By Alex Cherry

Since the dawn of agriculture, protein and other nutrient deficiencies have been a fact of human life outside of the wealthiest classes of society. Prior to the global spread of standardized industrial agricultural practices, agricultural systems around the world were subject to seasonal and yearly cycles of surplus and famine, and most people couldn’t afford to feed themselves more expensive nutrients—like proteins—in quantities that modern nutrition experts deem necessary for optimal health. Affordable diets that meet the nutritional needs of entire societies have only been secured at a wide scale since 1900 with a rise in consumer incomes and agricultural industrialization, largely in developed countries. For most of these nations, this change has been associated with rising populations and a massive increase in the consumption of meat, particularly beef and pork, which has strong cultural associations with wealth that vary region to region. Although the recommended daily protein intake totals around 50 grams, the average American now consumes 90 grams per day, the most of any country in the world.[1] Unfortunately, greater consumption of animal proteins has led to declines in animal welfare and severe environmental degradation, including deforestation and greater greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Livestock production alone accounted for 18 percent of global emissions in 2020 according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), with cows contributing to 61 percent of that total.[2]

Developed nations, increasingly cognizant of the damage inflicted on the planet by their past consumption patterns, are racing to limit livestock GHG emissions to meet their Paris climate goals and net zero targets. Unfortunately, their progress is slow and most “sustainable” alternative products are sold at elevated prices for niche markets. On the other hand, developing nations have yet to produce such quantities of meat per capita and are already feeling the impacts of climate change on their agrifood systems, but have growing middle-class populations that threaten to demand a repeat of this destructive consumption pattern. Climatic and ecological stresses will only escalate as livestock-related emissions increase.

Unfortunately, encouraging consumption of non-meat protein sources by the rising middle classes of developing nations remains a profound challenge. Typically, vegetarianism by practice is correlated with either poverty or wealth and privilege, unless it is promulgated through specific religious beliefs.[3] Engineering the best diet for citizens in developing nations through local agricultural policies, trade mechanisms, private sector development, and social campaigns requires detailed analyses weighing economic, ecological, and cultural factors regarding various crops and agricultural products. Developing countries seeking to limit growth in their GHG emissions while meeting their populations’ protein needs must invest heavily in changing consumer attitudes and revive the social value of neglected plant-based sources over animal protein, especially beef.

In 2010, there were 75 million vegetarians of choice worldwide compared to 1.45 billion “involuntary” vegetarians who would consume more meat if it was affordable.[4] Beyond consumption of meat, dairy products from ruminants in the Global South actually produce up to eight times the greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of food compared to their industrial counterparts in Europe and the Americas due to lower productivity of the animals, though overall emissions levels remain far lower.[5] But agrifood systems in developing nations do possess non-meat alternatives which can be expanded for growing populations, such as traditional grains and pulses. 

Such a transition to non-meat alternatives, however, would be a departure from developed countries’ historic meat consumption trajectories—as incomes rise, larger middle classes typically demand more meat in their diets. In order for developing countries to avoid falling into that meat consumption trap, there must be a strong cultural push toward non-meat proteins that is widely adopted across social classes. How can a developing nation, trying to shed its image as undeveloped, claim to offer its citizens higher standards of living enjoyed in the developed world while maintaining this intention?

 At first glance, India provides a useful model for the developing world given its high rates of vegetarianism (estimated between 20 and 37 percent of its 1.2 billion citizens) and low meat consumption per capita across the board. But the status quo is inadequate for supplying the protein needs of the entire population (an estimated 70 percent of Indians are protein deficient) and unlikely to be sustained as middle-class incomes rise over the next several decades — the quantity of animal protein consumed per capita has increased by 26 percent since 2011 alone.[6] The ideal of vegetarianism has a rich cultural and religious history in India, and its practice is strong and resilient among its adherents.[7] But the sheer number of non-vegetarians who will likely consume more meat as their incomes rise means GHG emissions from the country’s agricultural sector will balloon. Vegetarianism’s historical association with oppressive upper castes also poses a strong social challenge to implementing this agenda.[8] Furthermore, much of the current protein consumed by all segments of the population comes from dairy products, which still produce high levels of GHG emissions compared to plant-based sources.[9]

Developing nations seeking to limit the growth of their protein-related GHG emissions can study India’s experience in meeting national protein needs through dairy, poultry, and pulse protein production, but must also navigate their populations’ rising demand for meat. Promoting the widespread consumption of pulses and processed pulse products, as well as traditional grains like millets, can help achieve governmental goals on climate and healthy diets. But nudging consumer diets in this direction will be a great challenge to overcome.

About the author

Alex Cherry is a 2nd year dual degree masters student at the Yale Jackson School of Global Affairs and the Yale School of the Environment. His studies focus on international food and agricultural development, environmental governance, and climate mitigation and adaptation strategies and policy across the Global South. He is the lead copy editor of the Yale Journal of International Affairs and a pescatarian himself. 

Endnotes

1. “People Are Eating More Protein than They Need-Especially in Wealthy Regions.” World Resources Institute, 20 Apr. 2016, https://www.wri.org/data/people-are-eating-more-protein-they-need-especially-wealthy-regions. 

2. “Key Facts and Findings.” FAO, https://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/.

3. Andreoli, Vania, et al. “Drivers of Protein Consumption: A Cross-Country Analysis.” Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 13, 2021, p. 7399., https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137399. 

4. Leahy, Eimar, et al. “An Estimate of the Number of Vegetarians in the World.” EconStor, ESRI Working Paper, 2010, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254412281_An_Estimate_of_the_Number_of_Vegetarians_in_the_World.

5. Henchion, M., et al. “Review: Trends for Meat, Milk and Egg Consumption for the next Decades and the Role Played by Livestock Systems in the Global Production of Proteins.” Animal, vol. 15, 2021, p. 100287., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2021.100287.

6. Biswas, Soutik. “The Myth of the Indian Vegetarian Nation.” BBC News, BBC, 3 Apr. 2018, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43581122; Mahajan, Manisha Arun and Centrium Gate. “Protein Consumption in Diet of Adult Indians: A General Consumer Survey (PRODIGY).” (2015);  “Food Balances.” FAOSTAT, 14 Feb. 2022. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS

7. Shreyanjana. “The History of Vegetarianism in India: Superprof.” Superprof, https://www.superprof.co.in/blog/the-history-of-the-vegetarian-diet/.

8. Biswas

9. Rampal, Priya. “An Analysis of Protein Consumption in India through Plant and Animal Sources.” Food and Nutrition Bulletin, vol. 39, no. 4, 2018, pp. 564–580., https://doi.org/10.1177/0379572118810104.