Ensure access to and adoption of healthier, more sustainable diets for all

Globally, agricultural subsidies — including budgetary support for producers and market price support such as tariffs — represented 15% of the value of total agricultural production between 2013 and 2018. A substantial share of this support, particularly in high-income countries, is directed toward the production of meat and dairy to reduce the relative costs of animal products and enable high levels of consumption.

At the same time, there are not currently enough fruits, vegetables and proteins (especially plant-based) produced to meet global nutrition recommendations. Reports by the World Bank and the FAO, UNDP and UNEP have called for a realignment of agricultural subsidies in high-income countries to better reflect health and sustainability objectives by reducing the share of subsidies for red meat and dairy and increasing the share for pulses, fruits and vegetables.

Among countries that were members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in 2023, 43% of government support for producers directed to single commodities was allocated to meat and milk production, the highest share since 2014. This calculation includes market price support such as tariffs, as well as a subset of budgetary support to producers to produce specific commodities; it excludes decoupled payments.

When focusing on government budgetary support (subsidies in the narrow sense), one academic study found that, in 2017, OECD countries spent over twice as much proportionately (in terms of share of agricultural support) to support livestock production as compared to non-OECD countries. This study’s calculations included support for specific commodities as well as decoupled payments. Some other estimates that include subsidies associated with animal feed suggest an even higher allocation. In the European Union, for example, 82% of the Common Agricultural Policy budget subsidies in 2013 was estimated to support animal products.

Research on the efficacy of policies and behavior change interventions to encourage healthier and more sustainable diets is emerging. At the moment, much of the literature focuses on intentions or willingness to change (as opposed to actual behavior changes), self-reported changes (as opposed to observed changes) and short-term (as opposed to long-term) interventions. Thus, we do not yet have a clear understanding of the most effective interventions to motivate and sustain the long-term behavior changes needed to enable the adoption of healthy and sustainable diets. Many of these studies focus on industrialized countries, which overlap with several of the regions where per capita ruminant meat consumption must decline the most. That said, meat consumption is high and increasing in some emerging economies too.

The number of academic studies published each year on interventions to encourage consumers to eat more plant-rich meals and/or reduce meat and dairy consumption grew throughout the 2010s, with a notable increase beginning in 2018. The number of studies published between 2018 and 2022 is nearly three times greater than the number published between 2000 and 2017. As this analysis is limited to English-language research mostly from the United States and Europe, more research from other geographies is needed to accurately capture global intervention opportunities for advancing healthy and sustainable diets.

Additionally, while tracking the number of studies on this topic provides insights into the growth of research on healthy and sustainable food choices, it does not reflect the results of that research, such as the extent to which consensus is emerging from that research on the most effective interventions to motivate long-term behavior change.

Food marketing influences perceptions around which foods are desirable, contributing to a food environment that encourages unhealthy and unsustainable consumption patterns. Foods are frequently advertised in television, internet and print media and in outdoor spaces. Other food marketing techniques include product placement, branding, product and packaging design, point-of-sale displays, sponsorship or direct marketing promotions.

Food advertising is particularly harmful to children, who are less able to understand advertising’s intent. One meta-analysis of 80 studies found food and non-alcoholic beverage marketing to significantly increase the intake of, choice of and preference toward the marketed foods among children and adolescents.

Food advertising often promotes unhealthy foods such as fast food, desserts, sugar sweetened beverages and other processed foods high in saturated fat, sugar and salt. For example, a study of television advertising across 22 countries found that foods and beverages that should not be permitted to be advertised to children based on nutrient profile criteria were advertised four times more often than permitted ones.

Advertisements promoting meat consumption also influence consumer desires. One study documented over 50 years of multi-million-dollar marketing campaigns promoting red and processed meat consumption in the United States, often supported by the federal government. In recent years, some of these campaigns and other corporate sustainability communications often presented misleading information about the environmental impacts of red and processed meat and/or undermined efforts to promote plant-rich dietary patterns.

Limited research has tracked expenditures on unhealthy and unsustainable food marketing. Studies from Canada (in 2019) and the United States (in 2009) reported that approximately $630 million CAD and $1.8 billion USD (not adjusted for inflation), respectively, were spent on food and beverage advertising in a single year, with more than 80% of these expenditures allocated to products that did not qualify as healthy. The U.S. data was focused specifically on marketing targeted to youth. More data is needed to track food marketing expenditures across multiple countries and across time.

Around the world, many people and communities maintain a strong attachment to and preference for meat. Alongside increased consumption of legumes, vegetables and fruits, meat alternatives (one form of alternative proteins) that replicate the experience of consuming meat may help reduce ruminant meat consumption in high-consuming regions. Monitoring the market share of meat alternatives can serve as a proxy for tracking their acceptance and consumption.

In the United States (U.S.), the share of plant-based meat in the total meat market (by sales value) has fluctuated slightly, from just under 1% in 2019 to 1.3% in 2022 to 0.8% in 2024. Data for other countries is currently limited to the market share within the retail prepackaged meat category only (that is, excluding sales at the meat counter), which may obscure overall trends in meat consumption. For example, the 2024 U.S. market share of plant-based meat in the retail prepackaged meat market (1.7%) was estimated to be twice its total meat market share. With these caveats in mind, the 2023 prepackaged market share of plant-based meat was relatively high in the Netherlands (5.8%) and Germany (3.2%).

Ideally, as the market expands, data will become available to track the share of meat alternatives in the total meat market across more countries over time. Additionally, due to changes in the relative cost of plant-based meat compared to conventional meat products over time, data tracking the change in market share by sales volume will be best for future cross-country comparisons.

Beyond taste, price remains one of the top barriers to people consuming meat alternatives. Market research suggests that consumers may be more likely to buy alternative proteins if prices were closer to animal proteins. For instance, one survey by Mintel found that 73% of U.S. consumers were willing to pay the same price or less for plant-based alternatives.

Early applications of this strategy have led to promising results. For example, after European supermarkets Lidl and BILLA reduced plant-based product prices to match their animal counterparts, their plant-based product sales increased by 30% and 33%, respectively. As the industry scales, improved efficiencies, better utilization of high fixed costs, and recouped research and development costs may move the products closer to price parity.

Data on the relative cost of meat alternatives to conventional meat products is limited to only plant-based meat from six countries; more regularly updated, standardized and nationally-comparable data is needed. Based on sales data in the United States in 2025, on average, plant-based meats cost 76% more than the meats they were intended to replace. This price premium was higher than estimates from the same source in 2020 and 2022, indicating that efforts to close the price gap on meat alternatives have not yet materialized. In Europe, the price premium for plant-based meats fell between 2021 and 2023 from 65% to 41% in Germany and from 63% to 38% in the Netherlands, while the premium remained more than double in Spain. In the Asia-Pacific market, the price premium for plant-based meats launched between 2022 and the third quarter of 2023 varied from 86% higher in the Philippines to 22% higher in Thailand and Singapore. In Indonesia, newly launched plant-based meats cost 19% less than conventional meats during that period, but longitudinal data is needed to assess whether prices remain consistently cheaper.

Ideally, as the market expands, data will also become available to include fermentation-enabled meat alternatives and cultivated meat.

A growing amount of research explores consumer acceptance of trying and continuing to consume alternative proteins. Familiarity is one of the key factors of relevance — previous experience with consuming alternative proteins is associated with higher acceptance. Increasing the share of consumers who have such familiarity with alternative proteins may also affect the acceptability and social norms around consuming alternative proteins in social settings.

Individual studies have measured the share of consumers who report having consumed or being willing to try alternative proteins in specific countries at a particular point in time. For example, a survey of consumers in 10 European countries in 2021 found 65% of consumers across all countries surveyed were moderately, very or extremely likely to try eating plant-based meat instead of animal-based meat, with the highest shares in Spain (77%), Austria (75%) and Romania (74%). There is no single global dataset, however, that measures consumer perceptions of alternative proteins using a similar methodology across numerous countries over time.

We have included this indicator to highlight the need to monitor consumer acceptance of the rapidly evolving alternative protein industry, particularly in regions with high ruminant meat consumption.