The demand for meat as a source of food is a primary cause of biodiversity loss and the extinction of wildlife. This Piece looks at the evidence.
“Biodiversity Loss” is the decline in the variety of life on Earth, from genes and species to entire ecosystems
It is an increasing problem globally. The Living Planet Index (LPI) which measures the average decline in 34,000 monitored wildlife species across the world reports a 73% average decline in populations since 1970 [1]
In the UK State of Nature report of biodiversity decline since 1970, 10,008 species were assessed, 2% (151 species) are extinct in Great Britain, and 16% (almost 1,500 species) are now threatened with extinction here. Since 2010, 41% of species showed strong or moderate decreases [2]
We are losing destroying the awesome beauty and wonder of the natural world.
And we will need to explain to the next generation why they will be looking out on bleak sterile landscapes where we currently enjoy vibrant forests teeming with life
Science forecasts that it will be as bad as that.
But in addition to this, when biodiversity collapses then human civilisation as we know it, which depends on it, will also collapse [3]
The question urgently needs to be asked, Why is biodiversity falling so precipitously? If we can identify the cause we may be able to do something about it.
A paper published recently in the scientific journal, Nature Food, based on an analysis of about 30,000 terrestrial vertebrates provides some answers, and it is clear about the primary cause of biodiversity loss [4]
“Agriculturally driven habitat degradation and destruction is the biggest threat to global biodiversity”
The paper describes a high resolution method of analysing land use on extinctions and looks at a range of agricultural practices across the planet. In this piece I will focus on what it has to say about the impact of livestock farming
For example,
“Animal products generally have substantially greater impacts on species extinction risk than staple vegetal products. This is a result of the inherently inefficient nature of these products”
This confirms earlier research [5]
The impacts caused by the consumption of animal products are not all equal and can vary depending on where the animals are raised:
“In particular, animal products and commodities grown in the tropics are generally much more impactful than staple crops and vegetables”
“Producing a unit of animal product requires grazing land and/or cropland for feed production, which when combined with the intrinsic feed conversion efficiency of animals leads to high land use and hence extinction impacts”
The numbers are revealing. “Ruminant meat, for example, has a weighted global median opportunity cost on speciesʼ extinctions ~340 times greater than that of grains, by mass, and around 100 times greater than plant derived proteins such as soybeans and other legumes”
So beef from Brazil is clearly a problem and it is striking to realise that it can increase extinction rates by a factor of 340 in most cases and more in the worst
The paper uses data from 174 countries and discussed six countries in detail, including the UK
“Our results reveal the very substantial contribution of ruminant meat consumption to the per capita extinction impact of food consumption in every one of these countries”
Species extinction is not the only problem.
“Even though the United Kingdom and similar countries might have low per capita impacts, land use for agriculture is nevertheless the biggest threat to biodiversity in these places. Sixty-three percent of agricultural land in the United Kingdom is used as grazing land for ruminants”
The following three solutions and their downsides are discussed
1) Particularly in wealthier countries there should be “serious consideration of steps to dramatically reduce consumption of animal products, especially ruminant meat”
2 Intensification of farming and hence land-use reduction—”but often this comes at the cost of higher localized emissions or resource uses that might affect biodiversity or a potential reduction in animal welfare”
3) Offshoring of production of the food to more biodiverse parts of the world. Whereas these may increase biodiversity domestically, it seems very likely that at global scale, they will cause net biodiversity harm
The first option, reducing meat consumption, appears to be the best option. The second, also known as factory farming is an animal nightmare, and the third moves the damage to potentially more vulnerable areas.
However, given the serious risk to the planet if biodiversity loss and extinctions are not adequately addressed, it seems to me that we must go further and a more radical step is required; we must Stop Eating Meat completely.
Although this is the logical step, it is not widely practised. There are a host of reasons including financial, political, educational, cultural and personal considerations.
Nevertheless, the case needs to be argued strongly at every level for a transformation in our diets if life is to survive on the planet
The Guardian is a very useful source of climate related information. But a recent article demonstrates how difficult it is for the message for plant-based diets to break through.
The article, entitled, “How the world’s taste for soya is eating Brazil’s Amazon” discussed the huge damage that soya bean farming is doing to wildlife and biodiversity in Brazil. But the article failed to mention why soya is being grown. The analysis stopped at the ports from which the soya was exported! [6]
Possibly after inevitable feedback the following paragraph was added
“Nearly 80% of soya beans are used for livestock and aquaculture, as China, the main buyer, uses 85% for animal feed, linking rising global meat demand to Brazil’s expanding exports.”
How can readers reach informed decisions when such pertinent facts are omitted from an article like this in the first place?
The UK is also contributing to this meat-led deforestation as it imports more than 3 million metric tons of soybeans annually. Around 90% of it feeds the animal agriculture industry — with poultry as the main consumer.
The UK Soy Manifesto aims to remedy this. But the quantity of verified deforestation and conversion free soy at point of UK import remains small, and only 60% of imported soya is covered by the Manifesto [7]
At this point critics will suggest that vegans are also contributing to the problem through a growing appetite for plant-based products such as soy milk, tofu, and meat substitutes
But this is not the case. Animal conversion of soya into protein is so inefficient that if plant-based products were to replace meat then soya consumption would be dramatically reduced. Directly consuming soya actually means growing less soya, leaving more land available for wildlife
Conclusion
To prevent biodiversity loss, species extinction, and the risk of societal collapse the world must move to plant-based diets as quickly as possible. This will be easier in wealthy countries who should take the lead such as the UK where nutritious alternatives are already available and more are being developed.
References
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/2024-living-planet-index
The 2024 Living Planet Index reports a 73% average decline in wildlife populations — what’s changed since the last report?
10/10/2024
New quantifications: Planetary Boundaries in the future, 3rd June 2025
[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-025-01224-w
Food impacts on species extinction risks can vary by three orders of magnitude, 9th September 2025
[5] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216
Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers, 1st June 2018
How the world’s taste for soya is eating Brazil’s Amazon, 29/09/2025
Progress towards the Goal of the UK Soy
Manifesto – July 2025
