“If you’re worried about climate change, drop beef from your diet and replace it with chicken. This is what some scientists and environmentalists have been telling us for years, but it’s only half right. Sure, dropping beef is good for the climate. But you need to give up the chicken too if you want to do what’s best for the Earth.
People are told to switch from beef to chicken, which makes sense since beef causes more greenhouse gas emissions than any other animal product.
Americans have been eating less beef since the 1960s, but they have been eating a lot more chicken—from 28 pounds per person in 1960 to nearly 94 pounds per person in 2018. Chicken is now, by far, America’s favorite meat, and the same goes for many other countries. The amount of chicken eaten by each person around the world rose by 31% from 2000 to 2011, but the amount of beef eaten by each person only rose by 13%. In China alone, per capita chicken consumption increased by 20 percent from 2011 to 2018.
This number might best show how things have changed: between 1990 and 2013, the production of chicken rose by 165%, but the production of beef rose only 23%.
The constant positive comparisons of chicken to beef and this switch have had a bad side effect: they’ve hidden the poultry industry’s many serious problems. Without question, when it comes to meat, the beef industry is still the largest contributor to climate change. But the chicken industry is pretty bad, too. Its impact on the climate only looks benign when compared with beef’s. One serving of chicken releases 11 times more greenhouse gases than one serving of beans. This means that switching from beef to chicken is like switching from a Hummer to a Ford F-150 and not from a Prius to a Hummer.
And while climate change is a grave environmental threat, it’s far from the only one. Meat production causes pollution in the air and water, damage to arable land, loss of habitat, species extinction, and huge dead zones in the ocean. The poultry industry plays a big part in that despoliation. As the poultry industry has exploded in recent decades, so has its impact on ecosystems around the world.
Sure, switching from beef to chicken is by comparison better for the climate. But is eating all this chicken good for the planet? Not at all.
Many people view chicken as the more sustainable and eco-friendly meat compared to beef. The idea is that raising chickens has less of an environmental impact than cattle and other ruminants. But is this perception accurate or is it more complicated? I decided to dig into the environmental considerations around chicken versus beef to get a clearer picture.
Why Chicken is Often Seen as More Sustainable
There are some legitimate reasons why chicken has an reputation for being an eco-friendly protein:
-
Chickens produce much lower greenhouse gas emissions than cows per pound of meat. The difference can be as high as 10 times lower
-
Chickens require far less land area and grazing space than cattle farming You can raise more chicken pounds per acre
-
Chickens consume less feed over their lives than beef cattle. More resources go directly to meat output.
-
Chicken production has become very efficient, with short life cycles and fast growth rates optimized by industrial farming.
So based purely on things like lower emissions, reduced land usage, and efficient feed conversion, chicken seems superior to beef from an ecological standpoint. But the full picture is more nuanced.
How Chicken Farming Can Still Negatively Impact the Environment
Despite chicken’s “green” image, modern industrial scale chicken farming can still create significant environmental concerns, including:
-
Chicken manure from large operations can pollute waterways and groundwater if not properly managed.
-
Energy usage for chicken housing and climate control contributes to fossil fuel consumption.
-
Overuse of antibiotics in chicken farming contributes to antibiotic resistance risks.
-
Fast-growing chicken strains place intense pressure on birds’ health and welfare.
Additionally, switching en masse from beef to chicken can have unintended consequences:
-
Raising enough chicken to replace all beef would require vastly more chickens, increasing total environmental impact.
-
Less beef demand can lead to grassland loss as cattle grazing helps maintain landscapes.
So while chicken compares favorably to beef in some metrics, it is far from a perfect eco-friendly protein. Tradeoffs exist no matter what meat we produce.
The Role of Consumer Choice in Driving Sustainability
When it comes to picking eco-conscious proteins, individual consumer choices do matter. Here’s how we can reduce our dietary environmental footprint:
-
Substitute plant-based protein like beans, lentils, and tofu for some meat servings.
-
When choosing meat, pick efficiently raised, high welfare chicken and beef. Avoid factory farm sources.
-
Eat less meat overall by making it a side dish rather than the main plate focus.
-
Support small local farms that use regenerative grazing practices to boost soil health, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration.
-
Reduce food waste by repurposing leftovers and properly storing meat.
There is no one size fits all answer to the chicken vs beef debate. But by making thoughtful food choices, we can all take steps towards a more sustainable food system.
The Verdict: It’s Complicated, but Consumer Choices Matter
After looking at the nuances on both sides, I don’t believe the common view of chicken as definitively more eco-friendly than beef holds up. The real sustainability impacts depend on how the chickens and cows are raised, and in what quantities. From an environmental standpoint, deciding between chicken or beef is situational based on many interrelated factors.
As consumers, we play an important role by supporting responsible farming practices, choosing local options when possible, and reducing waste. Rather than viewing it as an either/or decision, we should focus on moderating our overall meat intake while choosing quality over quantity when we do indulge. This balanced approach helps make our dinner plates a little greener.
With 50 days left, we need your help
The US presidential campaign is in its final weeks and we’re dedicated to helping you understand the stakes. It’s more important than ever during this election cycle to give more information than just the headlines, but in-depth reporting costs a lot. To continue this vital work, we have an ambitious goal to add 5,000 new members.
We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?.
What the advice to replace beef with chicken in your diet is missing.
“If you’re worried about climate change, drop beef from your diet and replace it with chicken.” That’s the advice we’ve been hearing from some environmentalists and scientists for years — but it’s only half right. Sure, dropping beef is good for the climate. But if you really want to do what’s best for the Earth, it’s time to drop the chicken, too.
The recommendation to swap beef for chicken is certainly understandable: Beef is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than any other animal product.
And we’ve listened: While beef consumption has steadily declined in the United States since the 1960s, chicken consumption has skyrocketed — from 28 pounds per person in 1960 to nearly 94 pounds per person in 2018. Chicken is now, by far, America’s favorite meat, and the same goes for many other countries. From 2000 to 2011, per capita global chicken consumption increased by 31 percent, while beef consumption rose by only 13 percent. In China alone, per capita chicken consumption increased by 20 percent from 2011 to 2018.
Here’s another stat that might best sum up the change: From 1990 to 2013, global poultry production increased by 165 percent while global beef production only increased by 23 percent.
This switch and the relentless favorable comparisons of chicken over beef have had an unfortunate side effect: they’ve ended up obscuring the poultry industry’s many serious problems. Without question, when it comes to meat, the beef industry is still the largest contributor to climate change. But the chicken industry is pretty bad, too. Its impact on the climate only looks benign when compared with beef’s. Greenhouse gas emissions per serving of poultry are 11 times higher than those for one serving of beans, so swapping beef with chicken is akin to swapping a Hummer with a Ford F-150, not a Prius.
And while climate change is a grave environmental threat, it’s far from the only one. Meat production causes pollution in the air and water, damage to arable land, loss of habitat, species extinction, and huge dead zones in the ocean. The poultry industry plays a big part in that despoliation. As the poultry industry has exploded in recent decades, so has its impact on ecosystems around the world.
Sure, switching from beef to chicken is by comparison better for the climate. But is eating all this chicken good for the planet? Not at all.
America’s favorite meat (and why it’s a problem)
Our high chicken consumption can be chalked up to a simple shipping mistake. In 1923, a hobby egg farmer in Delaware named Celia Steele ordered 50 chickens — but received 500. Instead of returning them, she raised the birds for meat and turned a profit.
Three years later, Steele constructed a barn to house 10,000 birds at a time. In the following decades, the poultry sector became increasingly industrialized, and today, nearly all chickens raised for meat — 9 billion in the United States each year — are crammed into dark warehouses longer than football fields.
These chicken farms profoundly harm local communities. Drive through any rural area in my home state of Georgia, the country’s top chicken-producing state, and you’ll see row after row of long, windowless sheds, each containing tens of thousands of chickens being raised for meat. Nearby, you might see (and smell) enormous mounds of what the industry calls poultry “litter,” a term that downplays its menace: It is a mix of chicken poop, spilled feed, feathers, and bedding material. These feces-dominated mountains dot the landscape in many rural parts of America, and they’re a growing problem for nearby residents — and all who live downstream.
That’s because rather than undergoing a treatment process as human waste does, poultry excrement is typically spread on nearby cropland as fertilizer. The amount of waste is so tremendous, however, that much of it is not absorbed; it runs off fields and into streams and rivers. The resulting oversaturation of nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorous can cause algal blooms that deplete oxygen in the water, killing or dispelling aquatic animals for miles. Some algal blooms are toxic and endanger humans and our companion animals. Put simply, the poultry industry is given license to use America’s public waters as its own unregulated, open sewer system.
This flood of chicken poop is a nasty problem, but the process of growing chickens’ feed may be even more harmful. According to the World Wildlife Fund, the poultry industry uses most of the world’s feed crops, with the pork industry coming in second. Overall, feed production occupies an astounding third of the world’s cropland. This land could more efficiently be used to produce food for humans to eat directly.
This inefficiency also has consequences for global water supplies. Per calorie, the water footprint of chicken is nearly six times larger than that of grains like wheat and oats. To be sure, beef does require much more water than chicken — about 3.5 times more — but both require more water than most plant-based foods.
You May Never Eat CHICKEN Again After Watching This
FAQ
Is eating chicken instead of beef better for the environment?
What meat is most environmentally friendly?
Is it better for the environment to not eat meat?
How ethical is eating chicken?
Is eating chicken better for the environment than eating beef?
Eating chicken is better for the environment than eating beef. But that doesn’t mean it’s good. Eating chicken has a lower climate impact than eating beef. But rearing chickens on a large scale still causes some serious environmental problems. Producing beef has a hefty environmental impact.
What are the benefits of eating chicken compared to red meat?
Chicken is a nutritious source of protein, has fewer calories than red meat, more B vitamins, less saturated fat, and the product of its metabolism poses no health risks.
Is chicken more eco-friendly than beef?
The “No Red Meat” Diet: Is Chicken Actually More Eco-Friendly Than Beef? When climate scientists suggested eating less beef, many people committed to a “no red meat” diet—but started eating a lot more chicken instead. Here’s why that swap might actually end up hurting the environment more than it helps.
Is it better to eat chicken or beef?
Many people have shifted from eating beef to chicken as a more climate-friendly option. And all other things being equal, it is better for the climate to eat 100g of chicken than 100g of beef. But that doesn’t mean it’s good.