Beef and lamb receive 580 times more in EU subsidies than legumes, a report has found, despite scientists urging people to get more of their protein from less harmful sources.
Analysis by the charity Foodrise found the EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP) provides “unfair” levels of support to meat-heavy diets that doctors consider unhealthy and climate scientists consider environmentally destructive.
It found beef and lamb were subsidised 580 times more than legumes in 2020, while pork was subsidised nearly 240 times more. Dairy, meanwhile, received 554 times more in subsidies than nuts and seeds.
For the world:
SourceImagine if we used that land to grow crops for human consumption …Imagine if we used that land to grow crops for human consumption
where it’s possible, we mostly do. animals graze on grasslands, and there is no reason to think farming that land is either ecologically sound or economically viable. the crops that are fed to livestock are largely crop seconds or parts of plants we can’t or won’t eat. soy is my favorite example, but cottonseed is another great one.
you’re right, it is incorrect to say we could just switch it 1:1 to growing human food, Two-thirds of pastures are unsuitable for growing crops.
However also from the same source, We could let natural vegetation and ecosystems return to these lands, which would have large benefits for biodiversity and carbon sequestration if we eat less animal products. If there were less subsidies for animal products, people would buy less of them.
Instead of meat the EU should in my opinion subsidize plant based foods more whose climate impact is substantially less. Greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of food product.
Contrary to commonly cited figures, 1 kg of meat requires 2.8 kg of human-edible feed for ruminants and 3.2 for monogastrics. By human-edible feed the paper means for example cereal grains, soybeans, pulses, banana and cassava (Fig. 1).
Plant-based diets can support healthy living at every age and life stage..
Does this account for meat factories aswell as pastures? Alot of prime farmlands where i live is used solely for producing crops to feed meat factories, this is of course strictly anecdotal and it would be interesting to see some kind of statistic regarding this
poore-nemecek did some really sloppy work here, though, and i would contend it’s scientific malpractice. they combined LCA studies which were disparately methodized. this is counter to the specific guidance on LCA studies, which says the cannot be combined.
soybeans
are such a great example. only 7% of the global crop is fed directly to livestock. over 80% of the global supply is pressed for oil. the byproduct is about 67% of the total crop weight that would be industrial waste if we didn’t feed it to livestock.
I assume the paper means that byproduct by specifying “soybean cake” in a seperate category.
“Soybean cakes can therefore be considered inedible for humans but they are derived from an edible product and can be considered as the main driver of soybean production.”; “If the EFA of the part used as feed material is > 66%, then the feed material is considered as the main driver of land-use and therefore in competition with food production. Practically, this is the case only for soybean cakes (EFA=72%)” https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.001
So the soybean byproduct is not a net positive with no drawbacks.
the oil, a few years ago when I last looked this up, was about half the value of the he soybean, despite only being 1/5 of the weight of the bean. and it was tending upward. I don’t know if it’s definitive to say one way or another, but my interpretation is that over 4/5 soybeans are processed in an oil press to extract the oil, and we feed the industrial waste to livestock.
I found this graphic. Even if we feed the waste the industrial waste to livestock and deduct that from the demand for animals (76 % – 13.2 % = 62.8 %) which I don’t think we can do 1:1, over 60 % of the world wide soy bean production is only done for animal feed. From the graphic I don’t know if the mentioned waste is even fed to the animals.
But in the worst case scenario eating plant based would save 60 % of soy beans from ever being made, while the new demand from the plant based diets must be lower. Because lots of non-plant based people eat soy products already, especially in Asia and it still only makes up 20 % of the soy bean production right now.
you’re misreading this graphic
a soybean is about 20% oil.
13.2% is human edible oil, biodiesel is another 2.8%, and another .3% is lubricants. that means 16.3% of the global crops oil is extracted. that’s about 85% of the total crop that’s pressed.
that leaves about 69% as industrial waste, which we feed to livestock, and another 7% of the crop is fed directly to them, but this includes crop seconds.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013
do you have this full paper?
I used sci-hub.
We could let natural vegetation and ecosystems return to these lands, which would have large benefits for biodiversity and carbon sequestration if we eat less animal products.
there is no reason to believe the land would be rewilded
Why not?
because, at the moment, it’s economically productive. it’s hard to imagine the landowner would actively choose not to make money, so it would likely be sold off for development
I stipulated “if we eat less animal products”, so there would be less demand, especially without subsidies. And at least in my country you need to change the zoning of the land to build houses on it. Which is pretty difficult to do (european non-EU country, so I imagine in the EU it is even stricter). Especially as more and more countries want less sprawling out and more condensation of houses.
In this whole argument I also said that all these positive land use change effects would require less subsidies of animal products and more for plant based foods. I am aware that this is not yet the case and may take a long time, but it comes with benefits and is worth pursuing considering the environmental state of the world.
Plant-based diets can support healthy living at every age and life stage..
this is dated. it relies on the 2016 position paper by the ADA (now known as AND) which has now expired…they issued a new position, and this claim is not in it.
I assume you mean this paper. It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that, in adults, appropriately planned vegetarian and vegan dietary patterns can be nutritionally adequate So they now limit the recommendation to adults. For older adults they paint an in my opinion pretty balanced take, but the recommendations they make are still applicable to older people that do not eat plant based.
“Facilitating vegetarian dietary patterns in individuals younger than age 18 years and/or for those pregnant or lactating requires specific guidance that considers how vegetarian dietary patterns may influence these crucial stages of growth and development and is outside the scope of this position paper.” (source above). The way I am reading this, the paper doesn’t mention young and pregnant people because that was not the aim of the paper, and not because they present clear evidence against it.
NHS scotland in 2025 said A vegetarian or vegan diet can be suitable for everyone. However, you might need to consider specific needs at different life stages – for example, children or if you’re pregnant, even though they did not list their sources.
The NHS says During pregnancy and when breastfeeding, if you follow a vegan diet you’ll need to make sure you get enough vitamins and minerals for your child to develop healthily., though this hasn’t been updated since 2022, while the review date in 2025 has apparently passed but the guidance did not get reviewed. There are no sources for this page I can see.
So vegan diets are definitely suitable for adults and maybe or maybe not for other age groups / stages of life.
Just because somebody does eat animal products doesn’t mean they automatically have good health, you have to think about how to get your nutrients with any diet. Taking a supplement of B12 / eating fortified foods is not difficult in europe.
I think it’s telling that they changed the scope of their position. and the fact that most of the paper is spent detailing how to avoid deficiencies
Okay, but the AND has lots of articles on how to avoid deficiencies while eating animal products, isn’t that kind of their job? As well the 2025 AND paper says “The target audience for this article is RDNs, NDTRs, and other health care practitioners.” So it makes sense why they detail how to avoid deficiencies.
I am not saying just do whatever. But there are clearly upsides to a plant based diet that to me offset the work you have to do.
If you are interested you can check out acti-veg.
the “new” research is from 2019, and most of its reference data is much older. i saw some dating back to 2005.
