A global shift towards healthier diets, more efficient agriculture and much less food waste could fundamentally change what farmers produce and how agricultural land is used by 2050.
New modeling suggests that following these recommendations could reduce global agricultural land use by up to 6% compared to current trends. At the same time, the total value of livestock production could fall by 42% ($630 billion) compared to 2020.
Fewer flocks and more plant foods
The greatest changes would occur in the production of ruminant animals (beef cattle, sheep and goats). By 2050, the global value of this sector could decline by approximately 70% ($274 billion), with approximately 400 million fewer ruminant animals worldwide than in 2020.
The production of plant-based foods would move in the opposite direction. The combined global value of vegetables, fruits, nuts and legumes could increase by 57% ($890 billion).
Legumes include foods such as beans, peas, lentils, and chickpeas. These crops are important sources of protein and fiber and generally require fewer resources to produce than many animal-based foods.
The findings come from an analysis published in Nature by researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), Cornell University and 10 modeling teams. The researchers examined what could happen if the world implemented a food system transformation similar to that proposed by the EAT-Lancet 2025 Commission.
Potential health and climate benefits
The 2025 EAT-Lancet Commission report concluded that a global transition to healthy diets could prevent 15 million premature deaths each year.
Previous research has also estimated that the global food system generates between $10 and $20 trillion in hidden costs annually. These costs include health care expenses, environmental damage, lost productivity, and other consequences that are not reflected in the price consumers pay for food. Most of the estimated burden has been related to unhealthy diets.
The new model indicates that the recommended transformation could also dramatically reduce net agriculture-related CO2 emissions from land use change. By 2050, these emissions could be 85% lower than in 2020.
Land use change includes activities such as clearing forests, converting grasslands, or draining wetlands to create agricultural land. These changes can release large amounts of stored carbon into the atmosphere. Net emissions represent both carbon released and carbon absorbed through land use changes.
A major disruption for farmers
Lead author Dr Matt Gibson, who began the work at Cornell University before joining the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), said: “Transforming food systems would offer huge potential benefits for our health and the environment but, as our results make clear, it would also lead to fundamental changes in global agriculture and affect the lives of millions of farmers and food producers.
“Rather than using these results as an excuse for inaction, it is essential that governments rise to the challenge and make difficult decisions for the sake of our health and the planet. This means standing up to powerful groups that benefit from the status quo and a global food system that currently fails both those who produce our food and those who should be nourished by it.”
The findings suggest that the transition would not simply be an environmental or public health initiative. It would also create radical economic changes, with some agricultural industries contracting while others would expand.
Daniel Mason-D’Croz, co-author of the study from Cornell University, said: “We should consider these scenarios not as a forecast of what will happen, but as a useful early guide to where challenges and opportunities may arise. Which sectors would need to contract and which to expand. A transformation of this magnitude cannot begin in 2050. Forecasting models like the one highlighted in this study are a valuable tool to inform actions today for more sustainable, healthy and fair food systems in the future.”
Forecasting models are used to explore possible futures rather than predict an exact outcome. By testing different assumptions, researchers can identify where economic disruptions, political challenges, and new opportunities may arise.
Uneven effects around the world
The economic effects would vary substantially between countries and regions.
In the United States, the total value of agricultural production could fall by 21% ($76 billion) by 2050 compared to 2020. However, the value of American agricultural production could increase by 20% ($40 billion), while the value of livestock production could decline by 73% ($116 billion).
India could experience a very different outcome. The total value of its agricultural production could increase by 46% ($198 billion). The value of agricultural production could increase by 65% ($208 billion), while the value of livestock production could fall a comparatively modest 8% ($10 billion).
Europe could see the total value of its agricultural production fall by 35% ($190 billion). The value of European agricultural production could decrease by 8% ($22 billion), while the value of livestock production could fall by 66% ($168 billion).
These regional differences reflect variations in agricultural systems, current diets, production costs, land availability, trade, and the types of foods each region produces.
Changing diets would not be easy
The researchers assumed a costless change in consumer preferences toward healthy diets (i.e., people change their behavior to demand healthier diets). In other words, the models assumed that consumers would voluntarily change what they eat without taking into account financial, cultural, or practical barriers that might make that change difficult.
In reality, healthy foods may not be equally affordable or accessible everywhere. Dietary choices are also determined by local traditions, personal preferences, income, food availability and broader cultural attitudes.
The researchers stressed that the scenarios represent only a selection of many possible futures. Additional studies will be needed to explore other pathways, including transformations based on different policy options, economic conditions, and consumer behavior patterns.
The authors argue that bold policy decisions made now could help protect vulnerable food producers and consumers as agriculture moves toward healthier, more sustainable diets. Without careful planning, the benefits of the transition could be accompanied by serious economic disruptions for communities that rely heavily on livestock and other sectors that are expected to contract.