Sign up FAST! Login

A vegetarian world would be healthier, cooler and richer.


By eating less meat and more fruit and vegetables, the world could avoid several million deaths per year by 2050, cut planet-warming emissions substantially, and save billions of dollars annually in healthcare costs and climate damage, researchers said.

A new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, is the first to estimate both the health and climate change impacts of a global move toward a more plant-based diet, they said.

Unbalanced diets are responsible for the greatest health burden around the world, and our food system produces more than a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, said lead author Marco Springmann of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food.

“What we eat greatly influences our personal health and the global environment,” he said.

The Oxford University researchers modeled the effects of four different diets by mid-century: a 'business as usual' scenario; one that follows global guidelines including minimum amounts of fruits and vegetables and limits on red meat, sugar and total calories; a vegetarian diet; and a vegan diet.

Adopting a diet in line with the global guidelines could avoid 5.1 million deaths per year by 2050, while 8.1 million fewer people would die in a world of vegans who do not consume animal products, including eggs and milk.

When it comes to climate change, following dietary recommendations would cut food-related emissions by 29 percent, adopting vegetarian diets would cut them by 63 percent and vegan diets by 70 percent.

Dietary shifts could produce savings of $700 billion to $1,000 billion per year on healthcare, unpaid care and lost working days, while the economic benefit of reduced greenhouse gas emissions could be as much as $570 billion, the study said.


The researchers found that three-quarters of all benefits would occur in developing countries, although the per capita impacts of dietary change would be greatest in developed nations, due to higher rates of meat consumption and obesity.

The economic value of health improvements could be comparable with, and possibly larger than, the value of the avoided damage from climate change, they added.

"The value of those benefits makes a strong case for increased public and private spending on program aimed to achieve healthier and more environmentally sustainable diets,” Springmann said.

The study looked at regional differences which could be used to identify the most suitable interventions for food production and consumption, Springmann said.

For example, lower red meat consumption would have the biggest effect in East Asia, the West and Latin America, while boosting fruit and vegetable intake was found to be the largest factor in cutting deaths in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

Lower calorie intake, leading to fewer overweight people, would play a key role in improving health in the Eastern Mediterranean, Latin America and Western nations, the study said.

But it will not be easy. To achieve a diet that sticks to common guidelines would require a 25 percent increase in the number of fruits and vegetables eaten globally, and a 56 percent cut in red meat.

Overall humans would need to consume 15 percent fewer calories, it said.

“We do not expect everybody to become vegan,” Springmann added. “But climate change impacts of the food system will be hard to tackle and likely require more than just technological changes. Adopting healthier and more environmentally sustainable diets can be a large step in the right direction."

Stashed in: Science!, Awesome, Nutrition!, World Hunger, Vegetables!, Vegans!, Nutrition, Climate Change!

To save this post, select a stash from drop-down menu or type in a new one:

I was never quite sure why fruits and vegetables get lumped together. 

Probably because they're both plant based. 

Many fruits are just sugar and water.

Whereas vegetables seem to have a lot more nutrition packed into them. 

Sigh. The whole question of whether vegetarians live longer or are healthier is impossible to answer right now because it is based on horrible data. Basically you have this one small colony of exceptionally clean-living, upscale, mostly white Seventh Day Adventists in California... and then, like, most of India (technically only 40% of Indians are lacto-ovo or vegan, but only 30% of Indians eat meat regularly). Those are both extremely craptaculous data sets.

Meanwhile, if you plot vegetarianism against average country lifespan, you get really no correlation. Seems like wealth, relatively low inequality, and small insular countries with few immigrants score the highest.

All good points. We need more data. Till then we eat vegetables and meat!

You May Also Like: