Analyzing Nagel's Argument on God's Existence

ESSAY ASSIGNMENT # 2
Due Feb. 26 at the beginning of class.
Printed. Stapled in the upper left corner.
MLA format -
300-450 word range
Based on an analysis of Ernest Nagel’s essay, “Does God
Exist”? (Cahn 158).
Instructions for writing the essay-follow the outline below.
Introduce the writer and the essay. Then give a brief summary
of the essay and a directional statement (where you are going)
with the essay.
Give briefly the three “classical” arguments Nagel gives for the
existence of God and what he has to say about each of them.
What argument does Nagel give against Kant’s “blunder”?
What role does “evil” and Omni-benevolence play in his
argument: does that speak for or against God’s existence?
What are his conclusions?
Be sure to follow the above outline in your essay.
Copy and paste the paper title here
1
Title of Report in Initial Capital Letters
(Times Roman 24 -point font, Boldface)

(Titles should be 7 words or less)
Figure 1. Descriptive phrase that serves as title and description.
Reprinted [or adapted] from Title of Website, by Author First
Initial. Second Initial. Surname, Year, Retrieved from URL.
Copyright [year] by the Name of Copyright Holder. Reprinted
[or adapted] with permission.
Supervised by: Name of your teacher
Name:
ID:
Department of English Language
Major:
Date: 23 January 2018
Layout of the paper: Delete this page in the
Final Draft
General Instructions:
Line Spacing: double spacing
Font: Times New Roman or another clear, easy to read font, size
12
Margins: 2.5 cm on all sides
Alignment: left-aligned, do not justify
Paragraphs: indent every first line (1 tab or 5 spaces)
Quotations: blocked (justified and indented on both sides)
Page numbers: consecutive numbers, top/bottom right.
Header: Running head (title of paper) top left. (Use Header for
this)
Table of Contents: must be numbered on multiple levels and

these numbers must be followed in the text.
Table of Contents
1
Introduction……………………………………………..……
…………………….. 1
2 First Major
Heading…..…………….………………………………….……..…
…. 4
2.1 First Subheading (If Subheadings
Exist)………….……………………………….. 5
2.2 Second Subheading (If Subheadings
Exist)……….………………………………. 5
3 Visual and
Tables..……………………………………...………………………
… 6
4
Conclusions……………………………………….……………
……………….… 7
5 References
……………………….……………….……………………………….
8
6 Appendix
…………………………………………………………………………
. 9
Title of your paper Date Page number
1 Introduction

In the “Introduction,” make sure that you orient the
audience with sufficient background to understand what the
problem is and why the problem was addressed. The
“Introduction” must state what the topic includes and any
limitations about the topic. (See Bailey 1.10 p. 72). Also, a
good test for this section is to imagine how well it would help
you know the topic and main ideas of the paper when you read
it a year from now.
The introduction can be more than one paragraph. Be sure
to indent all paragraphs. Headings are 12-point font, flushed
left, and boldfaced. Use initial capitals in all headings.
Discuss what needs to be discussed and clarified at the
beginning of the paper. This part is usually an introduction to
the purpose of the study, the method of research, background to
the study, terminology or definitions, writings of other authors
and any more information to direct the reader. However, not all
sections need subheadings.
2 Second Major Heading
Headings are flush left, and boldfaced. Use initial capitals.
At least one paragraph should follow a major heading before a
subheading exists. The typeface given here for the text portion
of this report is Times New Roman.
2.1 First Subheading
Subheadings should be 12 -point font and boldfaced. Insert one
line before the sub-subheading and one-line skipped after. Use
initial capitals. Note that subheadings are listed in the Table of
Contents. Be conservative (don’t have too many) with
subheadings in a term paper.
2.2 Second Subheading

If you have one sub-subheading, you must have a second.
Otherwise, the first sub-subheading has nothing to be parallel
with. Do not allow a heading or subheading to stand as a widow
line at the bottom of a page. If the situation occurs, force a line
break (hit Enter) before the heading or subheading.
3 Third Major Heading
Another formatting consideration concerns the
incorporation of figures and tables. Shown in Figure 1 is a
common format that serves reports well. Note that the word
Figure is always capitalized, not abbreviated, and the discussion
of the graph or table will be part of the essay and not a separate
paragraph. A period (full stop) is a powerful piece of
punctuation—its primary use is to end sentences. Do not dilute
its power by having it do menial tasks such as saving three
letters from a word that is short to begin with, like this...
Following standard convention, the formal introduction of
Figure 1 occurs in the text before the figure appeared. In the
introduction of an illustration, using pointers such as below or
on the next page is undesired. Your technical reader knows
where the illustration is supposed to be placed—after the
paragraph that introduces it or on the next page if not enough
space exists below the paragraph. Note that you should not
break paragraphs in an APA document to insert an illustration.
To distinguish the figure caption from the text, you should place
the figure caption in a smaller typeface, as was done in Figure
2. Recommended for the line spacing of the caption is single
spacing. For the caption, a nice touch is to place the name in the
bold sans serif of the headings and have the caption’s text in the
serif typeface of the chapter’s text. The caption begins with a
phrase and is followed by a sentence (or two) that explains
unusual details.

Figure 2. Descriptive phrase that serves as title and description.
Reprinted [or adapted] from Title of Website, by Author First
Initial. Second Initial. Surname, Year, Retrieved from URL.
Copyright [year] by the Name of Copyright Holder. Reprinted
[or adapted] with permission.
Tables are presented in a different fashion. For instance,
Table 1 presents an example. The heading for the table goes
above and is 11-point font. The heading is a single phrase. If
there are unusual details, those are explained in footnotes
beneath the table. Note each line skip above and below that
separates each illustration and its caption (or heading) from the
text.
Table 1. Facts concerning the planets
Planet
Diameter
(km)
Gravity
(earth ratio)
Year
(earth days)
Temperature
(K)
Mercury
5,100
0.40
88
700
Venus
12,600
0.90
225
700
Earth

12,800
1.00
365
350
Mars
6,900
0.40
687
320
Jupiter
143,600
2.70
4,333
150
Saturn
120,600
1.20
10,759
138
Uranus
53,400
1.00
30,686
90
Pluto1
12,700
???
90,885
80
1Corresponding data on Neptune not available.
4 Conclusion
This section summarizes the document and provides
closure. In this section, a good idea is to use your last sentence
to emphasize an important detail or result in the report. (See

Bailey, 1.11 p. 76 for more information.)
5 Reference List
Anderson, A. K. (2005). Affective influences on the attentional
dynamics supporting awareness. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 154, 258–281. doi:10.1037/0096-
3445.134.2.258
Anderson, A. K., Christoff, K., Panitz, D., De Rosa, E., &
Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2003). Neural
correlates of the automatic processing of threat facial signals.
Journal of Neuroscience,
23, 5627–5633.
Armony, J. L., & Dolan, R. J. (2002). Modulation of spatial
attention by fear-conditioned
stimuli: An event-related fMRI study. Neuropsychologia, 40,
817–826. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932%2801%2900178-6
Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (1988). An
inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: Psychometric
properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56,
893–897. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.56.6.893
Calvo, M. G., & Lang, P. J. (2004). Gaze patterns when looking
at emotional pictures:
Motivationally biased attention. Motivation and Emotion, 28,
221–243. doi:10.1023/B%3AMOEM.0000040153.26156.ed
Carretie, L. Hinojosa, J. A., Martin-Loeches, M., Mecado, F., &
Tapia, M. (2004). Automatic attention to emotional stimuli:
Neural correlates. Human Brain Mapping, 22, 290–
299.doi:10.1002/hbm.20037

If you are still uncertain whether you have followed the correct
format and citation techniques, visit this webpage to see
numerous tutorials on the APA guide:
http://www.apastyle.org/
6 Appendix
Appendix A
Title
An Appendix is for additional information about some topic in
discussed in the paper. It may be graphs or charts or additional
text. It may discuss more details about a study or survey or
experiment that is referred to in the content of the paper.
Titles of appendices are 12 -point font, flush left, and
boldfaced. Use initial capitals.. Illustrations in this appendix are
labeled Figure A-1, Figure A-2, Table A-1, Table A-2, and so
forth. Note that each appendix should be introduced somewhere
in the text portion of the report. Below is an example of a
visual aid used in an appendix.
Appendix B
Demographic Information for Cummings et al. (2002) Review

ENGL 118: Term Paper Rubric (Assessment of Written Report)
Sem.382
Criteria
Mark
Level Descriptor
Mark Awarded
Paper lay-out
2
Paper layout correct and complete. Interesting, creative
development.
Points possible 2-1.5
Layout complete and descriptive. Logical. Required
information.
Basic layout, without clarifying content. Distinct paragraphs
introduce new idea.
Points possible 0.5-0.1
Poor layout without different sections. No main or sub-
headings.
Points possible 0
Writing: Clarity of writing
2
Accurate sentence structure. Sequencing of ideas within
paragraphs and transitions between paragraphs make the
writer’s points easy to follow.
Points possible 1.5 - 2
Sequencing of ideas within paragraphs and transitions between
paragraphs make the writer’s points easy to follow, even though
some sentences not correctly structured.

Sentence structure and/or word choice sometimes interfere with
clarity. Needs to improve sequencing of ideas within
paragraphs and transitions between paragraphs to make the
writing easy to follow.
Points possible 0.5
Incorrect sentence structure and word choice. Lack of
transitions and/or sequencing of ideas makes reading and
understanding difficult.
No coherence.
Points possible 0
Content/ Plagiarism
10
ALL content original OR cited correctly. Interpreted and
commented on.
Points possible 10
-1 for each sentence taken from source and not properly cited
(plagiarized) up to total 10.
Paper not according to student’s own writing style. (Check and
compare quiz 1, 2 and MT). **
Critical thinking and creativity
2
Sources analysed and results synthesized correctly; presented in
creative logical way.
Sources analysed and synthesized correctly. Results presented

in logical way.
Sources analysed correctly but separate synthesis or presented
in separate paragraphs. Little cohesion between analysis and
synthesis.
Points possible 0 – 0.5
Sources not analysed, just reproduced given text.
Points possible 0
In-text referencing
6
Used sources correctly in text for EACH reference.
Used sources in text.
Up to 50% deviation from APA referencing techniques.
Points possible 4.5 -5
More than 50% deviation from APA referencing techniques.
Work fails to follow required report format.
Points possible 0 – 3
Use of Figures, Graphs, Charts, Tables & Drawings
4
All figures and tables are effectively interpreted and discussed
in report; and labelled or titled correctly in accordance with
department requirements.

Minor departures from required format. Captions effectively
communicate content. Figures and tables clearly interpreted and
important features noted.
Points possible 3.4-2.5
Many departures from required format. Captions are ineffective
in communicating content. Many figures not interpreted.
Important features not communicated or understood.
Points possible 2.4-1
Work fails to follow required format. Captions, figures and
tables are not used effectively or not included at all. Little
understanding of important features or issues.
Points possible 0
Reference List
6
Reference section complete, comprehensive and follows
required format. One or two errors.
Points possible 6-5
Minor inadequacies in references or inconsistencies in format.
Points possible 4-3
Inadequate list of references or failure to follow required
format.
Points possible 2-1
Attempted reference list; incorrect format.
Points possible 1
No referencing system used.
Points possible 0

Language Accuracy
(Spelling, Grammar, & Mechanics)
8
Academic language used.
NO contractions. Correct word choice. ONLY typographical
errors.
Formal and correct tone and style.
Mostly spelling errors. Acceptable tone and style.
Errors do not impede meaning.
Less than 10 major errors
Points possible 5 - 6
Errors indicative of poor grammar knowledge.
Incomplete sentences.
10 to 20 major errors
Points possible 3 – 5.5
Language almost incomprehensible
More than 20 errors
Points possible 0 -2.5
Overall Performance
Total marks= /40
/20
**In addition, you must give your instructor the following

documents:
___________________________________
Signature:
Printed copies of source documents, properly annotated as
instructed in class. (See Blackboard for examples).
1 source card for EACH source document with correct APA
formatting. (See Blackboard for examples).
Minimum of 4 note cards per student author, correctly written
as instructed in class. (See Blackboard for examples).
**No marks are given for these documents.
ENGL118 English Composition II Semester 382
Bottom of Form
Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change co-
benefits of dietary change
Marco Springmann, H. Charles J. Godfray, Mike Rayner and
Peter Scarborough
PNAS 2016 April, 113 (15) 4146-4151.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523119113
1. Edited by David Tilman, University of Minnesota, St. Paul,
MN, and approved February 9, 2016 (received for review
November 22, 2015)
· Article
· Figures & SI
· Authors & Info
· PDF
Significance
The food system is responsible for more than a quarter of all
greenhouse gas emissions while unhealthy diets and high body
weight are among the greatest contributors to premature
mortality. Our study provides a comparative analysis of the
health and climate change benefits of global dietary changes for
all major world regions. We project that health and climate

change benefits will both be greater the lower the fraction of
animal-sourced foods in our diets. Three quarters of all benefits
occur in developing countries although the per capita impacts of
dietary change would be greatest in developed countries. The
monetized value of health improvements could be comparable
with, and possibly larger than, the environmental benefits of the
avoided damages from climate change.
Abstract
What we eat greatly influences our personal health and the
environment we all share. Recent analyses have highlighted the
likely dual health and environmental benefits of reducing the
fraction of animal-sourced foods in our diets. Here, we couple
for the first time, to our knowledge, a region-specific global
health model based on dietary and weight-related risk factors
with emissions accounting and economic valuation modules to
quantify the linked health and environmental consequences of
dietary changes. We find that the impacts of dietary changes
toward less meat and more plant-based diets vary greatly among
regions. The largest absolute environmental and health benefits
result from diet shifts in developing countries whereas Western
high-income and middle-income countries gain most in per
capita terms. Transitioning toward more plant-based diets that
are in line with standard dietary guidelines could reduce global
mortality by 6–10% and food-related greenhouse gas emissions
by 29–70% compared with a reference scenario in 2050. We
find that the monetized value of the improvements in health
would be comparable with, or exceed, the value of the
environmental benefits although the exact valuation method
used considerably affects the estimated amounts. Overall, we
estimate the economic benefits of improving diets to be 1–31
trillion US dollars, which is equivalent to 0.4–13% of global
gross domestic product (GDP) in 2050. However, significant
changes in the global food system would be necessary for
regional diets to match the dietary patterns studied here.
· sustainable diets
· dietary change

· food system
· health analysis
· greenhouse gas emissions
The choices we make about the food we eat affect our health
and have major ramifications for the state of the environment.
The food system is responsible for more than a quarter of all
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (1), of which up to 80% are
associated with livestock production (2, 3). The aggregate
dietary decisions we make thus have a large influence on
climate change. High consumption of red and processed meat
and low consumption of fruits and vegetables are important
diet-related risk factors contributing to substantial early
mortality in most regions while over a billion people are
overweight or obese (4). Without targeted dietary changes, the
situation is expected to worsen as a growing and more wealthy
global population adopts diets resulting in more GHG emissions
(5) and that increase the health burden from chronic,
noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) associated with high body
weight and unhealthy diets (6).
Recent analyses have highlighted the environmental benefits of
reducing the fraction of animal-sourced foods in our diets and
have also suggested that such dietary changes could lead to
improved health (7⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ –14). They have shown that
reductions in meat consumption and other dietary changes
would ease pressure on land use (11, 12) and reduce GHG
emissions (7, 11⇓ ⇓ –14). Changing diets may be more effective
than technological mitigation options for avoiding climate
change (14) and may be essential to avoid negative
environmental impacts such as major agricultural expansion (7)
and global warming of more than 2 °C (13) while ensuring
access to safe and affordable food for an increasing global
population (8, 15).
The diets investigated in these studies include diets with a pro
rata reduction in animal products (ruminant meat, total meat,
dairy) (11, 13, 14), specific dietary patterns that include
reduced or no meat (such as Mediterranean, “pescatarian,” and

vegetarian diets) (11, 12), and diets based on recommendations
about healthy eating (7, 11). The health consequences of
adopting these diets have not been explicitly modeled or
quantitatively analyzed, but instead inferences have been drawn
from information available in the epidemiological literature
(16). In the most comprehensive study to date, Tilman and Clark
(12) analyzed the GHG emissions of a series of diets that
differed in their animal-sourced food content and presented
their results alongside a series of observational studies of the
health consequences of adopting the different diets.
Here, we use a region-specific global health model to link the
health and environmental consequences of changing diets. We
also make a first attempt, to our knowledge, to estimate the
economic value of different dietary choices through their effects
on health and the environment. For the health analysis, we built
a comparative risk assessment model to estimate age and
region-specific mortality associated with changes in dietary and
weight-related risk factors (4, 17). The specific risk factors
influence mortality through dose–response relationships, which
allow us to compare different dietary scenarios based on their
exposure to those risk factors. Given the availability of
consistent epidemiological data, we focused on changes in the
consumption of red meat, and of fruits and vegetables, which
together accounted for more than half of diet-related deaths in
2010 (4), and also on the fraction of people who are overweight
or obese through excess calorie consumption, which too is
associated strongly with chronic disease mortality (18, 19). The
disease states included were coronary heart disease (CHD),
stroke, type 2 diabetes (T2DM), and cancer that is an aggregate
of site-specific cancers. These four disease states accounted for
about 60% of NCD deaths and for about 40% of deaths globally
in 2010 (6). Given that dietary and weight-related risk factors
are predominantly associated with chronic disease mortality, we
focused on the health implications of changes in those risk
factors for adults (aged 20 y and older).
For the environmental analysis, we linked regional and

scenario-specific food type consumption levels to GHG
emissions using Tilman and Clark’s metaanalysis of life cycle
studies (12) although we adjusted for likely future productivity
improvements (3). In the economic analysis, we placed a
monetary value on changes in GHG emissions by using
estimates of the social cost of carbon (20) and explored
monetizing the health consequences using the value of
statistical life (21, 22) and projections of health-care
expenditure by cause of death (23⇓ –25). We stress from the
outset that we consider the economic valuation to be a first step
and that the estimates are not exactly comparable nor do they
include all consequences of dietary changes.
We used this coupled modeling framework to analyze the
environmental and health impacts of four dietary scenarios in
the year 2050 (SI Appendix, Table S1) (7, 9⇓ ⇓ ⇓ –13). The first
(referred to below as REF) is a reference scenario based on
projections from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO), with adjustments to take into account the
fraction of nonedible and wasted food (26, 27). The second
scenario [healthy global diets (HGD)] assumes the
implementation of global dietary guidelines on healthy eating
(16, 28) and that people consume just enough calories to
maintain a healthy body weight (29). The last two scenarios also
assume a healthy energy intake but based on observed
vegetarian diets (30, 31), either including eggs and dairy [lacto-
ovo vegetarian (VGT)] or completely plant-based [vegan
(VGN)]. The three nonreference scenarios are not intended to be
realizable dietary outcomes on a global level but are designed to
explore the range of possible environmental and health
outcomes of progressively excluding more animal-sourced foods
from human diets (7, 9⇓ ⇓ ⇓ –13).
The different diet scenarios were implemented by adjusting the
region-specific diets described in the REF scenario, which
maintained the regional character of food consumption (SI
Appendix, section SI.1). The HGD diet included (per day) a
minimum of five portions of fruits and vegetables (16), fewer

than 50 g of sugar (16), a maximum of 43 g of red meat (28),
and an energy content of 2,200–2,300 kcal, depending on the
age and sex composition of the population (29). The VGT and
VGN diets differed from the HGD in including six (VGT) or
seven (VGN) portions of fruits and vegetables (30, 31) and one
portion of pulses (30, 31), with no red meat, poultry, or fish,
and in the VGN diet no dairy or eggs. Energy intake was
adjusted to the target levels by varying the proportion of staple
foods in the diet, but preserving their region-specific
composition.
Results
Less than half of all regions meet, or are projected to meet,
dietary recommendations for the consumption of fruit,
vegetables, and red meat, and also exceed the optimal total
energy intake (SI Appendix, Fig. S1). As a consequence, large
changes in the food system would be necessary to achieve the
dietary patterns considered here (SI Appendix, Table S7). In the
HGD scenario, the changes include increasing global fruit and
vegetable consumption by 25% (99 g⋅ d−1) and by more in Sub-
Saharan Africa (190%, 323 g⋅ d−1), South Asia (101%, 248
g⋅ d−1), and Latin America (39%, 138 g⋅ d−1) and decreasing
global red meat consumption by 56% (42 g⋅ d−1), and by more
in Western high-income and middle-income countries (78%, 113
g⋅ d−1 and 69%, 72 g⋅ d−1, respectively), East Asia (74%, 93
g⋅ d−1), and Latin America (72%, 83 g⋅ d−1). The nonmeat
diets require greater increases in the consumption of fruits and
vegetables (VGT, 39%, 152 g⋅ d−1; VEG, 54%, 212 g⋅ d−1),
and of pulses (324%, 61 g⋅ d−1, each). Compared with the
reference scenario, the alternative diets require 15% less total
energy intake.
Health Impacts.
Moving to diets with fewer animal-sourced foods would have
major health benefits (Fig. 1A). Compared with the reference
scenario, we project that adoption of global dietary guidelines
(HGD) would result in 5.1 million avoided deaths per year [95%
confidence interval (CI), 4.8–5.5 million] and 79 million years

of life saved (CI, 75–83 million) (Fig. 1A and SI Appendix, Fig.
S2). The equivalent figures for the vegetarian (VGT) diet are
7.3 million avoided deaths (CI, 7.0–7.6 million) and 114 million
life years saved (CI, 111–118 million) and for the vegan (VGN)
diet 8.1 million avoided deaths (CI, 7.8–8.5 million) and 129
million life years saved (CI, 125–133 million). Differentiated
by risk factor, more than half of avoided deaths (51–57% across
the three scenarios) were due to decreased red meat
consumption, 24–35% to increased fruit and vegetable
consumption, and 19–30% to a lower prevalence of being
overweight and obese associated with limiting excessive energy
intake. The reduced mortality in the VGT and VGN scenarios
compared with the HGD scenario was due to lower red meat
consumption (1.7 million additional avoided deaths in each) and
higher fruit and vegetable consumption (VGT, 0.8 million;
VGN, 1.8 million additional avoided deaths). Across the three
nonreference scenarios, about 45–47% of all avoided deaths
were from reduced coronary heart disease (CHD), 26% from
stroke, 16–18% from cancer, and 10–12% from type 2 diabetes
mellitus (T2DM) (SI Appendix, Fig. S3). Adopting the
nonreference diets reduced the combined number of deaths per
year from CHD, stroke, cancer, and T2DM in 2050 by 12%
(HGD), 17% (VGT), and 19% (VEG) and the overall number of
deaths from all causes by 6% (HGD), 9% (VGT), and 10%
(VEG) (SI Appendix, Table S8).
· Download figure
· Open in new tab
· Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.
Health and environmental analysis of dietary change for the
year 2050. The diet scenarios include a reference scenario based
on FAO projections (REF), a scenario based on global
guidelines on healthy eating and energy intake (HGD), and
scenarios based on vegetarian (VGT) and vegan (VGN) dietary
patterns. (A) Number of avoided deaths in the dietary scenarios

relative to the reference scenario in 2050 by risk factor and
region. Risk factors include changes in the consumption of
fruits and vegetables [ΔC(fruit&veg)] and red meat [ΔC(red
meat)], combined changes in overweight and obesity (Δweight),
and all risk factors combined (Total). The regional aggregation
is detailed in SI Appendix, Table S3 and section SI.1). (B)
Changes in food-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the
dietary scenarios relative to the reference scenario in 2050 by
food group and region.
Our analysis allows a regional breakdown of the health benefits
of dietary change. The greatest number of avoided deaths
(∼72% across the three nonreference scenarios) occurred in
developing countries, in particular in East Asia (31–35%) and
South Asia (15–19%) (Fig. 1A). Reducing red meat
consumption was the risk factor that had the most positive
effect on health in East Asia (78–82%), Western high- and
middle-income countries (64–71%; 58–65%), and Latin America
(42–48%). Increasing fruit and vegetable consumption was
responsible for the majority of avoided deaths in the least
developed regions (South Asia, 75–83%; Sub-Saharan Africa,
72–84%). Reduced energy intake and the consequent fewer
people overweight and obese were particularly important in the
Eastern Mediterranean (41–79%), Latin America (32–48%), and
Western high- and middle-income countries (29–40%; 20–33%).
The model results can also be expressed as avoided deaths per
capita, a measure of personal risk (SI Appendix, Figs S5–S7).
By this measure the greatest benefits of dietary change occurred
in developed countries due to the relatively larger per capita
reductions in red meat consumption and total energy intake that
are necessary to meet dietary guidelines (HGD) or a vegetarian
diet (VGT, VGN) (SI Appendix, Table S7).
Emissions Impacts.
In line with other studies (7, 12, 13), we find that dietary
changes toward less animal-sourced foods can help mitigate an
expected growth in food-related GHG emissions. Under our
reference scenario, we project GHG emissions associated with

food consumption to increase by 51%, from 7.6 ± 0.1 giga
tonnes (Gt)⋅ y−1 (measured in CO2 equivalents) in 2005/2007
to 11.4 ± 0.2 Gt⋅ y−1 in 2050 (SI Appendix, Fig. S8). Food-
related GHG emissions in the HGD scenario were 8.1 ± 0.1
Gt⋅ y−1, which is 29% less than REF emissions in 2050 and 7%
greater than emissions in 2005/2007. The two vegetarian diets
resulted in food-related GHG emissions at midcentury (VGT,
4.2 ± 0.1 Gt⋅ y−1; VEG, 3.4 ± 0.1 Gt⋅ y−1) that were 45–55%
lower than the 2005/2007 levels and 63–70% lower than REF
emissions. Emissions reductions in the HGD scenario were
largely attributable to reduced red meat consumption (3.2 ± 0.1
GtCO2, 97%) whereas reductions in red meat (6.1 ± 0.1 GtCO2,
85%) and poultry (1.08 ± 0.01 GtCO2, 15%) were responsible
for lower VGT emissions, and lower consumption of red meat
(76%), poultry (13%), and eggs and dairy (1.2 ± 0.03 GtCO2,
15%) for lower VGN emissions (Fig. 1B). In relation to an
emissions pathway that is believed to be likely to limit global
temperature increase to below 2 °C (32), we project that the
ratio of food-related GHG emissions to GHG emissions from all
sources increases from 16% in 2005/2007 to 52%, 37%, 19%,
and 15% in 2050 in the REF, HGD, VGT, and VGN scenarios,
respectively (SI Appendix, Fig. S6 and section SI.3).
We can identify where changes to region-specific diets
contribute the most to reduced GHG emissions. About three-
quarters of the total reductions (72–76% across the
nonreference scenarios) occurred in developing countries, in
particular in East Asia (HGD, 55%; VGT, 41%; VEG, 38%) and
Latin America (13–15%) (Fig. 1B). In contrast, food-related
GHG emissions per capita fell twice as much in developed
compared with developing countries across all three
nonreference scenarios (SI Appendix, Fig. S10), driven mainly
by reductions in red meat consumption (SI Appendix, Table S7).
As a result, the difference in food-related per capita GHG
emissions between developed and developing countries
narrowed (SI Appendix, Fig. S9). The average per capita GHG
emissions from someone in a developing country was 53% that

of a person from a developed country in the REF scenario but
only 26% and 20% in the HGD and VGT scenarios,
respectively. In the VGN scenario, food-related GHG emissions
per capita were 4% lower in developed countries than in
developing ones, which was due to higher fruit and vegetable
consumption in some developing countries (exceeding adjusted
values in the baseline) (SI Appendix, Table S8). On a country
level, 77 out of the 105 regions in the environmental analysis
reduced their food-related GHG emissions per capita in the
HGD scenario whereas an increase occurred in 28 (SI Appendix,
Fig. S11). These increases in emissions were relatively minor
(together they made up about 2% of the total changes in food-
related GHG emissions) and were primarily due to increasing
energy intake in regions with extensive current
undernourishment, in particular in Africa. In the VGT and VGN
scenarios, the number of regions where per capita food-related
GHG emissions increased was reduced from 28 to 1 (the
Democratic Republic of the Congo).
Economic Valuation.
We used two complementary approaches to assess the economic
value of the health benefits associated with dietary change.
First, using “cost-of-illness” techniques (23, 25), we calculated
the direct health-care costs and the indirect costs of informal
care and lost work days that are associated with deaths from
specific diseases. Second, we used region-specific data on the
willingness of individuals to pay for incremental mortality
reductions, the “value of statistical life” (VSL) (21, 22), to
obtain an estimate of the cost of the lives (and life-years) saved
under each dietary scenario. The two approaches span the range
of potential valuation methods (33, 34); the VSL approach is
commonly used in cost-benefit analysis (22) to indicate societal
preferences whereas the cost-of-illness approach, in particular
its direct cost component, highlights the economic impact on
the health-care sector and on patients (23, 25).
Using the cost-of-illness approach, we estimate that the health-
related cost savings of moving to the diets based on dietary

guidelines (HGD) from that assumed in the REF scenario will
be 735 billion US dollars per year ($735 billion⋅ y−1) in 2050
with values in the range [based on uncertainties in the cost
transfer method (Methods)] $482–987 billion⋅ y−1 (Fig. 2).
Greater savings occur with the adoption of vegetarian diets
(VGT, $973 billion⋅ y−1, range $644–1,303 billion⋅ y−1) and
vegan diets ($1,067 billion⋅ y−1, range $708–1,426
billion⋅ y−1). As a percentage of expected world gross domestic
product (GDP) in 2050, these savings amount to 2.3% (1.5–
3.1%) for HGD diets, 3.0% (2.0–4.0%) for VGT diets, and 3.3%
(2.2–4.4%) for VGN diets. About two thirds of the savings (64–
66% across the nonreference scenarios) were due to reductions
in direct health care-related costs, a third (31–33%) to less need
for unpaid informal care (although this figure is an
underestimate because we were not able to obtain estimates of
the indirect costs of diabetes), and a small fraction (3–4%) to
reduced productivity from lost labor time (SI Appendix, Fig.
S12). Although more than twice as many deaths were avoided in
developing countries than in developed ones, more than half of
all cost savings (54–56%) occurred in developed countries due
to their higher health expenditure and income (SI Appendix,
Fig. S12 and Fig. 1A).
· Download figure
· Open in new tab
· Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.
Economic valuation of the health and environmental benefits of
dietary change compared with a reference scenario for the year
2050. The three nonreference scenarios are as follows: one
based on global guidelines on healthy eating and energy intake
(HGD) and two based on vegetarian and vegan dietary patterns
(VGT and VGN). (Left) The value of environmental benefits
derived from estimates of the social cost of carbon (SCC) and
the value of healthcare benefits based on estimates of the costs
of illness (CoI), including direct healthcare costs and total

costs, which also include indirect costs associated with unpaid
informal care and productivity losses from lost labor time.
(Right) The value of health benefits associated with the
willingness to pay for mortality reductions based on the value
of statistical life and life-year (VSL and VSLY). The
uncertainty intervals for the environmental valuation stem from
different SCC values in 2050 [71 US dollars per ton of CO2 (71
USD/tCO2); 27–221 USD/tCO2], and the uncertainty intervals
for the health valuation stem from high and low values of the
costs of illness (±30%) and the VSL (±50%).
The value-of-statistical-life approach led to much higher
estimates of the economic benefits associated with dietary
change (Fig. 2). For the HGD scenario, we estimate that the
monetized value associated with diet-related changes in
mortality amount to 21 trillion (or 1012) US dollars per year
($21 trillion⋅ y−1) in 2050 with a range (again reflecting
uncertainties in the methodology) of $10–31 trillion⋅ y−1. The
values we obtain for the VGT diet are $28 trillion⋅ y−1 ($14–42
trillion⋅ y−1), and for the VGN diet $30 trillion⋅ y–1 ($15–46
trillion⋅ y−1). In terms of percentage of expected global GDP in
2050, these values amount to 9% (4–14%) for HGD diets, 12%
(6–18%) for VGT diets, and 13% (6–20%) for VGN diets (Fig.
2). A criticism of the VSL approach, which treats each avoided
death as equally valuable, is that most of the avoided deaths
occur late in life (SI Appendix, Fig. S4). Recalculating the
estimates by monetizing the years of life saved reduces them by
approximately one half (Fig. 2). The regional distribution of the
monetized economic benefits broadly corresponds to the
distribution of changes in mortality despite regional variation in
the value of statistical life (SI Appendix, Fig. S13).
To explore the economic benefits of reduced GHG emissions,
we used estimates of the social cost of carbon (20) for the year
2050 and calculated the value of avoided harm due to less CO2
in the atmosphere (Fig. 2). We found that adoption of diets
meeting dietary guidelines (HGD) would have monetized
environmental benefits of $234 billion⋅ y−1, with values in the

range $89–729 billion⋅ y−1 for different assumptions about
discount rates (Methods). The benefits were greater for diets
with fewer animal-sourced foods: for VGT, $511 billion⋅ y−1
($194–1,589 billion⋅ y−1) and, for VGN, $570 billion⋅ y−1
($217–1,773 billion⋅ y−1). As a percentage of expected world
GDP in 2050, the benefits amounted to 0.10% (0.04–0.32%) for
HGD diets, 0.22% (0.08–0.69%) for VGT diets, and 0.25%
(0.09–0.77%) for VGN diets. The regional distribution of the
monetized environmental benefits largely reflects the changes in
GHG emissions (SI Appendix, Fig. S14 and Fig. 1B).
Discussion
Our analysis indicates that dietary changes toward fewer animal
and more plant-based foods are associated with significant
benefits due to reductions in diet-related mortality and GHG
emissions. Changes in the consumption of red meat, fruits, and
vegetables and in total energy intake could result in reductions
in total mortality of 6–10%, compared with a reference diet in
2050. This estimate is likely an underestimate of the total
impact that the dietary patterns studied here could have on diet-
related mortality because we were not able to model the health
consequences of changes in the consumption of all food groups.
For example, diets with fewer animal-sourced foods typically
include more nuts and whole grains (30, 31), which evidence
suggests have health benefits and are likely to increase the
number of avoided deaths (4). Similarly, it is known that salt
and sugar ingested in sugary drinks affect health (4), but
comparative international data on their effects is insufficient to
include in our models whereas the health impacts of other food
groups (for example dairy) is inconclusive (35). Wherever
possible, we have placed confidence estimates around our
results, but we are aware that other sources of uncertainty exist
that we have not been able to treat. Those uncertainties include
food demand and mortality projections, possible deviations from
the linear dose–response relationships linking risk factors and
mortality, and our inability to remove all possible confounding
effects when deriving relative risk parameters.

Our health estimates are in line with current epidemiological
evidence. Tilman and Clark (12) reported results from a
metaanalysis that indicated that adopting vegetarian,
pescatarian, and Mediterranean dietary patterns could reduce
overall mortality by 0–18%. Orlich et al. (36) reported results
from a prospective cohort study, focused on vegetarian dietary
patterns, that indicated reductions in mortality from all causes
in vegetarians and vegans compared with nonvegetarians of 9%
and 15%, respectively; and, in combining those results with two
preceding prospective cohort studies, Le and Sabaté (37)
reported reductions in mortality in vegetarians compared with
nonvegetarians living in the United States of 12–20%. However,
a prospective cohort study focused on vegetarians living in the
United Kingdom found no statistically significant reduction in
mortality compared with nonvegetarians (38), the reasons for
which are debated (37). In general, it should be noted that
inferring the health impacts of dietary patterns from
observational studies is complicated by the potential presence
of multiple confounding factors (even if some are controlled
for).
The strength of our health analysis is that we used dose–
response relationships of dietary and weight-related risk factors,
such as changes in red meat consumption and overweight, that
are epidemiologically more robust than the association of
mortality with complete diets. With this approach, we were able
to analyze differences in mortality caused by changes in
consumption of specific food groups in individual regions. We
found that about half of the global avoided deaths occurred
because of the consumption of less red meat and that the other
half was due to a combination of increased fruit and vegetable
consumption and reductions in total energy intake (and the
associated decreases in the fraction of people overweight and
obese). However, there were marked regional variations. For
example, the two areas with the greatest number of avoided
deaths were East Asia and South Asia, in the former primarily
driven by reduced red meat consumption and in the latter by

increased fruit and vegetable consumption. Regions also
differed in whether the net sum of avoided deaths was due to a
modest reduction in the risk of mortality of many people or a
larger reduction in the risks to a smaller population. The
greatest improvement in per capita risk reductions occurred in
Western high- and middle-income countries due to reduced red
meat consumption and lower energy intakes.
In our environmental analysis, we project reference emissions to
increase by 51% between 2005/20007 and 2050 (from 7.6
GtCO2-eq to 11.4 GtCO2-eq) and dietary changes to decrease
the reference emissions by 29–70% (3.3–8.0 GtCO2-eq). The
latter is likely to be a conservative estimate because we did not
account for the beneficial impacts of dietary change on land use
through avoided deforestation. Other studies have estimated that
the associated emissions reductions could amount to 2.1–2.8
GtCO2-eq per year between 2010 and 2050 (7, 12). We also did
not take into account emissions feedbacks from increased life
expectancy in the dietary-change scenarios. However, such
effects are likely to be small for the health impacts estimated
here (SI Appendix, section SI.9).
In aggregate, our results are consistent with previous studies of
the environmental consequences of dietary change. Hedenus et
al. (13) projected that dietary changes (ranging from the partial
replacements of ruminant meats with other meats, and of animal
products with pulses and cereals) could reduce food-related
GHG emissions in 2050 by 3.4–5.2 GtCO2-eq and that technical
mitigation in the agricultural sector and increased productivity
could lead to additional reductions of 1.7–2 GtCO2-eq each.
Tilman and Clark (12) projected that adopting Mediterranean,
pescatarian, and vegetarian diets would reduce food-related
GHG emissions in 2050 by 4.2–8.4 GtCO2-eq, and Bajželj et al.
(7) projected reductions of 5.8–6.4 GtCO2-eq in 2050 if dietary
recommendations were globally adopted. In contrast to our
study, Bajželj et al. (7) included land-use emissions, and their
dietary scenario is largely based on national health guidelines,
which are more stringent than the global ones we used in our

HGD scenario. Although we adopted the same baseline GHG
emissions factors as Tilman and Clark (12), our reference
estimates are slightly lower than theirs (SI Appendix, section
SI.10) because we accounted for output-based productivity
improvements in agriculture (which lower emissions
intensities), and we did not account for the GHG emissions
associated with the consumption of fish and seafood. Another
difference is that we used food demand projections produced by
FAO whereas Tilman and Clark generated their own income-
dependent ones.
The strength of our environmental analysis is that we were able
to explore regional details. For example, we found that some
increases in food consumption-related GHG emissions would be
necessary to achieve global dietary recommendations in Sub-
Saharan Africa but that, overall, adopting global dietary
recommendations would reduce the food-related per capita
emissions gap between developing and developed countries (and
close the gap completely if purely plant-based diets were
adopted). Our analysis also indicated that adopting global
dietary guidelines would not be enough to reduce food-related
GHG emissions to the same extent that total GHG emissions
will need to fall to achieve a climate stabilization pathway that
would have a high probability of limiting global temperature
increases to below 2 °C (32). For managing food demand
(including efficiency improvements in line with current trends)
to make its prorated contribution, reductions in animal-based
foods of the degree found only in the VGN scenario would be
required. Given that such reductions would be hard to achieve,
our analysis suggests that, to achieve climate stabilization, a
balance will need to be struck between the degree of adoption of
plant-based diets, advances in mitigation technologies of the
food sector, and disproportionate reductions in non–food-related
GHG emissions.
In our economic analysis, we found that the economic value of
the health benefits associated with more plant-based diets is
comparable with, or exceeds, the value of the environmental

benefits (depending on the valuation method used). However,
although these valuation techniques are routinely used in cost-
benefit analyses (20, 22), they are not strictly comparable. The
value of environmental benefits represents the value of avoided
damages, the health benefits based on cost-of-illness estimates
capture the direct and some of the indirect healthcare costs
avoided, and the health benefits based on value-of-statistical-
life estimates can be interpreted as the aggregate value that
individuals in society would be willing to pay for the reductions
in mortality associated with the different dietary patterns. In
assessing the worth of public programs aimed to achieve
healthier and more environmentally sustainable diets, the use of
measures based on avoided costs provides a narrow estimate of
cost-effectiveness whereas the use of the value-of-statistical-
life approach can be seen as providing a broader estimate of net
societal benefits.
We are not aware of other studies that contrasted the value of
environmental and health benefits (SI Appendix, section SI.11),
and we repeat the caveat that the valuation techniques we used
are subject to significant uncertainties. The most important
source of uncertainty for the environmental valuation is the
discount rate used to calculate the net present value of the
future harm caused by climate change. For example, changing
the discount rate from five to a measure that assumes higher
than expected impacts of temperatures in the upper tails of the
modeled distribution (Methods) increases the value of the
environmental benefits of the HGD diet scenario from $89
billion to $729 billion. The main source of uncertainty in the
health valuation involves the benefit transfer technique
(Methods) used to obtain region-specific costs-of-illness (CoI)
and value-of-statistical-life (VSL) estimates. Ideally, we would
have used values that were specifically estimated for the regions
used. However, such data do not exist for all of the regions
included in this study, so instead we used a comprehensive and
quality-screened database of VSL estimates (21, 22) and a
regional set of comparable CoI estimates (23⇓ –25). The

valuation based on CoI estimates might be further improved by
the inclusion of comorbidities that can affect the costs
attributable to specific disease, and by breaking down aggregate
cancer costs into site-specific costs. Sufficient data already
exist in some regions to explore the latter, but not enough for a
global analysis (34). Finally, we note that we did not assess the
market responses associated with dietary changes: e.g., due
price changes, which remain an important area for future
research.
There is a general consensus that dietary change across the
globe can have multiple health, environmental, and economic
benefits (12). Our analysis confirms this view and takes a step
forward in providing better estimates of the magnitude of the
possible benefits and how they are distributed across different
regions. It introduces a framework to analyze multiple costs and
benefits across different sectors simultaneously. The size of the
projected benefits, even taking into account all of the caveats
about the unavoidable sources of uncertainty in our work,
should encourage researchers and policy makers to act to
improve consumption patterns. But we also show the magnitude
of the task. To achieve the HGD diet that embodies a (minimal)
global consensus on the consumption of a few major food
groups would require a 25% increase in the number of fruits and
vegetables eaten globally and a 56% reduction in red meat
whereas, overall, the human species would need to consume
15% fewer calories. We hope our work will help identify the
targeted, region-specific interventions (8, 39) that will be
needed on both the production and consumption sides of the
food system to achieve these benefits.
Methods
In the health analysis, we estimated the mortality and disease
burden attributable to dietary and weight-related risk factors by
calculating “population attributable fractions” (PAFs). PAFs
describe the proportions of disease cases that would be avoided
were the risk exposure changed from a baseline to a

counterfactual (4, 17). We assumed that changes in relative
risks follow a dose–response relationship (4) and that PAFs
combine multiplicatively (4, 40). Changes in mortality were
calculated by multiplying region- and disease-specific PAFs by
region, disease, and age-specific death rates and population
numbers (SI Appendix, section SI.2). In addition to changes in
mortality, we also calculated the years of life lost (YLL) due to
a change in dietary and weight-related risk factors. We did this
calculation by multiplying each age-specific death by the life
expectancy at that age using the Global Burden of Disease
standard abridged life table (40).
We used publically available data sources to parameterize the
comparative risk analysis. Population and mortality projections
for the year 2050 were adapted from the United Nations
Population Division and the World Health Organization (WHO),
respectively. The diet and weight-related relative risk
parameters (SI Appendix, Table S4) were taken from pooled
analyses of prospective cohort studies (18, 19) and from
metaanalyses of prospective cohort and case-control studies (28,
41⇓ ⇓ ⇓ ⇓ –46). The cancer associations have been judged as
probable or convincing by the World Cancer Research Fund,
and, in each case, a dose–response relationship had been
identified and there was consistent evidence suggesting a
plausible mechanism (28). For the weight-related risk
assessment, we used the scenario estimates of total energy
intake to estimate changes in the prevalence of being
overweight and obese based on historical relationships between
weight categories and caloric availability using data from the
WHO and the FAO (SI Appendix, section SI.2).
In the environmental analysis, we calculated the environmental
impacts associated with the different dietary scenarios by using
commodity-specific GHG emissions factors. The emissions
factors are adopted from a recent metaanalysis of life cycle
analyses (LCAs) that estimated the “cradle to farm gate”
emissions of different food items (12), with adjustments to
account for likely productivity improvements that would reduce

GHG intensity over time (3) (SI Appendix, section SI.3). The
factors exclude emissions from land-use change and post–farm-
gate activities, such as processing, packaging, and
transportation to households. We did not include GHG
emissions related to the consumption of fish and seafood
because those food groups are not resolved in the projections of
food demand used in this study (26).
To estimate the economic consequences of the health impacts,
we used two complementary costing methods (33, 34): the
value-of-statistical-life (VSL) approach (22) and the cost-of-
illness (CoI) approach (47). We based our VSL valuation on a
comprehensive global metaanalysis of stated preference surveys
of mortality risk valuation undertaken for the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (21).
Following OECD recommendations, we adopted a VSL base
value for the European Union (EU) of 3.5 million US dollars
(1.75–5.25 million US dollars) and used the benefit-transfer
method to calculate VSLs in other regions (22), taking into
account differences in income expressed as GDP per capita
adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP) and projected to
2050 (SI Appendix, section SI.4). We also monetized the health
impact in terms of years of life lost (YLL) by using the value of
statistical life year (VSLY). We calculated the VSLY for each
region by expressing the VSL as the discounted net present
value of the VSLY throughout a lifetime, adopting a discount
rate of 3% and a maximum age of 86 adapted from the Global
Burden of Disease standard life table. We used nonlinear
programming (GAMS, NLP solver) to numerically solve for the
VSLYs per region (SI Appendix, section SI.4).
To implement the CoI approach, we used a cost transfer method
to estimate the costs of illness in different parts of the world.
This technique is similar to the benefit transfer method
described above, and it has been used in other global
assessments (34). We based our cost-of-illness estimates on a
comparative assessment of the economic burden of
cardiovascular diseases (23, 24) and cancer (25) across the EU.

We adopted the total cost estimate associated with CHD, stroke,
and cancer for the EU in 2009, which included direct costs
(healthcare expenditure, health service utilization, expenditure
on medication) and indirect costs (opportunity costs of informal
care, productivity costs due to mortality and morbidity),
calculated costs per death based on mortality statistics (24), and
estimated the costs per death by disease in the EU and other
regions in 2050 by scaling the base values by the ratio of health
expenditure per capita for direct costs and by the ratio of GDP
per capita (adjusted for purchasing power parity) for indirect
costs (SI Appendix, section SI.4). Productivity losses due to
morbidity and mortality, which are a part of the indirect costs,
were included only for deaths occurring among adults of
working age (<65 y old). For the CoI analysis related to
diabetes (SI Appendix, section SI.4), we adopted country-
specific cost estimates (48) and, to avoid double-counting of
cardio vascular disease-related complications, adjusted those
estimates for the incremental cost component specifically
attributable to diabetes (49, 50).
In the economic valuation of the environmental effects of
dietary change, we estimated the monetary value of changes in
GHG emissions. We used estimates of the social cost of carbon
(SCC), which represents the monetized damages associated with
an incremental increase in carbon emissions. The values
adopted are based on a comprehensive integrated-assessment
modeling exercise facilitated by technical experts from several
US agencies (20). For the year 2050, the SCC estimates are 27,
71, 98, and 221 US dollars⋅ ton−1 of CO2 for discount rates of
5%, 3%, and 2.5%, and the 95th percentile at a 3% discount
rate. The last value is designed to represent the possible higher
than expected economic impacts from climate change further
out in the tails of the SCC distribution (20).
Acknowledgments
We thank Aikaterini Kavallari (FAO) for data support and
valuable comments and Alastair Gray (HERC, University of
Oxford) for useful discussions.

Footnotes
· ↵ 1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email:
[email protected].
· Author contributions: M.S., H.C.J.G., M.R., and P.S. designed
research; M.S. performed research; M.S., H.C.J.G., M.R., and
P.S. analyzed data; and M.S. and H.C.J.G. wrote the paper.
· The authors declare no conflict of interest.
· This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
· Data deposition: The region-specific results of the health,
environmental, and economic valuation analyses have been
deposited in the Oxford University Research Archive (ORA),
ora.ox.ac.uk/ (doi: 10.5287/bodleian:XObxm2ebO).
· This article contains supporting information online at
www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1523119113/-
/DCSupplemental.
Freely available online through the PNAS open access option.
References
· ↵
· Vermeulen SJ,
· Campbell BM,
· Ingram JSI
(2012) Climate change and food systems. Annu Rev Environ
Resour 37(1):195–222
.
CrossRefGoogle Scholar
· ↵
· Steinfeld H, et al.
(2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow (FAO, Rome)
.
Google Scholar
· ↵
· Tubiello FN, et al.
(2014) Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Emissions by
Sources and Removals by Sinks: 1990–2011 Analysis (FAO
Statistics Division, Rome)
.

Google Scholar
· ↵
· Lim SS, et al.
(2012) A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and
injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in
21 regions, 1990-2010: A systematic analysis for the Global
Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380(9859):2224–2260
.
CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
· ↵
· Popkin BM
(2006) Global nutrition dynamics: The world is shifting rapidly
toward a diet linked with noncommunicable diseases. Am J Clin
Nutr 84(2):289–298
.
Abstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
· ↵
· Lozano R, et al.
(2012) Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death
for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: A systematic analysis for
the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet
380(9859):2095–2128
.
· ↵
· Bajželj B, et al.
(2014) Importance of food-demand management for climate
mitigation. Nat Clim Chang 4(10):924–929
.
· ↵
· Godfray HCJ, et al.
(2010) Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people.
Science 327(5967):812–818
.

· ↵
· Hallström E,
· Carlsson-Kanyama A,
· Börjesson P
(2015) Environmental impact of dietary change: A systematic
review. J Clean Prod 91:1–11
.
· ↵
· Ripple WJ, et al.
(2014) Ruminants, climate change and climate policy. Nat Clim
Chang 4(1):2–5
.
Google Scholar
· ↵
· Stehfest E, et al.
(2009) Climate benefits of changing diet. Clim Change
95(1):83–102
.
· ↵
· Tilman D,
· Clark M
(2014) Global diets link environmental sustainability and human
health. Nature 515(7528):518–522
.
· ↵
· Hedenus F,
· Wirsenius S,
· Johansson DJA
(2014) The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption
for meeting stringent climate change targets. Clim Change
124(1-2):79–91
.

· ↵
· Popp A,
· Lotze-Campen H,
· Bodirsky B
(2010) Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2
greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Glob Environ
Change 20(3):451–462
.
· ↵
· Ray DK,
· Mueller ND,
· West PC,
· Foley JA
(2013) Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop
production by 2050. PLoS One 8(6):e66428
.
· ↵
· WHO
(2003) Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases:
Report of the Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation (WHO,
Geneva)
.
Google Scholar
· ↵
· Murray CJ,
· Ezzati M,
· Lopez AD,
· Rodgers A,
· Vander Hoorn S
(2003) Comparative quantification of health risks conceptual
framework and methodological issues. Popul Health Metr 1(1):1
.
· ↵

· Berrington de Gonzalez A, et al.
(2010) Body-mass index and mortality among 1.46 million
white adults. N Engl J Med 363(23):2211–2219
.
· ↵
· Whitlock G, et al., Prospective Studies Collaboration
(2009) Body-mass index and cause-specific mortality in 900 000
adults: Collaborative analyses of 57 prospective studies. Lancet
373(9669):1083–1096
.
· ↵
· Interagency Working Group
(2013) Technical Update on the Social Cost of Carbon for
Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under Executive Order 12866
(Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC)
.
Google Scholar
· ↵
· Lindhjem H,
· Navrud S,
· Braathen NA,
· Biausque V
(2011) Valuing mortality risk reductions from environmental,
transport, and health policies: A global meta-analysis of stated
preference studies. Risk Anal 31(9):1381–1407
.
· ↵
· OECD
(2012) Mortality Risk Valuation in Environment, Health and
Transport Policies (OECD, Paris)
.
Google Scholar
· ↵

· Leal J,
· Luengo-Fernández R,
· Gray A,
· Petersen S,
· Rayner M
(2006) Economic burden of cardiovascular diseases in the
enlarged European Union. Eur Heart J 27(13):1610–1619
.
· ↵
· Nichols M,
· Townsend N,
· Scarborough P,
· Rayner M
(2012) European Cardiovascular Disease Statistics (European
Heart Network AISBL, Brussels)
.
Google Scholar
· ↵
· Luengo-Fernandez R,
· Leal J,
· Gray A,
· Sullivan R
(2013) Economic burden of cancer across the European Union:
A population-based cost analysis. Lancet Oncol 14(12):1165–
1174
.
· ↵
· Alexandratos N,
· Bruinsma J
(2012) World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012
Revision (FAO, Rome)
.
Google Scholar
· ↵

· Gustavsson J,
· Cederberg C,
· Sonesson U,
· Van Otterdijk R,
· Meybeck A
(2011) Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and
Prevention (FAO, Rome)
.
Google Scholar
· ↵
· WCRF/AICR
(2007) Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of
Cancer: A Global Perspective (AICR, Washington, DC)
.
Google Scholar
· ↵
· WHO
(2004) Human Energy Requirements: Report of a Joint
FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation, Rome, Italy, 17–24
October 2001 (WHO, Geneva)
.
Google Scholar
· ↵
· Haddad EH,
· Tanzman JS
(2003) What do vegetarians in the United States eat? Am J Clin
Nutr 78(Suppl 3):626S–632S
.
· ↵
· Scarborough P, et al.
(2014) Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-
eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Clim Change
125(2):179–192
.

· ↵
· UNEP
(2014) The Emissions Gap Report 2014 (United Nations
Environment Programme, Nairobi)
.
Google Scholar
· ↵
· WHO
(2009) WHO Guide to Identifying the Economic Consequences
of Disease and Injury (WHO, Geneva)
.
Google Scholar
· ↵
· Bloom DE, et al.
(2011) The Global Economic Burden of Noncommunicable
Diseases (World Economic Forum, Geneva)
.
Google Scholar
· ↵
· Willett WC,
· Stampfer MJ
(2013) Current evidence on healthy eating. Annu Rev Public
Health 34(1):77–95
.
· ↵
· Orlich MJ, et al.
(2013) Vegetarian dietary patterns and mortality in Adventist
Health Study 2. JAMA Intern Med 173(13):1230–1238
.
· ↵
· Le LT,
· Sabaté J
(2014) Beyond meatless, the health effects of vegan diets:
Findings from the Adventist cohorts. Nutrients 6(6):2131–2147

.
· ↵
· Key TJ, et al.
(2009) Mortality in British vegetarians: Results from the
European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition
(EPIC-Oxford). Am J Clin Nutr 89(5):1613S–1619S
.
· ↵
· Garnett T,
· Mathewson S,
· Angelidis P,
· Borthwick F
(2015) Policies and Actions to Shift Eating Patterns: What
Works? A Review of the Evidence of the Effectiveness of
Interventions Aimed at Shifting Diets in More Sustainable and
Healthy Directions (Food Climate Research Network, Oxford)
.
Google Scholar
· ↵
· Murray CJL, et al.
(2012) GBD 2010: Design, definitions, and metrics. Lancet
380(9859):2063–2066
.
· ↵
· Micha R,
· Wallace SK,
· Mozaffarian D
(2010) Red and processed meat consumption and risk of
incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 121(21):2271–
2283
.

· ↵
· Chen G-C,
· Lv D-B,
· Pang Z,
· Liu Q-F
(2013) Red and processed meat consumption and risk of stroke:
A meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Eur J Clin Nutr
67(1):91–95
.
· ↵
· Dauchet L,
· Amouyel P,
· Dallongeville J
(2005) Fruit and vegetable consumption and risk of stroke: A
meta-analysis of cohort studies. Neurology 65(8):1193–1197
.
· ↵
· Dauchet L,
· Amouyel P,
· Hercberg S,
· Dallongeville J
(2006) Fruit and vegetable consumption and risk of coronary
heart disease: A meta-analysis of cohort studies. J Nutr
136(10):2588–2593
.
· ↵
· Li M,
· Fan Y,
· Zhang X,
· Hou W,
· Tang Z
(2014) Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of type 2 diabetes
mellitus: Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. BMJ

Open 4(11):e005497
.
· ↵
· Feskens EJM,
· Sluik D,
· van Woudenbergh GJ
(2013) Meat consumption, diabetes, and its complications. Curr
Diab Rep 13(2):298–306
.
· ↵
· Akobundu E,
· Ju J,
· Blatt L,
· Mullins CD
(2006) Cost-of-illness studies: A review of current methods.
Pharmacoeconomics 24(9):869–890
.
· ↵
· Zhang P, et al.
(2010) Global healthcare expenditure on diabetes for 2010 and
2030. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 87(3):293–301
.
· ↵
· American Diabetes Association
(2013) Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2012. Diabetes
Care 36(4):1033–1046
.
· ↵
· Köster I,
· Huppertz E,
· Hauner H,

· Schubert I
(2011) Direct costs of diabetes mellitus in Germany: CoDiM
2000-2007. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 119(6):377–385
.
View Abstract
We recommend
1. Increased transsulfuration mediates longevity and dietary
restriction in Drosophila.
Hadise Kabil et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2. Evaluating the environmental impacts of dietary
recommendations
Paul Behrens et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
3. Antibiotic discovery is a walk in the park
Louis-Félix Nothias et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
4. Influence of diet on survival of mice.
G Fernandes et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
5. Transient climate and ambient health impacts due to national
solid fuel cookstove emissions
Forrest G. Lacey et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
1. Exploring global changes in nitrogen and phosphorus cycles
in agriculture induced by livestock production over the 1900-
2050 period.
Lex Bouwman et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2. Hidradenitis suppurativa (German version)
DermNet NZ
3. Policy Shocks in a Monetary Asset-Pricing Model with
Endogenous Production / Politikeffekte in einem monetären
Asset-Pricing-Modell mit Produktion
Ulrich K. Schittko et al., Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und
Statistik
4. Trend und Zyklus im Bruttoinlandsprodukt der
Bundesrepublik Deutschland / Trends and Cycles in the Gross
Domestic Product of the Federal Republic of Germany
Walter Assenmacher, Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und
Statistik

5. III. Projection auf die Polarform und perspectivische
Projection
Zeitschrift für Kristallographie - Crystalline Materials
Powered by TrendMD
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Request Permissions
Share
·
·
· Mendeley
More Articles of This Classification
Biological Sciences
· BARD1 and transcriptional repression by BRCA1
· Contrasting responses of biodiversity loss
· Xenopus tadpole skin mucus barrier
Show more
Medical Sciences
· PPARγ phosphorylation: A target for cancer therapy
· Bioengineered multilaminate intervertebral disc
· The role of obesity in US mortality trends
Show more
Social Sciences
· Impact of a group malleability intervention
· The social genome
· Basal forebrain regulates default mode network
Show more
Sustainability Science
· Climate vulnerability and resilience in fisheries
· Oil palm certification, forests, and fire
· Biodiverse diets
Show more
Related Content

Cited by...
Similar Articles
You May Also be Interested in
Molecular contraception
January 22, 2018 | Running Time: 5:53
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Opinion: Measuring how countries adapt to societal aging
The elderly in the US are engaged and active but experiencing
high levels of insecurity. Policy measures can help improve
America’s and other countries’ age-readiness.
Image courtesy of Shutterstock/Barabasa.
PNAS Profile
Profile of NAS member and molecular biologist David Sabatini.
Amygdala and memory
In a memory retrieval task in which 14 participants, 20-54 years
of age, viewed a series of non-emotional images, half of which
were followed immediately by electrical stimulation of the
participants’ amygdala, a brain region involved in prioritizing
memories, researchers found that the participants exhibited
improved memory in next-day memory recognition tests for the
images that were followed by amygdala stimulation, compared
with control images, findings with implications for the
development of memory enhancement therapies.

How genes and experience influence birdsong
Researchers report how the interplay of genes and experience
influences differences in learned birdsong.
Current Issue
Submit
Sign up for Article Alerts
Top of Form
Sign up
Bottom of Form
Jump to section
· Article
· Abstract
· Results
· Discussion
· Methods
· Acknowledgments
· Footnotes
· References
· Figures & SI
· Authors & Info
· PDF
· Submit Manuscript
· Twitter
· Facebook
· RSS Feeds
· Email Alerts
Articles
· Current Issue
· Latest Articles

· Archive
PNAS Portals
· Classics
· Front Matter
· Teaching Resources
· Anthropology
· Chemistry
· Physics
· Sustainability Science
Information for
· Authors
· Reviewers
· Press
· Subscribers
FeedbackPrivacy/Legal
Copyright © 2018 National Academy of Sciences.
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By
clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for
us to set cookies.
Continue Find out more
ARTICLE
This paper focusses on meat as a distinct
product category. It does not consider
seafood or dairy.
Background
Worldwide meat consumption has
doubled in the last 50 years and
experts predict that by 2050 twice

as much meat will be produced
for consumption as is today, for a
projected total of 465 million tons 1.
For more than a decade the largest
increases in production have taken
place in developing countries: more
than half the world’s total meat
production took place there over this
time1. Despite this, more than one in
seven people globally do not receive
sufficient protein and energy from
their diet, and one in every three
people worldwide (encompassing all
age groups and populations) suffers
from malnutrition 2, 3. An Increase
in global population and the relative
declining per capita availability of
energy resources, land and water have
contributed to this. Technological
advances in agriculture have secured
increased production and output but
have meant devastating environmental
impacts, including climate change. The
complexities of competing agendas of
food production and environmental
sustainability will have to be carefully
managed: “Balancing competing
demands from the need to sustainably
intensify food production to meet
growing demands for food while also
responding to consumer demands for
more meat and more dairy products
will be a significant challenge for food
systems in the coming decades” 4.

Current Consumption
On average each person in the world
consumes approximately 40kg of meat
per year. This is expected to increase to
45.3kg by 2030 5. Predictions for meat
consumption differ between developing
and developed countries: 36.7kg and
100.1kg of meat per person respectively.
In 2011, Australians consumed around
111kg of meat per person: 33kg of beef,
9kg of lamb, 43kg of chicken and 25kg
of pork. Currently Australian consumers
allocate about 40% of their total food
expenditure to meat 6.
In developing countries, access to meat
of any variety means increased food
security and decreased malnutrition. In
poorer countries the less affluent are
forced to buy whatever is affordable and
readily available, whether it be poor
Alexis Clarke
Alexis has graduate and post-graduate qualifications in
Journalism and Graphic Design. She recently completed a
Graduate Certificate in Sustainability at the University of
Sydney.
Vegetarianism
and sustainability
106 | vol21 no2 | JATMS

quality fruit and vegetables, processed
foods or factory-farmed meat and dairy.
“The perception of the role of meat,
particularly red meat, in the global
diet is dichotomous” 7. Should the first
priority be adequate food security and
nutrition standards for all, or should
environmental conservation come first?
This paper presents some of the key
arguments in this complex debate.
Food security and national
standards
How important is meat in human diets?
A dichotomy exists regarding attitudes
to meat consumption: meat is deemed
both a protein-rich and nutrient-
packed dietary necessity and an
artery-clogging, life-shortening food
that should be avoided at all costs. On
the one hand red meat contributes
key micronutrients (iron, vitamin A,
vitamin B, essential fatty acids and zinc)
and protein to the global food supply,
all of which are essential for human
health 7, 8. But, on the other, excessive
consumption of meat in developed
countries is often linked with non-
communicable diseases, obesity and
cancer8. And as Australians we are
disproportionately guilty of excessive
consumption. A report released by
the Australian Institute of Health
and Welfare showed that Australians

consume 116kg of meat per year,
compared to the world average of
40kg 9.
Recommendations to reduce
consumption of animal fat, and in
particular saturated fat, continue
to dominate dietary guidelines,
with emphasis on selecting lean
cuts of meat and trimming external
fat. Studies have shown that lean
meats such as chicken and beef can
contribute to a well-balanced, energy-
restricted diet to support weight loss
or maintenance7
Can we live without meat?
It is entirely possible for vegetarians to
meet all their nutritional needs without
having to consume meat. Vegetarian
diets, when properly planned, provide
the full range of protein, essential
fatty acids, vitamins, minerals and
fibre necessary for optimal nutritional
status10. However dietary planning
needs to take into account that
nutritional needs may increase during
stages of growth and development,
pregnancy and lactation, which may
mean that it becomes necessary to eat
meat at certain stages of life11.
NE
W

BioMedica Nutraceuticals | P 1300 884 702 or +61 2 9698 7683
| F +61 2 9698 9556
E [email protected] | www.biomedica.com.au
All natural, vegan vitamin D
in a convenient oral spray
Phyta D
VEGAN
Superior
Glass
Bottle
• Now in pharmaceutical grade glass packaging
• 1000IU of vegan vitamin D3
• All natural & preservative free
• Neutral taste for maximum patient compliance
• Each 50ml glass bottle contains 277 doses
• Free from lanolin, palm oil & palm by-products
JATMS | Winter 2015 | 107
Malnutrition in the developing
world
In developing countries it is estimated
that 16-28% of the population are
consuming insufficient energy-rich

foods, compared to less than 5% in
developed countries. On average, only
10% of this limited energy intake is
consumed as protein, with less than
25% derived from high-quality animal
protein7. The Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations (FAO)
predicts that by 2050 consumption of
red meat worldwide (bovine and ovine)
will increase by approximately 200%,
and that of pork by 158%. Predicted
growth in production and consumption
of livestock products suggests an
opportunity for increased food security
among a growing population7. The FAO
notes that livestock varieties, such as
cattle, that consume primarily roughage
and agro-industrial waste products,
add to the food supply beyond what
can be provided by crops12. Feeding
agri-waste to livestock raised for food
contributes more to the food supply
than would be contributed by people
eating crops and grains because the total
of the end product of cattle-raising is
more nutritious than the content of the
vegetable matter the cattle consumed.
The effects of malnutrition on child
survival in developing countries are
devastating. It has been noted that
protein malnutrition is a causal factor
in 49% of the approximately 10.4
million annual deaths of children under
five years of age12. UNICEF have also
estimated that one-third of children

under the age of five in the developing
world have stunted growth. Stunting is
caused by long-term insufficient nutrient
intake and frequent infections13. On
top of this, iron deficiency and anaemia
affect nearly 600 million pre-school
and school-aged children in developing
countries14. A recent study highlighted
how important meat is to the diets of
children in developing countries to
decrease stunting and increase the
sufficiency of key micronutrients15. Meat
is also important to the diets of pregnant
and lactating women: “Efforts to reduce
micronutrient deficiency through the
increased availability of animal proteins
are also important to support maternal
health” 7.
Environmental Conservation
Changes to global patterns of wealth and
prosperity are changing rates of food
production and consumption and in turn
increasing the environmental impacts
of agricultural and livestock production.
People in developing countries such as
Brazil, China and India are experiencing
greater wealth and therefore have
greater purchasing power. This
purchasing power is often linked to
adding more meat to their diets4. In
China this has caused a substantial
westernisation of diets, entailing a
rapid increase in the demand for meat.
More than half of the 107 million tons

of pork eaten worldwide in 2013 were
consumed in China16.
Even though the amount of grain
produced in the world today is enough
to feed the world’s human population
twice over, 70% of this grain is fed to
livestock17. In 2010 the global production
per capita of grain was 323kg. Only half
of the 2010 harvest was used directly
for food; the other half was used for
animal feed or for bio-fuels. The FAO has
predicted that the percentage of grain
used directly by humans will fall even
further, as developing countries emulate
the dietary habits of westerners17. It
has been argued, on both geopolitical
and ethical grounds, that it would be
better to re-deploy this production in an
attempt to meet the nutritional needs of
the world’s poor rather than feed it to
animals who will then be slaughtered to
cater to the culinary tastes of its middle
class.
Land use
Currently 80% of the world’s agricultural
land is used directly or indirectly for
animal production18. In the US over
half the total land mass is used for the
production of meat and dairy products.
In Australia about two thirds of land is
given over to farming production: about
90% of farm land is for grazing on native
pastures19. The irony is that the more

arable land we use, the more arable land
we need. Farming increases topsoil loss
and soil degradation, which steadily
decrease the productivity of farm land20.
Water
The harsh reality is that there will not
be enough water available to produce
enough food for the expected 9 billion
population in 2050 if we adhere to
current dietary trends across the
globe. In terms of water availability,
a study undertaken at the Stockholm
International Water Institute warned
that the world’s population may
have to convert almost completely
to a vegetarian diet over the next 40
years to avoid catastrophic shortages.
ARTICLE
“IN TERMS OF WATER AVAILABILITY, A STUDY
UNDERTAKEN AT
THE STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL WATER INSTITUTE
WARNED
THAT THE WORLD’S POPULATION MAY HAVE TO
CONVERT
ALMOST COMPLETELY TO A VEGETARIAN DIET OVER
THE NEXT
40 YEARS TO AVOID CATASTROPHIC SHORTAGES.
CURRENTLY

70% OF ALL AVAILABLE WATER GOES TO
AGRICULTURE.”
Currently 70% of all available water
goes to agriculture21.
According to the FAO food production
will need to increase by 70% by
2050. However this will have huge
ramifications for our already-stressed
water resources 22. Humans derive
about 20% of their protein from
animal-based products. The Stockholm
International Water Institute has
warned that this percentage will need
to drop to 5% by 2050 if we are to feed
the extra 2 billion people expected to
be living on the planet by then 21.
The FAO has suggested that adopting
a vegetarian diet is one option to
increase the amount of water available
to grow more food in an increasingly
climate-erratic world. Producing
animal protein-rich food consumes
five to ten times more water than
producing food for a vegetarian diet.
One third of the world’s arable land is
used to grow crops to feed animals21.
Other options to feed people include
eliminating waste and increasing trade

between countries in food surplus and
those in deficit22.
Greenhouse gas emissions
and global warming
A 2006 report by the FAO found that
our meat-heavy diets cause a greater
amount of greenhouse gases (CO2,
methane and nitrous oxide) in the
atmosphere than either transportation
or industry. Current meat production
levels contribute approximately 22%
of the 36 billion tonnes of greenhouse
gases the world produces every year23.
The huge impact of the livestock
sector on global warming is often
overlooked. A global transition towards
a low meat diet may reduce the effects
of climate change by as much as 50%
by 205024.
It is evident that livestock production
requires more land, water, fossil
fuels and other resources than the
production of edible crops. The United
Nations (UN) has also identified the
livestock industry as “one of the most
significant contributors to today’s
most serious environmental problems,
including global warming (livestock
are responsible for 18% of greenhouse
gas emissions, which is higher
than the share of greenhouse gas
emissions from transportation1, loss
of fresh water, rainforest destruction,

spreading deserts, air and water
pollution, acid rain, soil erosion and
loss of habitat”25.
2013 winners, left to right: John van Bockxmeer,
Craig Maloney, Alison Gibson and Jodie Mackell
representing MIA.
Know someone in primary health care who deserves an award?
Recognise a natural medicine practitioner or other primary
health care professional for their
outstanding contribution, by nominating them in one of three
categories:
Proudly presented by:*Generously
provided by:
Issued by H.E.S.T. Australia Ltd ABN 66 006 818 695 AFSL
No. 235249 Trustee of Health Employees Superannuation Trust
Australia (HESTA)
ABN 64 971 749 321. Terms and conditions apply. See
phcawards.com.au for details.
hestaawards.com.au
$30,000
in prizes to be won!*
Follow us:
@HESTAPHCawards
/HESTAPrimaryHealthCareAwards
Facebook “f ” Logo CMYK / .eps Facebook “f ” Logo CMYK /
.eps

NOMINATE NOW!
Young Leader Team Excellence Individual Distinction
1507.HPHCA2015 AD_NAT MED_210x148.indd 1 13/05/15
9:57 AM
Conclusion: Vegetarianism is
not enough
Although there are powerful arguments
against over-consumption of meat and
dairy products by wealthy populations
in the context of global food security,
blanket advocacy of universal
vegetarianism may be too simplistic a
prescription 26. To quantify the entire
impact of meat consumption on global
food security would require highly
sophisticated computer technology
that analyses how purchasing decisions
on a micro level effect macro systems,
including farming systems, global supply
chains, and food markets18.
One study conducted by the
International Food Policy Research
Institute found that if the western world
halved their meat consumption per
capita, the demand for meat would fall
and prices would decline. This would
make meat globally more affordable,
which would have the greatest impact
for those in developing countries who
would be able to increase their animal-

protein consumption. This would
have substantial nutritional benefits,
especially for children18.
However the study also suggested that
eating less meat could compromise food
security. For example, if consumers in
developed nations replaced meat with
wheat-based products global wheat
prices would rise. This in turn would
effect the prevalence of malnutrition
in developing countries which rely on
wheat18.
Although there are many benefits of
vegetarianism, the complexities of global
markets and human food traditions could
produce some counterintuitive results18.
A serious discussion about food security
and natural resource consumption
must emphasise redistributive social
justice and not only lifestyle choices.
It would be incredibly difficult to
persuade people to eat less meat, due to
overall popularity of meat and the great
variety of factors that influence food
practices24. In Western countries these
habits are strongly reliant on a chain
of industrialised activity that produces
“highly standardised meat products,
commonly sold in supermarkets and
de-animalised to avoid reminding
customers about the link between
the meat dish and the killing of the
animal”27.

What we learn from the application
of market economics to global human
welfare may be that there is no one
global solution, only partial solutions
that may provide food security or
environmental gains in particular
contexts. The hopeful prospect of
aggregated individual responsibility
solving diabolically complex global
problems has rarely been fulfilled in
human history when the prosperity of
powerful elites has been in the balance.
Perhaps when a meeting of the G20
group of wealthy nations places the
food security of developing nations
and environmental health higher on its
agenda than growth the situation may
begin to turn around.
References
1. WorldWatch Institute. Meat Production
Continues to Rise. Washington, DC:
Worldwatch Institute; 2014 [cited 2014
13/11/2014]; Available from: http://www.
worldwatch.org/node/5443.
2. Godfray HC, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad
L, Larence D, Muir J, et al. Food Security: The
Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science

2010;327(812).
3. Baroni L, Cenci L, Tettamanti M, Berati M.
Evaluating the environmental impact of various
dietary patterns combined with different food
production systems. European Journal of
Clinical Nutrition. 2007;61:279-86.
4. McDonald B. Food Security. Cambridge: Polity
Press; 2010.
5. World Health Organisation. Availability
and changes in consumption of animal
products. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organisation; 2014 [cited 2014 3/11/2014];
Available from: http://www.who.int/nutrition/
topics/3_foodconsumption/en/index4.html.
6. Wong L, Selvanathan EA, Selvanathan S.
Changing Pattern of Meat Consumption in
Australia. Nathan, Queensland: Griffith Business
School2013.

7. McNeil S, Van Elswyk ME. Red meat in global
nutrition. 2012 21/01/2012;92:166-73.
8. Mosley M. Should I Eat Meat? London: SBS; 2014.
p. 51 minutes.
9. Jean P. It’s official: We eat too much. The Sydney
Morning Herald 2012.
10. Nutrition Australia. Vegetarian Diets. Nutrition
Australia; 2011 [cited 2014 19/11/2014];
Available from: http://www.nutritionaustralia.
org/national/frequently-asked-questions/
vegetarian-diets.
11. Baines S. Meat vs veg: how does a vegetarian
diet stack up? University of Newcastle: The
Conversation; 2013 [cited 2014 19/11/2014];
Available from: https://www.theconversation.
com/meat-vs-veg-how-does-a-vegetarian-diet-
stack-up-14850.
12. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the

United Nations. World Livestock 2011: Livestock
in Food Security. Rome: FAO2011.
13. UNICEF. Progress For Children: A World Fit
For Children Statistical Review. 2006 [cited
ARTICLE
“WHAT WE LEARN FROM THE
APPLICATION OF MARKET
ECONOMICS TO GLOBAL
HUMAN WELFARE MAY BE
THAT THERE IS NO ONE
GLOBAL SOLUTION, ONLY
PARTIAL SOLUTIONS THAT MAY
PROVIDE FOOD SECURITY OR
ENVIRONMENTAL GAINS IN
PARTICULAR CONTEXTS.”
2014 13/11/2014]; Available from: http://www.

unicef.org/progressforchildren/2007n6/
index_41505.htm.
14. World Health Organisation. Worldwide
prevalence of anaemia 1993-2005: WHO
global database of anaemia Geneva,
Switzerland: World Health Organisation2008.
15. Krebs N, Mazariegos M, Tshefu A, Bose C,
Sami N, Chomba E. Meat consumption is
associated with less stunting among toddlers
in four diverse low-income settings. Food and
Nutrition Bulletin. 2011;32:185-91.
16. Deckers J. Vegetarianism, Sentimental
or Ethical? Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics. 2009;22(6):573-97.
17. Moriarty P. Vegetarians cause environmental
damage, but meat eaters aren’t off the hook.
Melbourne: The Conversation; 2012 [cited
2014 11/11/2014]; Available from: http://

theconversation.com/vegetarians-cause-
environmental-damage-but-meat-eaters-
arent-off-the-hook-6090.
18. Vogel G. Could Less Meat Mean More Food?
Science Magazine. 2010 12/02/2014;327:810-1.
19. Australian Government. Australian farming
and agriculture - grazing and cropping.
Canberra: Australian Government; 2014
[cited 2014 11/1//2014]; Available from: http://
australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-
story/austn-farming-and-agriculture.
20. Walters K. Vegetarianism. London:
Continuum International Publishing Group;
2012.
21. Vidal J. Food shortages could force world into
vegetarianism, warn scientists. The Guardian
2012 27/08/2012.
22. Stockholm International Water Institute.

Feeding a Thirsty World, Challenges and
Opportunities for a Water and Food Secure
Future. Stockholm: Stockholm International
Water Institute,2012.
23. Fiala N. How Meat Contributes to Global Warming.
Scientific American 2009;February 2009.
24. Schosler H, de Boer J, Boersema JJ. Can we
cut out the meat of a dish? Counstructing
consumer-oriented pathways towards meat
substitution. Appetite. 2011;58:39-47.
25. Scarborough P, Appleby PN, Mizdrak A, Briggs
ADM, Travis RC, Bradbury KE, et al. Dietary
greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters,
fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK.
Climatic Change. 2014;125:179-92.
26. Gopal P. Turning vegetarian will not solve the
food crisis. The Guardian. 2012 29/08/2012.
27. Boer Jd, Aiking H. On the merits of plant-based

proteins for global food security: Marrying
macro and micro perspectives. Institute for
Environmental Studies. 2011;70:1259-65.
C
O
N
G
E
ST
IO
N
U
P
P
E
R
R
E
S
P
IR
A
T

O
R
Y
T
R
A
C
T
IN
F
E
C
T
IO
N
S
R
U
N
N
Y
N
O

S
E
A
C
H
ES
&
PA
IN
S
C
O
U
G
H
TRY EAGLE’S
NEW
WINTER
GUARDIANS
TODAY!
New improved formulas
to support your patients
more effectively this cold
and flu season.

BETA A-C® POWDER
DEFENCE SUPPORT
NEW WINTER
GUARDIANS
www.eaglenaturalhealth.com.au
For practitioner dispensing only
Customer Service:
1300 654 336
Order Online:
www.myintegria.com
Eagle Winter Campaign ATMS HPC VPROD.indd 1
29/05/2015 11:31 am
Copyright of Journal of the Australian Traditional-Medicine
Society is the property of
Australian Traditional-Medicine Society and its content may not
be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 38/2 (October
2009) 109–124
Copyright 2009 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource

Economics Association
Some Economic Benefits and Costs of
Vegetarianism
Jayson L. Lusk and F. Bailey Norwood
It is now fashionable in many circles to advocate
vegetarianism, and many activist groups are
vocal in their aim to convert the human race to vegetarians.
What would be the economic costs
and benefits of a shift away from meat consumption? In this
article we provide some partial
answers to this question. In three separate analyses we show (i)
that it is much more costly to
produce energy and protein from animal-based sources than
from some plant-based sources,
(ii) that sizable demand shifts away from meat consumption
would result in significantly lower
corn prices and production, and (iii) that the average U.S.
consumer places a higher value on
having meat in his or her diet than having any other food group.
This information should help
move forward our understanding of the economics of
vegetarianism and provide an objective
stance from which to evaluate the claims being made by
advocates of vegetarianism.
Key Words: cost of nutrients, crop production, dietary costs,
livestock production, value of
meat, vegan, vegetarian

In her bestselling book Food in History, Reay
Tannahill begins, “For 12,000 years there has been
a steady undercurrent of antagonism between
vegetarians and meat-eaters” (Tannahill 1988, p.
1). In the Old Testament—a sacred text shared by
Judaism, Christianity, and to some extent Islam—
humans began in the Garden of Eden, where “to
every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the
air, and to everything that creepeth upon the
earth, wherein there is life, I have given every
green herb” (Genesis 1:30). The interpretation of
this text to some scholars is clear: “this should be
interpreted to mean: every green herb and nothing
else” (Soler 1996, p. 52).
Yet humans left the Garden of Eden, and along
with it, their herbivore diet. The natural history of
humans, including archaeological evidence, sug-
gests that Homo sapiens have always eaten both
plants and animals (Tannahill 1988). For the vast
majority of their existence, obtaining nutritional
needs was a daily challenge for humans, and
famine was a recurring threat. Given the scarcity
of nutritional resources, it would seem odd for
humans to restrict their diet for religious or cul-
tural reasons, but that is exactly what they did.
For example, as early as the sixth century B.C.,
Pythagoras and his followers led a vegetarian life
(Spencer 2000). Because of religious beliefs, many
cultures have restricted their consumption of ani-
mal products in different ways.
Reverence for the Old Testament caused some
Jews to view vegetarianism as closer to the ideal
life that God planned in the Garden of Eden. For
this reason, Jews prefer to eat meat only from
animals that are vegetarians, and thus ban the

eating of pigs, which are omnivores. During the
Middle Ages, meat was seen as a sign of earthly
strength and power. Nobles who behaved poorly
and were thus deemed unworthy of their power
were punished by prohibiting the eating of meat,
sometimes for life. The Catholic Church urged its
congregation to seek spirituality and shun the
pursuit of earthly power. To abstain from meat
was to announce a preference for the spiritual
world over the earthly world. Hence, the Catholic
Church banned the eating of meat on Wednes-
days, Saturdays, and all the days of Lent. De-
pending on how the ban was enforced, these days
of meat-fasting could comprise half the days of
the year (Montanari 1996, Tannahill 1988).
Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism,
and Jainism maintain a belief in reincarnation,
and a specific belief that humans can be rein-
carnated as livestock and vice versa. For these ad-
herents, eating an animal can mean eating an an-
_________________________________________
Jayson Lusk is Professor and Willard Sparks Endowed Chair,
and
Bailey Norwood is Associate Professor, both in the Department
of
Agricultural Economics at Oklahoma State University in
Stillwater,
Oklahoma.
110 October 2009 Agricultural and Resource Economics
Review

cestor, so it is not surprising that vegetarianism is
more popular in the regions where these religions
took hold. Ancient India became heavily reliant
on dairy products from female cows and the labor
from male cows, and urged against the killing of
cows because the animals were generally worth
more alive than dead. Combined with the idea of
reincarnation, the Hindu Sacred Cow emerged
(Tannahill 1988). Similar beliefs existed in an-
cient Egypt, and like some Catholic priests, many
of the Egyptian priests also abstained from meat
(Spencer 2000). Pockets of vegetarianism also ex-
isted in American and European cultures, such as
the experimental vegetarian commune that settled
on the Kansas frontier shortly before the Civil
War (Gambone 1972), but they were unusual.
Vegetarianism can denote a specific diet, or be
used as an umbrella term for a variety of diets that
restrict consumption of animal products. When
used to denote a specific diet, the term “vegetar-
ian” refers to the abstaining from all meat, fish, or
shellfish, but does include eggs and dairy prod-
ucts in the diet. A “pescatarian” shuns the eating
of all animal flesh except fish, and a “vegan” ex-
cludes any product derived from animals; dairy,
eggs, and even gelatin are not part of a vegan
diet. This paper largely concerns vegetarianism,
as it focuses on the consequences of changes in
meat consumption, but some of the empirical re-
sults also consider dairy and eggs, which are per-
tinent to vegan diets.
A number of recent cultural and technological
changes have made vegetarianism a timely topic
in the Western and Eastern worlds alike. Live-

Analyzing Nagel's Argument on God's Existence

Analyzing Nagel's Argument on God's Existence

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Analyzing Nagel's Argument on God's Existence

Similar to Analyzing Nagel's Argument on God's Existence (20)

More from SALU18

More from SALU18 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Analyzing Nagel's Argument on God's Existence