By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Kathleen Shannon for Wyoming News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

From slogans like “Where’s the beef?” to cheeseburgers on the Fourth of July, beef has long played an outsized role in American culture. Yet a growing body of evidence has found that beef is driving climate pollution and environmental destruction, and America eats more of it than anyone. Leading research institutions have advised Americans to decrease their beef consumption — but is beef consumption in the U.S. actually headed in the right direction?

“It’s pretty much universal across the peer reviewed scientific literature that we urgently need to curb agricultural greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the most catastrophic climate change scenarios,” Brent Kim, faculty scientist at the Center for a Livable Future at Johns Hopkins University, tells Sentient. “One of the biggest and fastest ways we can achieve that is by cutting back on the amount of beef and milk that is produced.”

A Brief History of Beef Consumption in the U.S.

Cows aren’t native to the Americas, so beef wasn’t consumed in North America prior to colonization. This changed with the arrival of Europeans, who imported cows to the New World. American farmers and soldiers cleared land to make way for large beef ranches, displacing and killing Indigenous people and native bison in the process.

Over time, European immigrants came to the newly formed United States in increasing numbers, bringing with them a preference for meat when they could afford it. American farming and supply chains developed over time to meet that demand, and now, large swaths of land in the U.S. are dedicated to cattle ranching and industrial feedlots.

Why We Need to Eat Less Beef

Researchers at the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization have urged people in high-income countries to eat less beef, and there’s a good reason for that: it’s a major contributor to climate change.

Cows emit massive amounts of methane, one of the “big three” greenhouse gasses, through their burps and manure. In fact, nearly a third of all greenhouse gas emissions come from food production — and most of that is from cows.

Beef consumption in the U.S. also helps drive beef production, both here in and in countries that are clearing forests and other wild landscapes to meet this demand. Beef is the leading driver of deforestation worldwide, which releases enormous amounts of carbon dioxide, and is thus a major source of global warming. The mass removal of forested land also destroys the natural habitats that countless creatures rely on; it’s estimated that 135 species of plant, animal and insect go extinct every day due to deforestation around the world.

What Will Happen If We Don’t Eat Less Meat

Continuing to eat beef at this scale will have long term consequences. Kim points to a comprehensive 2023 study that found that food consumption alone could increase global temperatures by 1 degree Celsius by 2100, and that 75 percent of this increase would be attributable to foods that are significant sources of methane, like beef. Life will continue with that degree of warming, but it will be far less comfortable in some places and downright miserable in others.

How Much Beef Do Americans Eat?

When it comes to beef consumption in the U.S., there’s good news and bad news.

The good news is that Americans eat a lot less beef now than 50 years ago. That’s largely because Americans shifted to chicken in that time period, which became incredibly cheap at the expense of welfare for farmed birds. But back to beef.

In 1974, per-capita beef consumption in the U.S. was around 117 pounds; this began to decrease in the mid-1980s, however, and since 2008, Americans have been eating less than 90 pounds of beef every year on a per-capita basis. That’s a significant reduction.

The bad news is that America still eats more beef than any other country in the world — around 13.82 million tons every year, according to UN data. Even China, which has more than four times as many people as the U.S., consumes less total beef every year.

America also produces more beef than any other country in the world, with Brazil in a close second.

As we’ll see in a moment, a small subset of countries consume a disproportionate amount of the world’s beef, and this dynamic holds true in America itself as well: A 2023 study found that just 12 percent of Americans consume over half of all beef in the country.

How Does Beef Consumption in the U.S. Compare to the Rest of the World?

Behind the U.S., the country that eats the most beef is China, which consumed around 12.35 million tons in 2022. 

Just two nations, the U.S. and China, eat a little less than half of all beef that’s produced globally — but China has over 1.4 billion people, while the U.S. has 340 million, and still eats more beef.

The Problem of Rising Beef Consumption in China

China’s beef consumption is still concerning, especially when looking at long-term trends. Whereas per-capita beef consumption in the U.S. has fallen over the decades, it has skyrocketed in China, leaping from just under half a pound in 1972 to over 17 pounds in 2022. Importantly, this growth hasn’t been due to some one-off event that caused a sudden spike in beef consumption; rather, it’s been continuous and steady over time, and analysts expect it to keep rising.

And that’s a big problem. Sure, the average person in China still eats much less beef per year than the average American — but because China’s population is so much bigger, even a modest increase in beef consumption will have a huge effect on overall beef production.

For instance, suppose China’s beef consumption rose from 17 pounds to 30 pounds per-capita. The country would still be eating only around half as much beef as America on a per-person basis, but because its population is so large, this modest rise in personal consumption would cause total beef consumption in the country to reach 21 million tons — almost twice that of the U.S.

Meat Consumption in Argentina

Something worth noting is that although the United States consumes more beef in total than any other country, Argentina eats the most beef on a per-capita basis. The fact that Argentina has around one-seventh the population of the U.S. makes this less of a problem in global terms, though, and highlights the fact that if we truly want to bring beef consumption down to sustainable levels, the onus is really on the countries that consume the most beef on a total basis — that is, the U.S., China and Brazil.

To illustrate this, let’s look a bit closer at Argentina and the United States. In 2022, Argentina consumed a little over 2 million tons of beef in total and 101 pounds per capita, while Americans ate 12.9 million tons of total beef and 83 pounds per capita. This means that the average Argentinian was eating more beef every year than the average American.

But because Argentina’s population is so much smaller, the country has much less of an opportunity to make a global impact by changing its consumption habits. If the average Argentinian cut their beef consumption in half, this would reduce global beef consumption by around one million tons per year. But if the average American reduced their beef consumption by just 20 percent, this would bring down global beef consumption by over 2.5 million every year — a much larger impact requiring a much smaller change.

The Bottom Line

It’s clear that the United States needs to reduce its beef consumption. But the burdens aren’t exactly equal. “When we’re talking about reductions in animal product intake, it’s not a universal prescription for all countries,” Kim says. “There are low- and middle-income countries that have high rates of malnourishment and stunting, and something as small as increasing their animal product intake by one egg a day could play a dramatic role in preventing many of the lifelong impacts of stunting.”

At the end of the day, almost half of all beef is consumed in America or China. If we want to bring down beef consumption in a meaningful way, these are the first places that need to start finding alternative sources of protein.


Seth Millstein wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

A joint effort is helping Wisconsin farmers protect water quality in their communities by learning more about how to prevent manure and fertilizer spills and runoff.

"Nutrient Management Farmer Education" is a collaboration across six counties in northern Wisconsin, with partners from the University of Wisconsin, technical colleges and the Department of Agriculture. It helps farmers properly manage manure and fertilizer applications to optimize crop growth while protecting water sources.

Wayne Gajewski, a dairy farmer in Athens, said one of the biggest benefits is the collaborative aspect, where farmers learn as much from each other as they do from the instructors.

"I think it's a 'win-win'. It's good for farmers, it's good for the environment and it's good for the public in general," Gajewski explained. "Because farmers are trying to be as efficient as they can and without polluting or doing any harm to the environment."

State law requires farmers to develop and follow nutrient management plans to minimize their environmental impact. Gajewski noted the training enables them to create plans independently, reducing reliance on potentially costly external services.

Kirk Langfoss, analyst for the Conservation Planning and Zoning Department in Marathon County, said the program is unique in how it standardizes training in the region, educating about 60 farmers a year and covering about 22,000 acres. He pointed out grants allow them to offer incentives to farmers and help cover their tuition.

"They can get up to $750 reimbursement on soil testing, they can get payments to do manure testing, they commit to between eight and 12 hours a year when it comes to the class," Langfoss outlined. "It reimburses them for their time and makes it worth it."

Agriculture spills have been prevalent across Wisconsin, with one reported last month in Monroe County.


get more stories like this via email

Ohio food banks are urging state lawmakers to approve what they said is a modest budget increase needed to get more fresh, local produce into the hands of hungry families.

The request coincides with National Fruits and Vegetables Month and a broader call to support both food access and local farms. Through the Ohio Agricultural Clearance Program, surplus produce from nearly 100 Ohio farms is delivered to food banks statewide.

Alex Buck, president of the Fruit Growers Marketing Association, said the funding request is not just about food access, it is about sustaining local agriculture.

"Our relationship with the food banks isn't for profitability purposes, it is the right thing to do to support our communities," Buck explained. "It also allows our farms to be compensated fairly for produce that would not normally make it to the retailers."

He pointed out the requested increase of just under $5 million would help offset inflation. Food prices rose nearly 24% between 2020 and 2024, while Ohio food banks said their funding has remained flat since 2019, limiting how much food they can purchase.

Buck argued cutting funding could make it unsustainable for farms to participate, especially as labor and production costs have risen. He added the program shortens the distance between farm and table, preserving freshness and reducing food waste.

"Our farmers care. None of our farmers live in mansions. They love what they do, they love to feed families, they love to support the communities," Buck emphasized. "It doesn't make it viable for farmers to continue to support this program, if there's not funds behind it."

Food banks are bracing for a drop in state support from $32.5 this year to $24.5 million next year, which could mean 8 million fewer pounds of food. Advocates said the funding boost would help prevent the loss.


get more stories like this via email

By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Judith Ruiz-Branch for Wisconsin News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

At least eight miles of a Southwest-Wisconsin stream were polluted by a manure spill earlier this month. The spill killed hundreds of fish, including many wild brown trout. The affected waterways — Spring Valley Creek, Moore Creek and the Kickapoo River — have long been remarkable for their healthy water quality, healthy enough to sustain naturally-reproducing trout populations. The source of the spill appears to be manure applied to fields by a 600-head dairy operation near Norwalk, Ben Uvaas, who works at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), tells Sentient. A “gully washer,” or massive rain event, appears to have triggered the runoff, he says. Though the farmer of the dairy operation took measures to protect soil health, the combination of heavy rains and 11,500 gallons of applied manure per acre were enough to trigger a spill.

This year, there have been at least 9 documented manure spills in Wisconsin, according to the DNR. The Kickapoo River, where some of this manure was observed, eventually carries water all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. Contaminants like manure and other agricultural byproducts contribute to an oxygen-depleted area known as the “dead zone” that can kill marine life. In 2024, the dead zone spanned 6,705 square miles.

On May 17, the DNR received a call about this spill to their violation tip line. The warden who received the call — a law enforcement official tasked with enforcing natural resources laws — went out to the stream, where they observed the hundreds of dead fish.

Uvaas works on the state DNR’s non-point source pollution program, referring to the kind of pollution that tends to be carried by rain or snowfall, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The warden was able to track the source back to a farm field in Monroe County, southwest of Norwalk, Uvaas says. Wisconsin Public Radio reported the farm as Brueggen Dairy Farm, a 600-head cow operation.

Brueggen Dairy is not considered a concentrated animal feeding operation as it falls under the 700-head dairy threshold set by the EPA. In 2022, the operation received the Monroe County Conservation Farmers of the Year award.

On Monday, May 19, the DNR fisheries team examined most of the area — collecting hundreds of dead fish along the way. Spring Valley Creek, Moore Creek and the Kickapoo River, where the spill occurred, are prized trout habitats in a region that is a destination for fishers and other recreationalists.

So far, the investigation has determined that the week of May 11, a farmer injected approximately 11,500 gallons of manure, per acre, to around 130 acres of farmland. A Wisconsin DNR official recently said that anywhere from 12,000 to 15,000 gallons per acre is acceptable.

On May 14, the rain storm hit. Farmers frequently apply manure to their fields as fertilizer, but over-application can contaminate drinking water with nitrates, and high levels of ammonia can kill fish and other wildlife.

The farmer had been performing a range of what Uvaas describes as “soil health” practices meant to improve soil structure and the amount of manure applied does not appear to be beyond acceptable ranges. But the spill occurred anyway, illustrating that manure application has the potential to go wrong.

“Despite all our efforts to find the best time to apply (manure), Mother Nature is unpredictable,” Farm owner Randy Brueggen wrote in a statement to Wisconsin Public Radio.

“We as a dairy farm know how valuable this resource is, which is why we utilize incorporation practices in an intentional, safe and compliant manner,” Brueggen continued. “We strive to utilize our organic fertilizer over synthetic fertilizer for our crops. Our group’s farming practices always prioritize conservation. We want to sustain the land, so the land sustains us.”

In Wisconsin, “more than 1,500 miles of streams and rivers, and 33 lakes, in the nine counties assessed have impaired waters due overwhelmingly to combined pollution from manure and commercial fertilizer,” a 2022 investigation by the non-profit Environmental Working Group and non-profit law group Midwest Environmental Advocates found.

In the Driftless region of the Midwest, an area that covers parts of Northeast Iowa, Southwest Wisconsin and Southeast Minnesota, pollution containment and cleanup is especially difficult, Uvaas says. Unlike the rolling hills and lush soils of the Corn Belt, the karst topography is characterized by natural spring-fed streams, rocky bluffs and a thin layer of topsoil.

As a result, the streams are “fairly high gradient” and “high velocity,” says Uvaas, and this creates “an extremely narrow window” for response time, at least “compared to other parts of the state.” In the flatter parts of Wisconsin for instance, officials can put in barriers and collection sumps to collect contamination. But by the time DNR officials got to this site, it was too late. “There’s not any kind of collection or containment that’s feasible in the waterway, which is unfortunate, but that’s largely driven by timing and the topography here.”

Sentient is awaiting records from the Wisconsin DNR for more information regarding this spill, including enforcement action.


Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email