The diet that could remake modern agriculture

Transitioning to healthier, more sustainable global food systems by 2050 would substantially reshape agriculture by reducing livestock numbers and decreasing land use, according to a new study published in Nature this July. Led by Cornell University, USA, with contributions from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany and the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), the research highlights both the possibilities and challenges of a global food system transformation. It also underscores the urgent need for proactive agriculture and food policies to drive this transformation and manage its socioeconomic impacts.

“This work underlines that the scale of this change is huge and the policy ambition has to be commensurate with the challenge,” says Matthew Gibson, former postdoctoral associate in the Food Systems and Global Change research group in the Cornell CALS Ashley School of Global Development and the Environment. “We have to think about a coordinated push involving governments, industry and consumers alike.”

Gibson, currently a research fellow at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK, led the study, which attempts to map what would happen if the world actually followed through on years of calls for healthy diets from more sustainable food systems. The researchers found that transforming the global food system guided by EAT-Lancet recommendations would not simply tweak agriculture at the margins. It would fundamentally remake it – shrinking the footprint of farming, slashing livestock production and redirecting what the world grows and eats.

People globally eat less meat and more fruits and vegetables these days

In the study’s modelled “transformation” scenario – based on dietary patterns similar to those recommended by the EAT-Lancet Commission – people eat far less red meat (e.g. beef, pork and lamb), and more fruits, vegetables, legumes and nuts. That shift ripples backwards through the system. With fewer animals to feed, demand for crops like corn and soy declines. Vast stretches of grazing land become unnecessary. And the agricultural economy, long centred on livestock, begins to pivot.

According to the study, production of ruminant meat could fall by a third in 2050 compared to 2020, and the economic value of this production could decline by 70 per cent. This would be accompanied by around 400 million fewer ruminant animals for slaughter each year.  Cereals and sugar crops would also shrink in such a future.

In their place, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes would expand, both in acreage and importance. By mid-century, these foods could account for the majority of agricultural production value, a sharp departure from today’s system, where livestock still dominates.

Food systems today are responsible for roughly one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, as well as major water use and fertiliser runoff, the study notes. Under the transformation scenario, agricultural emissions fall sharply – by about a third compared to current trajectories – driven largely by the decline in livestock, particularly methane-intensive cattle.

Water use and fertiliser application are also lower compared to business-as-usual projections, easing pressure on ecosystems already stretched to their limits. Land freed from agriculture could, in theory, return to forests or other natural systems, offering additional climate and biodiversity benefits.

The economic impact is very complex and imbalanced

And yet, the picture is not one of simple gain, according to the scientists. “There will be pain points and potential losses,” they note. “We have to find ways to compensate and incentivise farmers and ranchers to make these huge changes. If we want multifunctional food systems, we need multifunctional payments beyond those linked to agricultural production.”

Economically, the global value of agricultural production by 2050 would shrink by about one-quarter compared to a business-as-usual future, which equates to roughly the figure for 2020. For some regions and sectors, that contraction could be destabilising, while for others it could present opportunities.

Even within agriculture, the shifts are uneven, Gibson says. Jobs tied to livestock production would fall more sharply than those in crop farming, potentially reshaping rural labour markets. Trade patterns would shift as well, with some regions exporting less meat and importing more plant-based foods.

That imbalance helps explain why change has been slow. Governments continue to subsidise many of the very systems that drive poor health and environmental harm, the researchers maintain. Efforts like sugar taxes, food labelling and dietary guidelines, while important, operate at the margins of a much larger system shaped by entrenched interests, according to the paper.

Consumer behaviour adds another layer of complexity. The study assumes a relatively smooth shift towards healthier diets, but in reality, food choices are bound up with culture, affordability and habit. For many people, especially in lower-income countries, healthier diets remain out of reach. For others, giving up meat is less a question of cost than of identity.

Even so, the researchers argue that the scale of potential benefit makes the effort unavoidable.

“If we want to transform the food system for the better, to improve health, reduce waste and have more sustainable production, you have to make it happen,” Gibson emphasises. “Without bold and inclusive intervention, the food system may well transform, but in a way it does not serve people or the planet.” 

(Cornell University/PIK/wi)

Reference:

Matthew Gibson et al.: Food systems transformation would reshape global agriculture, Nature, July 2026. 

Further reading:

Rural 21 Dossier on "Food Systems"

Rural 21 Dossier on "Food security and nutrition"

Rural 21 issue 21: Changing times, changing diets