A worldwide shift toward healthier diets, more efficient farming, and far 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 farmland use by as much as 6% compared with current trends. At the same time, the total value of livestock production could fall by 42% ($630 billion) compared with 2020.
Fewer Herds and More Plant Foods
The biggest 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 an estimated 70% ($274bn), with roughly 400 million fewer ruminant animals worldwide than in 2020.
Plant-based food production would move in the opposite direction. The combined global value of vegetables, fruits, nuts, and legumes could rise by 57% ($890bn).
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 foods.
The findings come from an analysis published in Nature by researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), Cornell University, and 10 modelling teams. The researchers examined what could happen if the world pursued a food system transformation similar to the one proposed by the 2025 EAT-Lancet Commission.
Potential Health and Climate Benefits
The 2025 EAT-Lancet Commission report concluded that a worldwide transition to healthy diets could prevent 15 million premature deaths every year.
Earlier research has also estimated that the global food system creates $10-$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 linked to unhealthy diets.
The new modeling indicates that the recommended transformation could also sharply reduce agriculture-related net-CO2 emissions from land-use change. By 2050, these emissions could be 85% lower than they were 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 account for both the carbon released and the carbon absorbed through changes in land use.
A Major Disruption for Farmers
Dr. Matt Gibson, lead author, who began the work at Cornell University before joining the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), said: “Transforming food systems would deliver enormous potential benefits to our health and the environment but, as our results make clear, they would also lead to fundamental changes to global agriculture and affect the lives of millions of farmers and food producers.
“Rather than using these results as an excuse for inaction, it’s critical that governments rise to the challenge and make difficult decisions for the good of our health and the planet. This means confronting powerful groups that profit 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 sweeping economic changes, with some agricultural industries shrinking while others expand.
Daniel Mason-D’Croz, study co-author from Cornell University, said: “We should consider these scenarios not as a forecast of what will happen, but as a useful early guide of where challenges and opportunities may arise. Which sectors would need to contract, and which would need to expand. A transformation of this magnitude cannot begin in 2050. Foresight modeling like that highlighted in this study is a valuable tool to inform actions today for more sustainable, healthy, and just food systems tomorrow.”
Foresight modeling is used to explore possible futures rather than predict one exact outcome. By testing different assumptions, researchers can identify where economic disruptions, policy challenges, and new opportunities may emerge.
Uneven Effects Across 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% ($76bn) by 2050 compared with 2020. However, the value of US crop production could increase by 20% ($40bn), while livestock production value could decline by 73% ($116bn).
India could experience a very different outcome. Its total agricultural production value could rise by 46% ($198bn). Crop production value could increase by 65% ($208bn), while livestock production value could fall by a comparatively modest 8% ($10bn).
Europe could see its overall agricultural production value decline by 35% ($190bn). European crop production value could decrease by 8% ($22bn), while livestock production value could fall by 66% ($168bn).
These regional differences reflect variations in farming systems, current diets, production costs, land availability, trade, and the types of food each region produces.
Changing Diets Would Not Be Simple
The researchers assumed a costless consumer preference shift toward healthy diets (i.e., people change their behavior to demand healthier diets). In other words, the models assumed that consumers would willingly change what they eat without accounting for the financial, cultural, or practical barriers that could make such a shift difficult.
In reality, healthy foods may not be equally affordable or accessible everywhere. Dietary choices are also shaped by local traditions, personal preferences, income, food availability, and broader cultural attitudes.
The researchers emphasized 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 choices, economic conditions, and patterns of consumer behavior.
The authors argue that bold policy decisions made now could help protect vulnerable food producers and consumers as agriculture moves toward healthier and more sustainable diets. Without careful planning, the benefits of the transition could be accompanied by severe economic disruption for communities that depend heavily on livestock and other sectors expected to contract.
