Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
A report from FAO shows that the global meat supply jumped from 25 kg to 47 kg per person in six decades, driven by chicken. Consumption soars, livestock should account for 80% of the increase in agricultural emissions in the next decade, and scientists demand diets with less meat.
The world’s plate has changed shape radically in just two generations. The average consumer today eats six times more chicken and twice as much pork as their grandparents’ generation, according to a new report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), presented in an Exame report.
This transformation in eating habits comes with an increasingly visible bill: that of the climate. The same survey indicates that animal protein production is expected to continue growing, and that livestock accounts for a significant portion of the emissions that drive global warming. It’s the invisible cost that comes along with the food.
Chicken leads the consumption explosion
The numbers show where the change was most intense. Poultry supply jumped from less than 3 kg per person in 1961 to 17 kg in 2022, the largest increase among all proteins. Pork doubled in the same period, reaching 15 kg per capita, while beef remained practically stable, around 9 kg per person.
-
Brazilian agriculture has million-dollar machines, record harvests, and digital farms, but 83% of producers report difficulty in hiring qualified professionals to operate and maintain the new generation of the field.
-
European Union formalizes veto that could block almost US$ 2 billion in Brazilian meat starting in September and raises maximum alert in Brazilian agriculture
-
Brazil is excluded from the European Union’s list for exporting beef, chicken, fish, honey, and other products starting in September due to sanitary requirements.
-
Indonesia buys chicken, meat, and grains from Brazil to supply 280 million inhabitants, but the president of the fourth most populous country in the world declared self-sufficiency in rice, eliminated imports that reached 4.52 million tons, and now targets sugar, soy, and wheat in a food shift that could change what Brazilian agribusiness sells to the Asian giant.
Overall, the average global supply of meat increased from 25 kg to 47 kg per person in six decades. And, according to FAO, the trend shows no signs of slowing down: the expectation is for continuous growth in the production and consumption of animal protein worldwide, which maintains pressure on natural resources and climate in the coming decades.
The climate bill that comes on the plate
The problem is that each additional kilo has an environmental cost. Agriculture is the second most polluting sector of the global economy, and its emissions are expected to grow by 7.6% in the next decade, according to the report. Most of this increase, about 80%, is attributed to livestock.
The activity is already identified as one of the main causes of biodiversity loss and accounts, alone, for something between 12% and 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Not surprisingly, beef, although stable in consumption, is cited as the most polluting of the three, which helps explain why the issue has firmly entered the climate agenda.
Brazil’s Weight in This Account
In Brazil, the relationship between food and climate is even more direct. The agricultural sector accounts for about 74% to 76% of national emissions, according to the survey, a share far above the global average. This places the country in a peculiar position.
This same weight that makes meat production Brazil’s biggest climate challenge also turns it into the greatest opportunity for decarbonization. Reducing emissions from the field, in Brazil’s case, has the potential for impact that few other sectors could match, placing agriculture at the center of any environmental strategy for the country.
The Recommendation That FAO Didn’t Make
There is one point where the report divided opinions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has already identified the transition to diets with less meat as one of the most effective actions against the climate crisis. The FAO, however, documents the problem but does not go as far as recommending this reduction, and this is precisely where the scientific community’s criticism lies.
For Cleo Verkuijl, senior scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute, the document describes the problem clearly but falls far short of this conclusion. In her assessment, recommending cutting consumption may be inappropriate for populations in food insecurity, but it is the correct premise for wealthy nations, where health and environmental arguments point in the same direction.
Inequality on the Plate
If meat consumption exploded globally, this growth is far from uniform. In low and middle-income countries, where food insecurity is more common, animal-based foods remain proportionally much more expensive relative to income than in wealthy countries, limiting access.
Daniela Battaglia, FAO livestock development officer and co-author of the study, summarizes that regional distribution and access are still very unequal. While high-income nations maintain high and stable consumption, poorer ones remain restricted by accessibility, in an imbalance that mixes environmental, economic, and food justice issues.
Waste and What Comes Next
Another data exposes a contradiction in the system. About 14% of the meat and milk produced globally is lost in production or wasted before reaching the final consumer. In Brazil, according to previous UN data, the wasted volume would be enough to feed a quarter of the population that goes hungry in the country.
The debate, however, is not yet closed. The FAO itself reported that it will publish a second report later this year, specifically dedicated to environmental sustainability in livestock. It is in this document that many expect to see more concrete answers on how to reconcile the growing demand for meat with climate goals.
Now we want to hear from you. Would you reduce meat consumption because of the climate, or do you think the responsibility should fall on the industry and public policies, not on the individual plate? Where is the line between personal choice and the environment?
Comment your opinion below, tell us about your relationship with meat, and share this article with those who need to join this debate.
Be the first to react!