What does people eating less meat mean for British livestock farmers? – Inside track

The government has taken a significant step to tackle diet-related ill health, with new UK-wide restrictions on junk food advertising. As concerns grow about unhealthy diets and environmental damage linked to food production, modest changes to what we regularly eat can play an important role.

For example, eating a bit less meat, such as an average meat eater swapping one beef burger and two pork sausages for plant-based alternatives each week, would bring diets closer to NHS guidelines, improve public health and ease pressure on the planet. This matters because livestock farming is a major source of the greenhouse gas methane. But what would this change mean for farmers?

Would eating less meat be detrimental to farmers?
Most people in the UK report that they have already made some effort to reduce their meat consumption, a trend likely to have been reinforced by the rising price of meat. But when policy makers consider encouraging this trend further, concerns are voiced about the potential impact it will have on British farmers.

Some worry lower production will hurt livestock farmers at an already difficult time for the farming sector, with other factors, like high input costs and bad harvests driven by climate change, causing anxiety and depression amongst farmers.

We recently looked into what the impacts of people eating less meat are likely to be on livestock farms, to identify a positive way forward. We found that dedicating more land, not less, to environmentally positive action could be more profitable for some farms.

Consumption and production don’t move in lockstep
The story isn’t entirely simple though. How much meat is eaten in the UK and the amount the country produces are not aligned. Cutting meat consumption may not mean less is produced, as UK livestock farming is connected to global markets and shaped by trade.

We found that, over the past 20 years, while meat consumption in the UK has fallen, domestic production has not followed suit, particularly for beef and pork, where domestic consumption fell while production rose, with more being exported.

The reverse scenario also matters: if demand for meat falls more slowly than domestic production, the shortfall may be met by increased imports, offshoring environmental impacts rather than reducing them.

Producing more meat won’t always be profitable
Recent data shows many grazing livestock farms (which mostly produce lamb and beef) are not making much income from farming alone, unlike pig and poultry farms.

Over the past four years, the average lowland grazing farm made a loss of around £7,900 a year from agriculture, while upland grazing farms lost around £5,500. The future outlook is also challenging, as input costs continue to rise, estimated to be 30 per cent higher in 2026 than in 2020. To stay afloat, these farms rely on diverse income sources and payments through agri-environment schemes.

Environmental action can increase profits
Farmers manage over 70 per cent of UK land, so they have a big role in reversing nature’s decline and tackling climate change. Paying for environmental benefits from land management is critical to the long term viability of many grazing livestock businesses and a lot already participate in agri-environment schemes. For some, increasing this engagement would offer greater financial resilience.

By contrast, pig and poultry production is likely to grow, regardless of agri-environment incentives, making regulation essential to reduce their environmental impacts.

Environmental actions farmers are paid for, such as reducing flood risks, improving air quality or storing carbon, which all have nature, climate and wider public benefits, could result in fewer farm animals on the land to free up space. Our previous research has shown that, in some cases, this will improve overall farm profitability.

Some worry about reducing food self-sufficiency, but the Land Use Framework, expected from the government, should make sure these environmental payments are properly targeted at areas where the trade-off with food production is lowest. And the upcoming 25 Year Farming Roadmap should clarify the future of schemes to give farmers certainty to plan ahead.

Policies that influence consumption don’t automatically reshape production patterns. Small changes to diets, like swapping a burger for a plant-based alternative, can improve health and environmental outcomes, but the choices farmers make are equally crucial. To reduce the climate and nature impacts of livestock farming, farming policies that give farmers viable alternatives are vital.