Contested Nutrition: Meat Consumption, Religion and Sustainable Development

Environmental protection often stands in tension with the well-being of humans and animals. Whether such conflicts of interest exist — for example, between health and nutritional needs on the one hand and ecological concerns on the other — depends on the context of cultural and socioeconomic circumstances. This is particularly evident when assessing of meat consumption, which is influenced by various cultural factors — including the religious beliefs of individuals and society.

Impacts of Meat Consumption on People and Nature

Meat consumption has impacts on both human health and the environment and therefore plays a crucial role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) agreed upon by the United Nations. On the one hand, meat consumption provides a source of calories and micronutrients (i.e., trace elements) that cannot be secured by other means in some regions of the world, thereby contributing to SDG #2 (Zero Hunger). This applies to regions where, for example, climatic conditions, land availability, or soil properties make arable farming impossible or nearly impossible — but do allow for livestock farming. The lack of agricultural inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, or pesticides can also prevent arable farming. At the same time, meat consumption can also lead to morbid obesity (Michaelowa and Dransfeld, 2008) and, as a result, cause diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, which has a negative impact on SDG #3 (Good Health and Well-being).

While meat is thus indispensable as a source of calories and micronutrients, particularly in deserts, semi-arid pastoral areas, savannas, steppes, the tundra, or high mountains (Krätli et al., 2013), the problem of obesity is now a global phenomenon. In the Global South, this is referred to as the “triple burden” of malnutrition (Meenakshi, 2016): the simultaneous occurrence of obesity, stunting, and anemia. The form of food processing is also relevant here: while relatively few negative health consequences have been documented for the consumption of cooked but otherwise unprocessed meat, both obesity and an increased risk of cancer have been demonstrated as a result of consuming highly processed meat products (WHO, 2018). This, too, has a negative impact on the SDGs (Target #3.4: Reduce mortality from noncommunicable diseases). The two right-hand graphs in Figure 1 show that increased meat consumption correlates with lower levels of undernutrition and malnutrition.

Figure 1: Statistical correlation between meat consumption and the consequences of the three dimensions of malnutrition.

The environmental impacts of meat consumption, in turn, are relevant to various planetary boundaries and affect, among others, SDG #6 (Clean Water), SDG #13 (Climate Action), and SDG #15 (Life on Land). These include greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, and biogeochemical cycles, such as nitrate pollution of groundwater. In detail, the consequences depend on the type of meat, production conditions, and trade regimes. A particularly high number of “direct” emissions arise from the rearing of ruminants — that is, cattle, sheep, and goats — especially cattle. The fermentation of fiber-rich feed in the animal’s forestomach (rumen) produces methane, a greenhouse gas with 80 times the impact of carbon dioxide. The “Global Warming Potential” of a greenhouse gas describes how much it contributes to global warming based on its heat-trapping capacity and how long it remains in the atmosphere.

While domestic production meets consumption in some contexts, production and consumption can be completely decoupled when the respective economy is heavily integrated into the global market.

Cultural Determinants of Meat Consumption

A central dimension of cultural influences on dietary habits is religion — particularly religious rules regarding meat consumption. While Islam and Judaism prohibit the consumption of pork, Hinduism prohibits the consumption of beef. Buddhism advocates a vegetarian diet. Empirical analysis reveals a clear statistical correlation between religions and corresponding consumption patterns, even though not all residents of a country adhere to the relevant dietary guidelines (whether they are adherents of the religion in question or not).

A statistical analysis was conducted to examine how religious composition affects demand for different types of meat. The analysis was based on a global dataset covering 149 countries and spanning 59 years. The results are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Religion and meat consumption in 149 countries

For pork, the results can be interpreted as follows: Its prohibition in both Islam and Judaism means that, on average, less pork is consumed in countries with a higher proportion of Muslims. Specifically, a one-percentage-point increase in the proportion of the population that is Muslim is associated with a five-percent decline in pork consumption. While similar patterns apply to predominantly Jewish countries, the findings regarding the effects of the Jewish population share should be interpreted with caution, as only one country has a significant proportion of Jewish residents (Israel: 72 percent, ahead of the U.S.: 2 percent). It should also be noted that the fewer people in a country belong to any religion, the more pork is consumed.

The opposite pattern emerges in the consumption of sheep and goat meat: here, an increase in the proportion of Muslims correlates with a rise in consumption, which could suggest that this halal-compliant meat serves as a substitute for non-halal meats. In predominantly Jewish areas, these substitution effects appear to favor chicken and beef instead.

Interestingly, the proportion of the population that is Hindu shows no statistically significant correlation with beef consumption. Instead, it correlates negatively with pork consumption and meat consumption overall. This suggests vegetarianism or low meat consumption rather than a specific taboo against beef.

Finally, the proportion of the population that follows the Buddhist faith correlates strongly negatively with the consumption of sheep and goat meat. Since there is no canonical Buddhist rule prohibiting the consumption of sheep and goats, this suggests dietary and production practices common in East and Southeast Asia rather than religious doctrine.

Implications for Malnutrition and Climate Protection

Figure 3 a-c illustrates the health situation in various regions of the world. It shows that in some regions there is a potential conflict of interest between nutritional and environmental goals; however, synergies also exist.

The regions of the world with the highest prevalence of undernutrition and malnutrition are Central Africa and (for malnutrition) West Africa, as well as South Asia. In West Africa and, to a significant extent, in Central Africa as well, Islamic dietary laws restrict pork consumption. Poultry production, on the other hand, is challenging, as the availability, quality, and price of feed severely limit productivity, scaling, and competitiveness. At the same time, small ruminants (sheep and goats) are well adapted to local climatic conditions in many West and Central African countries, making their consumption attractive in these areas.

Figure 3a-c: Prevalence of Stunting, Anemia and Overweight.

In South Asian countries where, in addition to Islam (Pakistan, Afghanistan), Hinduism and Buddhism are particularly widespread, the situation is less clear-cut and more complex, as the prevalence of these religions is generally associated with a reduction in overall meat consumption — and it is precisely in these regions that many people suffer from malnutrition and undernourishment. From a purely nutritional perspective, an increase in meat consumption in contexts with low dietary diversity, such as in South Asia, would likely be accompanied by improved health due to the increased intake of micronutrients.

With regard to the prevalence of obesity, the results must be evaluated in a broader context, as obesity depends primarily on total calorie intake, the degree of processing (“ultra-processed food”), and lifestyle — but also on the composition of meat consumption, which is often influenced by religious practices.

The regions and countries with the highest prevalence of obesity are Canada, Argentina, some countries in North Africa and the Balkans, South Africa, and Oceania. In Christianity in particular, there are virtually no dietary restrictions, and the high prevalence in high-income societies with many sedentary occupations (office work) often leads to high total calorie intake. In countries where Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism are widely practiced, lower rates of obesity can be attributed to a combination of factors, including lower purchasing power, a higher proportion of the population living in rural areas, a more physically active lifestyle, and religious practices such as vegetarianism (Hinduism) or the prohibition against eating pork (Islam).

From a health perspective, the impact of a higher Muslim population on the increased consumption of sheep and goat meat is to be viewed favorably—especially given the prevalence of malnutrition and dietary deficiencies in these regions. From a climate protection perspective, however, there is a conflict of objectives between ensuring adequate nutrient intake and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, it should be noted that the production of sheep and goat meat releases fewer emissions than that of cattle. On the other hand, in regions where malnutrition and undernutrition are less prevalent, there is no argument in favor of the (climate-damaging) consumption of ruminants. It is interesting to note that in countries with a high proportion of Buddhist populations, the consumption of sheep and goat meat is significantly lower — which is good news for the climate.

Summary and Outlook

The results show that religious affiliation systematically shapes meat consumption — and thus also its health and environmental consequences. However, whether this results in a problem or an opportunity depends on the context. In regions with high rates of undernutrition and malnutrition, animal products can play a crucial role in supplementing the diet with calories and micronutrients. Small ruminants, in particular, are often well adapted to local conditions in arid and semi-arid areas. In such regions, a moderate expansion of sustainable livestock production can contribute to food security.

The situation is different in affluent societies. There, the risks of high consumption — particularly of beef and highly processed meat products — for climate and health outcomes outweigh the benefits. Since the primary responsibility for emission-intensive diets thus lies with countries that have high incomes and high consumption levels, reducing particularly climate-damaging types of meat is not only ecologically necessary but also sensible from a public health perspective.

Sustainability therefore does not require a globally uniform diet, but rather differentiated strategies. Religion, with its dietary prohibitions and commandments, is not inherently an obstacle. Dietary rules structure demand in the long term and can provide guidance. Traditions of moderation, fasting, or vegetarianism demonstrate that cultural norms can align with sustainability goals. Development policy should take this cultural infrastructure seriously and leverage it to achieve desired outcomes for health and environment.

One potential solution to the conflict between food security and climate protection — though one that has received little attention in public discourse — lies in alternative protein sources such as edible insects. They provide high-quality protein and essential micronutrients like iron and zinc, generate significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions than ruminants, and require less land and water (Abbasi, 2026). In many regions of Africa and Asia, they are deeply rooted in tradition. Greater promotion of these sources could create income opportunities and diversify food systems — without fundamentally undermining existing cultural patterns.

Sustainable food policy therefore begins with the recognition of cultural realities, the open acknowledgment of conflicting goals, and the search for context-specific solutions. Where hunger prevails, food security must be a priority. Where overconsumption dominates, a reduction is indicated. And globally, responsibility is unevenly distributed — as is the scope for change.

Prof. Dr. Thomas Kopp heads the working group for Global Trade and Nutrition and is acting director of the Department of Agricultural Policy and Market Research at Justus-Liebig-University in Gießen.

Dr. Markus Nabernegg is Senior Researcher in the working group for Global Trade and Nutrition and former deputy director of the National Statistics Institute of Ecuador.

Footnote:

(1) Statistically insignificant coefficients are not shown.

*: Regarding the proportion of the Jewish population: The data set contains only a single country with a substantial proportion of Jewish faith. This variable could therefore also capture the effect of a „mediterranean country with a high average income“.

References:

_{Abbasi, E. (2026). "Edible insects in human nutrition: nutritional value, economic potential, and environmental implications for sustainable food production." Agriculture & Food Security, in press, pp. 1-24.}

_{Clune, S., E. Crossin, and K. Verghese (2017). “Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories”. In: Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, pp. 766–783.}

_{Krätli, S., C. Huelsebusch, S. Brooks, and B. Kaufmann. (2013). Pastoralism: A critical asset for food security under global climate change. Animal Frontiers, 3(1), 42–50.}

_{Meenakshi, J. V. (2016). “Trends and patterns in the triple burden of malnutrition in India”. Agricultural Economics, 47.S1, pp. 115–134.}

_{Michaelowa, A. and B. Dransfeld (2008). “Greenhouse gas benefits of fighting obesity”. In: Ecological Economics, 66.2-3, pp. 298–308.}

_{WHO 2018: Press Release No. 240.}