Beef in nutritious and sustainable diets

Introduction

Beef contributes high-quality protein and bioavailable essential micronutrients to diets worldwide and plays a role in food security and rural livelihoods across diverse production systems. At the same time, beef production is associated with environmental impacts, particularly greenhouse gas emissions and land use. Evaluating the role of beef in sustainable food systems therefore requires consideration of both nutritional contributions and environmental outcomes.

Improvements in productivity and management practices have the potential to reduce environmental impacts per unit of production while maintaining or increasing supply. Achieving such gains requires continued investment, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where productivity gaps remain substantial. International initiatives have committed to reducing emissions intensity in alignment with national climate commitments under the Paris Agreement.

Assessment of environmental impacts depends on the metrics applied. Agricultural emissions are commonly reported per hectare or per unit of mass or energy. These approaches do not account for differences in nutrient density or bioavailability across foods. As a result, comparisons based solely on mass- or calorie-based metrics may not fully capture the nutritional contribution of foods that provide essential micronutrients in concentrated forms.

No single food is nutritionally indispensable; however, animal-source foods, including beef, provide nutrients that are commonly limited in diets globally (Lee et al., 2021; Smith et al., 2022). As ruminants, cattle convert inedible forages into meat and milk, utilizing land that is often unsuitable for crop production. Globally, a substantial proportion of agricultural land is not appropriate for cropping, and many grassland ecosystems have historically co-evolved with grazing herbivores.

These factors indicate that assessment of beef within food systems should integrate nutritional adequacy, environmental performance, and socio-economic considerations, rather than rely on single metrics in isolation.

Beef for Human Nutrition: The Spectrum of Human Need

Nutritional adequacy and accessible nutrition for all

Dietary needs vary across regions as well as individuals and differ within countries according to age, sex, health status, physical activity, and socio-economic context. A healthy, balanced diet can be achieved through diverse combinations of nutrient-dense foods with varying macronutrient and micronutrient profiles. It is well established that healthy dietary patterns may include beef as part of a varied dietary intake alongside plant-based and other animal-source foods, particularly when portion sizes are considered (U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2020; Kavanaugh et al., 2025).

Nutritional vulnerability persists across all regions, including high-income countries, and access to healthy diets varies substantially within countries according to income, geography, and food availability (van Meijl et al., 2020; Eicher-Miller, 2020; Stevens et al., 2022). Groups with elevated nutrient requirements, including children during the first 1,000 days of life, adolescents, pregnant and lactating women, menstruating women, and older adults, are at increased risk of inadequate nutrient intake (Beal et al., 2024; FAO et al., 2025).

Across many settings, livestock and other animal-source foods contribute to food security, livelihoods, and dietary quality. In contexts where access to diverse nutrient-rich foods is limited, animal-source foods can provide concentrated and bioavailable sources of essential nutrients. When produced within well-managed, locally adapted systems, cattle production may also support income generation and landscape management in certain environments (van Meijl et al., 2020; Kavanaugh et al., 2025).

Within this broader framework, beef represents a nutrient-dense source of high-quality protein (Moughan, 2021) and bioavailable micronutrients (Drewnowski et al., 2015). Its inclusion within balanced dietary patterns may be particularly relevant for populations at risk of nutrient deficiencies, depending on local dietary contexts and food availability (Adesogan et al., 2020; Eicher-Miller, 2020; Stevens et al., 2022; Beal et al., 2024).

Red meat in national and global dietary guidance

National food-based dietary guidelines are implemented in many countries and complemented by global recommendations from organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and expert-led initiatives, including the EAT-Lancet Commission. Several frameworks propose upper intake levels for red meat, although recommended amounts vary considerably. The World Cancer Research Fund (World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research, 2018) and WHO (2023) suggest limiting red meat intake to approximately 350–500 g per wk, whereas the Global Diet Quality Score proposes a limit of around 322 g per wk (Sabri et al., 2021), and the EAT-Lancet 2.0 reference diet recommends approximately 14–15 g per day (100–105 g per wk) (Rockström et al., 2025). Global and expert-led guidance on animal-source foods continues to evolve as new evidence emerges.

Dietary guidelines are periodically revised to reflect developments in the scientific evidence base. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, updated every 5 years, illustrate this evolution. In the 2025–2030 cycle, greater emphasis was placed on protein adequacy and nutrient density, informed more extensively by randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence (U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2026). This shift has supported inclusion of a range of nutrient-dense protein sources, including both animal- and plant-derived foods, within recommended dietary patterns. Core recommendations emphasizing fruits, vegetables, and fiber-rich grains have remained consistent.

Although dietary guidelines inform discussions around red meat consumption, they are designed to address overall dietary patterns rather than individual foods in isolation. Much of the evidence base underpinning red meat recommendations derives from nutritional epidemiology, which provides valuable population-level insights but is subject to recognized methodological limitations (Lescinsky, 2022; Stanton, 2024; Wang, 2024). Taken together, current evidence supports a range of red meat intakes within healthy dietary patterns, adapted to life stage, health status, and cultural context (Sanders et al., 2024).

Importantly, recommendations must be interpreted within global equity considerations. In many LMICs, improving access to animal-source foods remains relevant for addressing nutrient deficiencies and undernutrition. In higher-income settings, guidance more often emphasizes moderation and overall dietary quality within diverse, balanced dietary patterns.

Chronic disease risks and prevention

Evidence from RCTs does not consistently corroborate associations reported in observational studies regarding red meat intake and chronic disease risk factors, including cardiovascular disease (CVD), type 2 diabetes (T2D), overweight, and obesity (Maki et al., 2014; Klurfeld, 2018). While observational studies often report weak adverse associations or null findings, RCTs evaluating meat interventions generally show little or no effect on these outcomes (Maki et al., 2012; O’Connor et al., 2017; Guasch-Ferré et al. 2019; Zeraatkar et al., 2019; Sanders et al., 2023). Methodological limitations inherent to observational research, include exposure misclassification and residual confounding. Residual confounding may arise where differences in dietary patterns and lifestyle behaviors, such as lower intakes of fruits, vegetables, and dietary fiber, higher body weight, or lower levels of physical activity, are not fully accounted for in statistical models (Maki et al., 2014). These limitations contribute to characterizations of the evidence linking red meat to chronic disease risk as low certainty (Zeraatkar et al., 2019; Zhong et al., 2020; Papier et al., 2023; Shi et al., 2023).

Evidence specific to beef intake and cardiovascular risk has been synthesized in a systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) of 20 RCTs. Diets containing higher amounts of beef (mean approximately 161 g per day) compared with little or no beef intake did not adversely affect key blood lipid markers associated with CVD risk (Sanders et al., 2024). Similarly, an SRMA of 21 RCTs in individuals with or at risk of T2D reported no significant effects of red meat intake on insulin sensitivity, HOMA-IR, or fasting insulin, despite heterogeneity across studies (Sanders et al., 2023). A recent crossover RCT in adults with prediabetes also found no adverse effects of daily beef or poultry intake on markers of glucose homeostasis (Guzman et al., 2025).

Collectively, these findings indicate that red meat, including beef, does not adversely affect most cardiometabolic risk factors under controlled dietary conditions, although longer-term trials are required to strengthen the evidence base.

Evidence-informed dietary guidance should be grounded in systematic evaluation of the totality of high-quality data. While RCTs have limitations, including shorter duration and potential constraints on generalizability, synthesis of controlled trial evidence supports the inclusion of red meat, including beef, within healthy dietary patterns. These findings reinforce guidance that emphasizes overall diet quality and whole-food protein sources rather than focusing on exclusion of individual foods in isolation.

Micronutrient adequacy

Animal-source foods provide concentrated and highly bioavailable sources of essential micronutrients, including iron, zinc, vitamin B12, calcium, and vitamin A (FAO, 2023) nutrients can be more difficult to obtain in sufficient amounts from predominantly vegetarian dietary patterns. Improving micronutrient adequacy does not necessarily require increasing total food production; it may also be achieved by increasing the micronutrient density of foods consumed (Beal et al., 2017). However, dietary patterns designed primarily around environmental objectives may, in some contexts, reduce intake of bioavailable micronutrients when animal-source foods are substantially limited or excluded. (Katz-Rosene et al., 2023; Beal 2024).

Addressing micronutrient deficiencies within food system frameworks that restrict animal-source foods presents particular challenges for vulnerable populations across the life course (Katz-Rosene et al., 2023). Nutritional adequacy depends not only on total intake but also on nutrient quality, bioavailability, accessibility, and affordability. These considerations are especially relevant for groups with elevated nutrient requirements, including young children, adolescents, pregnant and lactating women, and older adults.

Evaluating trade-offs between sustainability objectives and micronutrient adequacy requires careful methodological consideration (Katz-Rosene et al., 2023). Environmental assessments, including life cycle analyses, vary in system boundaries, assumptions, and data sources, leading to differences in reported impacts across production systems (Lopes Silva et al., 2019). Similarly, nutrient profiling approaches differ in their treatment of protein quality and micronutrient bioavailability. Such variation can influence how dietary shifts toward greater reliance on plant-source foods are interpreted with respect to nutritional adequacy.

Analyses using nutrient density frameworks consistently identify animal-source foods, including beef, as effective contributors to addressing common micronutrient shortfalls (Beal and Ortenzi, 2022; Rose et al., 2026). Iron and zinc, for example, are abundant and highly bioavailable in beef (Melse-Boonstra, 2020; Mozaffarian et al., 2021; Ortenzi et al., 2023). Evidence from high-income settings also indicates associations between beef consumption and improved adequacy of nutrients such as iron, zinc, vitamin B12, and protein across specific life stages (Fulgoni and Fulgoni, 2023; Agarwal and Fulgoni, 2024).

Strengthening the integration of nutritional quality within environmental assessment frameworks, alongside improving transparency and reproducibility in life cycle methodologies, will be important for addressing global micronutrient challenges within sustainable food systems.

Meat processing

Food processing, particularly the classification of ultra-processed foods (UPF), has become an increasing focus in public health discourse. However, there is no universally accepted framework for defining ultra- or highly processed foods. The most widely applied system, NOVA, presents challenges when categorizing fresh and minimally processed meat products (Monteiro et al., 2019).

Under NOVA, certain foods such as burgers prepared from minced meat with culinary seasonings may be classified as ultra-processed, despite the addition of salt, herbs, or spices aligning more closely with the definition of processed rather than UPF (Monteiro et al., 2019). Mechanical processing methods, including grinding and tenderizing, alter the physical structure of meat to improve tenderness, cookability, and digestibility without materially changing its nutritional composition. Such processes are generally considered consistent with definitions of minimal processing, including those advanced by the American Meat Science Association. Clearer differentiation between mechanical processing and formulation-based ultra-processing may improve consistency in classification and interpretation.

Further processed meat products, which may include added non-culinary ingredients, can contribute protein and essential micronutrients but are often higher in sodium and saturated fat compared with minimally processed meat. Dietary guidance in many settings recommends moderation in the consumption of such products within the context of overall diet quality. Where feasible and culturally appropriate, minimally processed meats are generally favored within balanced dietary patterns.

Food processing, substitution, and whole food matrices

Highly processed plant-based meat alternatives, including plant-based and emerging cell-based or precision-fermented products, are often presented as environmentally sustainable options, although their true environmental footprints, particularly when compared with diverse livestock production systems, remain subject to debate (van Vliet et al., 2020). Evidence regarding the nutritional quality and health impacts of several emerging alternative protein categories, including algae- and cell-based foods, also remains limited (Beal et al., 2026). From a nutritional perspective, it has been argued that nutrients delivered within a whole-food matrix may be preferable to those added through fortification or enrichment, particularly with respect to bioavailability and physiological utilization (Fardet and Rock, 2022). Thus, from a nutrient adequacy perspective, substitution of plant-based meat alternatives for whole foods may pose risk to nutrient adequacy, especially for vulnerable populations with higher nutrient requirements; they are also usually high in sodium and food additives (Fardet and Rock, 2022).

The whole-food matrix concept recognizes that foods are more than the sum of their individual nutrients (van Vliet et al., 2020). In the case of beef, the combined nutritive and non-nutritive components, together with their physical and chemical interactions, may play an important role in supporting human health beyond the contribution of individual nutrients alone. Recognizing these distinctions is important when evaluating the healthfulness of foods and when developing dietary guidance that balances nutritional adequacy with sustainability considerations.

Beef Production within Sustainable Food Systems

Beef production systems intersect with multiple dimensions of sustainable development, including food security, livelihoods, environmental stewardship, and economic resilience. Livestock value chains support the livelihoods of more than one billion people globally, particularly in rural and marginal areas where alternative income opportunities are limited. In these contexts, beef production contributes to food availability, income generation, and social continuity.

Advancing sustainability in beef production requires attention to stewardship of land, water, animal health, and resource use. Reducing productivity gaps through improvements in genetics, nutrition, animal health, and management can increase output while lowering emissions intensity and reducing land use pressure. Improved husbandry practices enhance feed efficiency and reduce losses, supporting greater food availability without proportional herd expansion.

Waste reduction across the value chain is similarly important. In high-income countries, consumer-level waste and underutilization of the carcass represent significant inefficiencies. In lower-income settings, losses are more likely to occur earlier in the supply chain due to constraints in productivity, infrastructure, and animal health. Addressing these inefficiencies can improve both environmental performance and overall food system efficiency.

As food systems are increasingly interconnected, national policy decisions can influence production patterns and environmental outcomes beyond domestic borders through trade and displacement effects. Sustainability-oriented policies therefore require consideration of cross-border implications for food security, livelihoods, and environmental performance to avoid unintended global consequences (WHO, 2023; FAO, 2023; Stanton, 2024).

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a widely recognized framework for evaluating progress across economic, social, and environmental dimensions of development (UN, 2015). The livestock sector, including beef production, intersects with multiple SDGs through its contributions to food security, livelihoods, environmental management, and economic activity. At the same time, the sector is implicated in challenges related to climate change, land use, water resources, and public health.

Table 1 summarizes selected linkages between sustainable beef production and the SDGs, adapted from FAO’s World Livestock: Transforming the Livestock Sector through the Sustainable Development Goals (2018), with additional contextual considerations relevant to beef systems.

Table 1.

Direct impact potential when considering sustainable beef production and consumption

Sustainable development goal	Contribution of sustainable beef
1. No poverty	Livestock contribute to human capital by providing food, nutrition, and labor, especially in marginal areas. They support social capital and cultural heritage, add to natural capital through ecosystem services, and provide physical capital such as transport, draft power, and energy.
2. Zero hunger	Livestock improve diets through nutrient-dense animal source foods (ASFs) and income generation. ASFs provide readily digestible and balanced protein and bioavailable nutrients and fats. 33% of protein is from livestock, but more than 33% of essential amino acids.
3. Good health and wellbeing	Good animal health care, and appropriate use of vaccines, antimicrobials and other drugs is critical to human health. Livestock products are central to livelihoods and nutrition and therefore health; but production must avoid harms such as zoonoses, antimicrobial resistance and non-communicable diseases.
4. Quality education	Livestock income can support schooling, while education strengthens sustainable livestock systems.
5. Gender equality	Women contribute greatly to the livestock sector, representing 2/3 of low-income livestock keepers but face barriers to resources such as land, credit, and technical support/information. Inclusive livestock policies can advance gender equality.
6. Clean water and sanitation	Water scarcity threatens agriculture and livestock use about 30% of agricultural water, with beef production a major share. Efficiency in feed production and better soil management are needed. Runoff and waste must be controlled to protect water quality.
7. Affordable and clean energy	Most of the world’s electricity is still generated from fossil fuels. Livestock manure can produce biogas, reduce methane emissions and improve rural energy security. Cow manure is also used as a fuel for cooking in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
8. Decent work and economic growth	The livestock sector is growing and supports 1.5 billion livelihoods. Value addition in low-income countries is needed for equitable development. Inclusive livestock development can reduce inequality and recognize the sector’s importance to food security.
9. Industry innovation and infrastructure	Animal product processing is a fast-growing sector in low-income countries (LICs), offering opportunities for added value and inclusive growth. Many LICs still export primary or unprocessed products to wealthier nations. Investment in adding value in LICs is required to ensure equitable development.
10. Reduced inequalities	The livestock sector offers opportunities for income generation and job creation. With appropriate investment and policies to ensure inclusive livestock development, the sector can help reduce inequality and discrimination. High-income countries should recognise the central role of livestock in the livelihoods of 1.5 billion people, most in LICs and their role in food security and contributions to reduced inequality.
11. Sustainable cities and communities	Livestock production provides improved urban food security, nutrition and health, provides economic benefits and supports poverty alleviation. Investment and policies are needed to mitigate health and environmental risks associated with dense urban populations proximate to livestock.
12. Responsible production and consumption	There are large yield gaps between the top and bottom livestock producers. Genetics, health, and technology can reduce them. Demand (and supply) is growing fast in LMICs where nutritional deficit is also highest; support is needed to ensure that growth is through improvements in efficiency. Sustainable consumption is also important; and food waste is a significant problem everywhere. Efforts to improve appropriate food labelling, public nutritional literacy and advice to assist consumers making informed food choices can mitigate these issues.
13. Climate action	Climate change affects livestock through heat stress and disease, while livestock contribute greenhouse gas emissions, especially methane. Efficiency improvements can reduce impacts. Ranching methods that reduce inputs, intensify land use, and decrease land expansion are central to environmental sustainability
14. Life below water	Better management of grazing and soils can reduce runoff and improve water quality. Silvopastoral systems have been shown to improve water services in catchments and should be encouraged. Runoff from livestock systems needs to be controlled.
15. Life on land	Grazing methods that improve soil health, sequester carbon, and support biodiversity require investment. Ruminant stock provides ecosystem services in large areas of highly biodiverse grassland, which require grazing for their ecosystem health. The livestock sector is implicated in the land conversion complex in some regions; regenerative practices and carbon/biodiversity markets can help reverse land degradation.
16. Peace justice and strong institutions	Many of the world’s displaced population are livestock keepers from rural areas. Conflict, displacement and poor governance threaten pastoralist livelihoods and environmental stewardship. Protecting land rights of indigenous people to their land and the private property rights of legitimate landowners is essential. Climate change is increasingly contributing to social disruption, exacerbating the problem.
17. Partnerships for the goals	Global Multistakeholder partnerships exist in the livestock sector and are willing to work constructively with others to deliver on these goals. The SDGs are strongly interrelated and work on all is required from all sectors.

Conclusion

The global food system is tasked with delivering diets that are both nutritionally adequate and environmentally sustainable, while also supporting livelihoods and food security. Within this context, beef provides a concentrated source of high-quality protein and essential, bioavailable micronutrients, alongside important socio-economic contributions, particularly in LMICs. Cattle’s ability to convert inedible forages into nutrient-dense food allows beef production to contribute to human nutrition while utilizing land resources unsuitable for crop production.

Addressing climate change and environmental pressures requires acknowledgement of both the benefits and challenges associated with beef production. Evidence reviewed in this paper highlights the importance of focusing on emissions intensity, productivity, stewardship, and waste reduction, rather than exclusionary approaches to consumption. Improvements in animal health, feed efficiency, land management, and whole-carcass utilization offer meaningful opportunities to reduce environmental impacts while maintaining or enhancing food availability.

The case for moderate beef consumption within healthy, balanced dietary patterns is supported by the totality of evidence across nutrition, chronic disease risk, and micronutrient adequacy. Dietary guidance and food policy must account for regional diversity in nutritional needs, cultural food practices, and access to nutrient-dense foods. Approaches that prioritize overall diet quality and equity are more likely to support both human health and sustainability objectives than those focused on individual foods in isolation.

As reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals framework, sustainable food systems must simultaneously address nutrition, poverty, environmental stewardship, and economic resilience. Sustainable beef production intersects with these objectives across multiple domains. Continued progress will depend on evidence-informed policy, improved production practices, and integrated assessment approaches that consider environmental, nutritional, and socio-economic outcomes together. Within this context, beef can contribute to nutritionally adequate and environmentally responsible food systems when evaluated within balanced, context-specific dietary patterns.

Conflict of interest statement. Julia Sekula is employed by Beef + Lamb New Zealand Inc, an organization that represents the interests of New Zealand beef and lamb producers. Shalene McNeill is employed by National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a contractor to the Beef Checkoff, that represents the US’s beef cattle farmers and ranchers. Ruaraidh Petre is employed by the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, a multistakeholder network of beef value chain partners and NGOs that leads, measures and communicates improvements in beef sustainability. Zachary Gould has no disclosures to make.

Author Biographies

Julia Sekula is a Registered Dietitian and Head of Nutrition at Beef + Lamb New Zealand Inc, where she leads the organization’s nutrition strategy. Her work focuses on the translation of evidence-based nutrition science to inform consumer and stakeholder engagement. She has a background in dietetic education and clinical practice in chronic disease, alongside experience in leadership, and governance within the food systems sector.

Shalene McNeill, PhD, RDN, is Executive Director of Nutrition Science, Health, and Wellness at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. She leads the organization’s nutrition and health programming, which includes a national nutrition research program to investigate the role of beef consumption in healthy and sustainable dietary patterns. Dr. McNeill’s work focuses on collaboration with academic institutions, scientific societies, and public–private partnerships to advance rigorous, transparent research and public health application. She holds a PhD in Human Nutrition from Texas A&M University and is a registered dietitian nutritionist.

Ruaraidh Petre studied agriculture at the Scottish Agricultural College in Edinburgh, followed in 1992-3 by an MSc in Tropical Animal Production and Health at the Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine at the University of Edinburgh. His early career was in beef and sheep farming and ranching in New Zealand, Australia, and Scotland. In 1997, he transitioned to a career in international agricultural development, starting with a rainfed farming project in Western India, followed by directing the DCA Veterinary program, which trains and supports the paravet network throughout Afghanistan. In 2007, he became regional director of Solidaridad for Southern Africa, providing extension and support programmes to farmers throughout the region. In 2012, he took up the role of executive director with the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef.

Zachary Gould is an undergraduate student at Cornell University studying agricultural sciences. For the past two years, he has worked with the Food Systems and Global Change Lab, contributing to research on the environmental impacts of alternative proteins and preparing a publication on livestock’s role in economy-wide employment. Since 2024, he has been involved with the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, where he supports manuscript development and synthesis.

Author Contributions

Julia Sekula (Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing), Shalene McNeill (Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing), Ruaraidh Petre (Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing), and Zachary Gould (Writing—review & editing)