets are nutritionally adequate at all stages of life (Raj et al., 2025). So why cling to outdated myths when science--and sustainability--tell a different story?

Yes--but relying on animal agriculture is making the problem worse, not better.

Plant proteins are far more efficient at feeding the world:

• Soy produces up to 15x more protein per hectare than beef while using 80-90% less land and water (Poore & Nemecek, 2018).
• Legumes like lentils, fava beans, and chickpeas come close to soy's protein content--without the environmental destruction of meat and dairy (Raj et al., 2025).
• Food security is worsened by livestock feed inefficiences with 76% of global soy going to animal feed instead of feeding people (Ritchie, 2021).

And yet, the meat and dairy industries target soy with misinformation--why? Because it directly competes with their products and has been shown to be as effective for muscle growth as whey (Rizzo & Baroni, 2018).

With advancing crop technology, high-protein plant foods will only become more accessible. The question isn't whether we can produce enough protein--it's whether we keep wasting it by feeding animals instead of people.

This misleadingly low estimate excludes critical emissions sources tied to livestock.

The full picture tells a different story:

• The 5-7% figure from the US EPA only accounts for direct emissions from enteric fermentation and manure, ignoring land-use change, deforestation, and soil carbon loss.
• The EPA itself now cites 28% for food emissions in some materials, aligning with global research (Poore & Nemecek, 2018).
• Livestock takes up 83% of globabl farmland but provides just 18% of calories--a staggering inefficiency (Poore & Nemecek, 2018).
• Clearing land for cattle is the #1 cause of deforestation, responsible for 41% of tropical forest loss (Ritchie, 2021).

Rewilding could flip the script:

• Restoring former grazing land could absorb 8.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year--the equivalent of nearly two decades of fossil fuel emissions (Hayek et al., 2021).
• In the US, 41% of the contiguous US is dedicated to pastures and feed crops. Rewilding this 630 million acres of livestock land could sequester 3.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, equivalent to 56% of current US emissions.

The idea that cow methane is harmless because it's a part of a "natural carbon cycle" is a dangerous myth.

• Methane is 80-86x more potent than carbon dioxide over 20 years--meaning it traps far more heat than carbon dioxide in the short term (Carter & Urbancic, 2023).
• Livestock methane emissions have skyrocketed 332% since 1890--far beyond any "natural cycle".
• Atmospheric methane is now 262% above pre-industrial levels, making it a stock pollutant--it's accumulating faster than it can be broken down.

Even the IPCC rejects methane neutrality, showing that livestock-driven methane warms the planet as much as fossil fuel methane (Bowman & Hurley, 2024). Livestock expansion has fundamentally disrupted the cycle.

This ignores the vast inefficiencies of resource consumption to raise cows.

• At least 36% of global crop calories are fed to livestock, yet only 12% becomes human food (Poore & Nemecek, 2018).
• The grain used for US animal feed alone could feed nearly a billion people (Cassidy et al., 2013).
• Pasture-fed livestock is the leading cause of tropical deforestation, responsible for over 50% of global tropical forest loss--and staggering 90% in the Amazon (FAO, 2022).

The better alternative? Cut out the inffecient middlestep.

• Eliminating animal agriculture would free up 3.1 billion hectares of land--an area larger than Africa (Poore & Nemecek, 2018).
• This shift could slash food emissions by 49%.

The bottom line? Cows aren't upcycling--they're downgrading our food system into one that wastes land, water, and resources while increasing food insecurity, emissions, and pollution.