These Countries Eat the Least Meat, and Here’s What We Can Learn From Them

As the environmental costs of industrial meat production become increasingly undeniable, reducing global meat consumption has never been more urgent. But although global meat consumption has been on the rise for over half a century, some countries have managed to eat less meat in their diet. How have they done it — and what can we learn from them?

It’s an important question. A third of all greenhouse gas emissions comes from food systems, with meat — especially beef — being the largest driver. Experts have warned that if we don’t bring down global meat consumption, we risk making our planet unlivable for humans and many other animals.

“Changing behaviors is very hard,” Ty Beal, global nutrition scientist at the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, tells Sentient. “For consumers, if they want meat — and most people want to have some meat — and they have the money to buy it, then they’re going to buy it.”

But some countries have bucked this trend, and it’s worth asking how. Understanding these global patterns isn’t just a matter of curiosity, but a potential roadmap for change. By looking at the countries that consume the least meat, we can better understand the forces that shape diets, and explore what lessons they might offer in the pursuit of a more sustainable and equitable food system.

Which Countries Eat the Least Meat?

All of the following numbers are courtesy of the data analysis nonprofit Our World in Data, which has sourced its numbers from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization. Although Our World in Data maintains separate lists for seafood consumption rates and non-seafood meat consumption, we have combined the respective datasets for this analysis.

First, to put all of this in perspective, the average rate of meat consumption for the world at large is 141.49 pounds per person per year.

The countries that consume the least amount of meat annually on a per-capita basis are, as measured in pounds-per-person:

1. Burundi (13.1)
2. Ethiopia (15.4)
3. Afghanistan (15.9)
4. Democratic Republic of the Congo (16)
5. Madagascar (19.7)
6. Niger (21.5)
7. Rwanda (25.4)
8. Somalia (28.2)
9. Lesotho (29.1)
10. Kenya (30.4)

How Income Impacts Meat Consumption

On a countrywide basis, one of the biggest predictors of meat consumption is income and wealth. It’s not a coincidence that the countries with the lowest meat consumption rates all have relatively low GDPs; in general, the wealthier a country is, the more meat its residents consume.

According to the UN’s data, low-income countries eat an average of 35.5 pounds of meat per person annually, followed by lower-middle-income countries (59.7 pounds), upper-middle-income countries (201.2 pounds) and finally high-income countries (253.6 pounds).

This is mostly due to price; in addition to the fact that meat tends to be pricier than vegetables in general, animal-sourced products in general are about 60 percent more expensive in low-income countries than in high-income countries, largely due to differences in production methods.

How Factory Farming Allows People to Eat More Meat

In high-income countries, meat is mostly produced on factory farms. While factory farms have a lot of downsides for the environment and animals, they’re highly efficient, and can produce a relatively large amount of meat with relatively low input costs and land use. This approach to farming is what’s known as intensive agriculture, and it’s a big reason why meat is as cheap as it is in developed countries.

By contrast, lower-income countries are more likely to produce their meat through extensive agriculture. This is more akin to traditional family farming, and produces lower yields than factory farms, which results in more expensive meat.

“The data points to a pretty clear trend,” Beal tells Sentient. “When people gain more wealth and have higher income, they [tend to] eat more meat.”

Exceptions to the Rule

Although meat consumption generally increases with income level, it often flatlines or even slightly decreases once incomes rise to a certain point. For instance, Ireland, Luxembourg and Qatar have some of the highest GDPs per-capita in the world, yet their meat consumption rates are lower than that of Argentina, Spain, Israel and many other less wealthy (but still somewhat wealthy) countries.

Although this phenomenon plays out at a countrywide level, Beal says it’s even more readily observable within individual countries.

“In high-income countries, the wealthy people and the more educated people typically consume less [meat],” Beal says.

Culture and Religion’s Role in Meat Consumption Rates

Another important determinant of a country’s meat consumption rate is its religious and cultural attitudes. India and the United States are two good examples of this.

Despite being the most populous country in the world, India has the 12th-lowest meat consumption rate, at just 33.9 pounds per person. This is partly because the country has a relatively low GDP, but that doesn’t entirely explain it; a number of countries with even lower GDPs than India still have much higher rates of meat consumption, such as Uzbekistan, Papua New Guinea and Myanmar.

But India has something that those other countries don’t: an extremely high rate of vegetarianism. Although polling on vegetarianism and veganism rates is often inconsistent, it’s estimated that between 29 and 39 percent of Indians are vegetarians. This is higher than anywhere else in the world, and it’s largely due to religious and cultural factors.

Around 80 percent of India’s population is Hindu. Although Hinduism doesn’t explicitly forbid meat consumption, it espouses a number of spiritual values — an emphasis on nonviolence and a reverence of cows, for instance — that some adherents choose to follow by becoming vegetarian. As a result, an estimated 44 percent of Indian Hindus don’t eat meat. A number of other religions in the country — namely Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism — also have high rates of vegetarianism, though they also have fewer followers.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is the United States, which has the 12th-highest meat consumption rate in the world — and eats more beef than any country in the world. Meat consumption is deeply embedded and valued in American culture. From images of cowboys blazing across early American plains to the enduring popularity of hot dogs at baseball games, American patriotism — and American conservatism in particular — is soaked in meat. It’s probably no surprise, then, that just four percent of Americans consider themselves vegetarian, according to a 2023 Gallup poll.

“There are some cultures that just consume a lot more meat, like the United States, Argentina, Brazil,” Jessica Fanzo, Professor of Climate and Director of the Food for Humanity Initiative at the Columbia Climate School, tells Sentient. “It’s kind of part of the ethos of the society.”

How Government Support of the Meat Industry Plays a Role

Government policies can play a role in determining how much meat a country eats. In America, there are obviously many factors why meat became so popular — cheap and abundant corn and land played a huge role — but worth noting that the federal government also played a role in encouraging the production and consumption of meat. More recently, federal policy serves to maintain the status quo of the food system. Despite widespread agreement by major climate research institutions about the need to shift to a plant-forward diet, the U.S. has not included such initiatives in its federal climate policies.

Policies that support the status quo take many different forms. The USDA gives direct subsidies to livestock producers, for instance, in the form of indemnity payments for animals lost to disease and predation, for instance. And it offers insurance plans for cattle farmers to protect them against lost revenue.

“The government played a huge role in the spike in meat-eating during the early mid 20th century, and that was by subsidizing and supporting the growth of industrial animal agriculture,” Jennifer Channin, executive director at the Better Food Foundation, tells Sentient.

What Can We Learn from Other Countries About Reducing Meat Consumption?

Although it’s rare, a couple of high-income countries have effectively reduced their per-capita meat consumption in recent years, and it’s worth studying these cases to see if they hold any lessons that might be replicable elsewhere.

Germany

In 2023, meat consumption in Germany fell to its lowest point since 1991, according to government data. There’s still considerable debate over exactly what brought about this reduction, but a number of potential factors have been cited:

• For a number of unrelated reasons, the country’s domestic meat production has fallen in recent years, resulting in higher meat prices and, some have argued, a drop in meat consumption;
  
• Concerns and activism surrounding climate change are especially strong among Germany’s youth, who are more than twice as likely as adults to identify as vegetarian or vegan, according to a 2021 poll;
  
• The country’s government has adopted a number of plant-forward policies, including banning meat from official functions in 2017 and investing in research to improve plant-based meat alternatives the year after;
  
• In 2002, the country added a clause to its constitution stating that the government has an obligation to protect all of the country’s animals. Although this didn’t directly change any policies, some have credited it with gradually bringing about a larger shift in mindset regarding meat consumption.

Sweden

Sweden’s meat consumption peaked in 2013, but fell by 16 percent in the decade after. As with Germany, there’s no single reason for this, but a couple of developments are worth noting:

• Between 2015 and 2020, the number of Swedes who said they’d never eat a vegetarian dish fell from 21 to 12 percent. Their desire to cut back on meat consumption remained steady during that same period, suggesting that more favorable attitudes towards plant-based dishes — not hostility toward meat consumption — may have inadvertently led them to eat less meat;
  
• In 2016, two of the largest supermarket chains in the country launched advertising campaigns advising consumers to eat less meat, with the ads focused on the environmental degradation caused by meat production;
  
• In 2019, the National Swedish Food Agency advised schools to serve more vegetables to students.

Although there’s clearly no silver bullet, Sweden and Germany’s examples suggest that a combination of different approaches from the public and private sectors alike might be the most effective path to reducing meat consumption on a countrywide level in traditionally meat-heavy, wealthier countries.

How Can High-Income Countries Reduce Their Meat Intake?

One way for governments to make headway on this issue would be to invest in meat alternatives, like plant-based proteins and cultivated meat. A recent study suggests these kinds of alternative proteins can play a large role in shifting diets away from heavy meat consumption. While there has been much debate about alternative proteins and whether they warrant further investment, cheaper and tastier versions of these foods would at least give them a better chance of success.

There are other, less tech-forward policy options too. In the U.S., several states have programs that offer SNAP recipients bonus dollars if they purchase fresh produce, and these programs have been shown to increase plant consumption among recipients. A growing number of school districts participate in “Meatless Monday,” in which they only serve plant-based foods on Monday, while some cities have committed to reducing the amount of animal-based foods that they serve at public events.

The Power of Plant-Based by Default Policies

The Better Food Foundation has an initiative called Plant-Based By Default, in which it lobbies institutions, public and private alike, to serve plant-based foods as the default at their events and facilities while still offering meat to those who request it.

This is what’s known as a “nudge” — a small design change aimed at encouraging a certain behavior (in this case, eating less meat) without removing one’s ability to choose the alternative behavior.

Nudges like the Plant-Based Default “bypass the false dichotomy of individual versus government intervention when it comes to our food system,” Channin says, and offer a way to change dietary behavior on a macro level with minimal disruption to the status quo. More than 500 institutions have adopted Plant-Based by Default policies, according to the Better Food Foundation. Certain hospitals are implementing similar programs.

“In a food system where corporations have a tremendous amount of power in our government, and where individuals face impossible choices at the grocery store, the power of medium -sized entities — whether a business or a local government or another kind of university or community entity — are actually one of the most powerful places to create change,” Channin says.

The Importance of Educating Consumers

Finally, there’s a big role for doctors and other health officials to play, as they can “inform their patients about the consequences of eating a lot of red meat, and a lot of processed meat,” Fanzo says.

Although not all ultra-processed foods are unhealthy, ultra-processed meat is extremely unhealthy, and while it’s certainly possible to incorporate meat into a healthy diet, a growing body of evidence has shown that Americans eat an unhealthy amount of meat.

The Bottom Line

Ultimately, the onus for dietary change is on countries like the U.S. and China, which consume unsustainable amounts of meat. Bringing about such a change won’t be easy, and the urgency of the problem demands a diverse toolkit of strategies that work in tandem, adapted to local contexts and grounded sustainability.

Among the most promising approaches are policies that make plant-based foods more accessible, affordable and appealing. Subsidizing fruits, vegetables, legumes and plant-based proteins at the governmental level can help level the playing field, as could investments in the plant-based and cultivated meat sectors. Behavioral interventions may also help reframe plant-based eating as the norm, rather than the exception, and so can public education campaigns about meat’s environmental and health impacts.

While none of these strategies alone will be enough, together they represent a pathway forward — one that moves us toward a food system that nourishes people without exhausting the planet.