The Richer They Get, the More Meat They Eat

Ignore the hype that the world is about to turn vegan

3 min read
A photo of three people standing in from of a meat counter.
Fernando Camino/Getty Images

“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” the eminent geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote in 1973. That goes for the human diet.

We are omnivores, not herbivores. Natural selection has formed us to eat both plant and animal foods and to like doing so. Chimpanzees, the primates that are genetically the closest to us, deliberately hunt, kill, and eat small monkeys, wild pigs, and tortoises, annually consuming 4 to 12 kilograms of meat per capita for the entire population and up to 25 kg per adult male; that is more than in many preindustrial farming societies.


It is well to keep this biological fact in mind when considering outlandish claims about the imminent victory of veganism. We are told that “much of the world is trending towards plant-based eating,” and it is expected that the global demand for that diet will nearly quintuple between 2016 and 2026. Are we in fact seeing a revolutionary change in behavior?

Half a century is surely plenty of time to discern a trend, and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has the relevant data. The world’s production of meat and poultry reached about 100 million tonnes in 1970, 233 million tonnes in 2000, and 325 million tonnes in 2020. That represents a tripling since 1970. Even after accounting for the intervening population growth, per capita meat consumption rose by 55 percent during the 50 years. This was as you would expect, because as people get richer they can buy more of the food they really want.

Since 1970, there has been a 55 percent increase in worldwide average per capita meat consumption.

There have been many variations, arising from differences in religion, incomes, and shifting tastes. Of all the populous nations, only Bangladesh, India, Ethiopia, and Nigeria continue to eat very little meat. In 2020, average supply rates in India and Bangladesh were still below 5 kg of carcass weight per year, per capita—a bit less than in Ethiopia. But in most of the world’s populous countries per capita meat supply has increased spectacularly during the past 50 years: In Pakistan it has doubled (still only to 16 kg); in Turkey and the Philippines, the rate has more than doubled (in both countries to nearly 40 kg); it has tripled in Egypt (to about 30 kg); Brazil’s supply has more than tripled, to 100 kg; and in China it rose more than sevenfold, from only about 9 to just over 60 kg.

Not surprisingly, meat consumption has changed little in highly carnivorous countries, including Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom, and it has declined a bit in Denmark, France, and Germany. This small decline does constitute a trend, having to do with the avoidance of fatty red meat by many younger consumers, higher intakes of seafood, and the conversion of very small numbers of people to largely vegetarian (if not entirely vegan) diets. This moderation is indeed a welcome shift, because the nutritional benefits of meat are not predicated on consuming it in large amounts.

Yet even in those rich countries in which the consumption of meat has reached new heights, such as Australia, Brazil, Canada, and the United States, it has led to no demonstrable ill effects on health. Spain is the best example: Since 1975, its average meat supply has more than doubled, peaking at 120 kg in 2002 before dropping back to today’s 100 kg. This rise in meat demand was accompanied by a decline in deaths from cardiovascular disease.

In 2019, before COVID could affect survival rates, Spain had a life expectancy at birth (for males and females combined) of 84 years. That number is the highest in the European Union—notwithstanding all that carne de cerdo asada, jamon, and chorizo…

This article appears in the August 2022 print issue as “Meat-Eating Is as Human as Apple Pie.”

The Conversation (8)
Mark Milliman04 Aug, 2022
SM

Editors: What does this article have to do with Electrical Engineering!? You are straying from your mission to support the IEEE. This article has no place in Spectrum. At least you didn't go for full support of the WEF and suggest we eat bugs. Stick to the script.

1 Reply
Eric Lagally16 Aug, 2022
M

Evolution and the natural section that drives it are subject to selective pressures placed on species by their environments.  Climate change is one such selective pressure – given the increasing urgency of reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally, we would be wise to inspect the greenhouse gas emissions from meat production.  A recent report put meat production at 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions when considering the entire production lifecycle including transportation*.  This is astounding:  imagine eliminating, overnight, a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions just by the choices we make in our diets!  We could do this tomorrow if we chose to, thereby altering the selective pressure environment in our favor. 

There are also confounding factors at play for which Smil does not account in his analysis, among them the power of marketing.  In the United States where I live there has been more than a seven-fold increase in marketing spend by meat producers from 1993 to 2016 to a total of more than $860 million annually.**  Despite this, meat consumption has not increased by the same amount. Even with massive marketing, many people are choosing not to increase their meat consumption regardless of whether their biology indicates they “should”. 

*Xu et al., Nature Food, 2, 724-732, 2021.

**https://www.statista.com/statistics/470424/meat-packing-plants-industry-ad-spend-usa/  

William Rubin11 Aug, 2022
LM

I always look forward to Numbers Don't Lie, but Smil's evident enthusiasm for the increase in per capita meat consumption has things backwards: This increase is a cause for concern, not a cause to rejoice. Smil cites Spain's increased per capita meat consumption and simultaneous life expectancy increase. However, as I'm sure Smil knows, numerous confounding variables can make the implied cause-effect conclusion suspect.

In contrast, The China Study by T. Colin Campbell (2006) eliminates many confounding variables, and comes to the opposite conclusion: that meat and other animal products are bad for human health, especially with industrialized meat production. Yes, we are omnivores, but as even Smil admits, the nutritional benefits of meat do not depend on consuming it in large amounts.

This photograph shows a car with the words “We Drive Solar” on the door, connected to a charging station. A windmill can be seen in the background.

The Dutch city of Utrecht is embracing vehicle-to-grid technology, an example of which is shown here—an EV connected to a bidirectional charger. The historic Rijn en Zon windmill provides a fitting background for this scene.

We Drive Solar

Hundreds of charging stations for electric vehicles dot Utrecht’s urban landscape in the Netherlands like little electric mushrooms. Unlike those you may have grown accustomed to seeing, many of these stations don’t just charge electric cars—they can also send power from vehicle batteries to the local utility grid for use by homes and businesses.

Debates over the feasibility and value of such vehicle-to-grid technology go back decades. Those arguments are not yet settled. But big automakers like Volkswagen, Nissan, and Hyundai have moved to produce the kinds of cars that can use such bidirectional chargers—alongside similar vehicle-to-home technology, whereby your car can power your house, say, during a blackout, as promoted by Ford with its new F-150 Lightning. Given the rapid uptake of electric vehicles, many people are thinking hard about how to make the best use of all that rolling battery power.

Keep Reading ↓Show less