Here is a list of what we consider the most credible figures and statistics based on the evidence in our database. All $ figures USD unless stated otherwise. *Note: This page is currently being updated *
Skip ahead:
Transformation | Externalities | Concentration | Subsidies | Lobbying | Bailouts | Capital Misallocation | Investment | Trade | Labour
Transformation
The Food Systems Economic Commission (FSEC) estimates that the total hidden costs of the burdens current food systems place on people and the planet are estimated at $15 trillion annually, equivalent to 12% of global GDP in 2020:
- Health costs – $11 trillion/year
- Environmental costs – $3 trillion/year
- Structural poverty – $1 trillion/year
Meanwhile, the net benefits of transforming the food system – through reducing hidden costs and shifting diets in high-income areas towards diets more in line with EAT-lancet guidelines – are worth $5-10 trillion USD a year, equivalent to between 4 and 8% of global GDP in 2020 (Laderchi et al. 2024).
High-income countries need to reduce per-capita animal-sourced food intake by ~68% and MICs by ~62% by 2050 – while increasing their intake of fruits, nuts vegetables and legumes – to reach healthy-diet benchmarks, producing a 50% drop in global livestock production.
A dietary shift away from animal-sourced foods could save $7.3 trillion worth of production-related health burden and ecosystem degradation while cutting carbon emissions (Lucas et al., 2023).
Externalities
Global external health and environmental costs and costs of food systems may be ~two times larger than food valued at market prices: ~$20 trillion of externalities versus $9 trillion of food value in the markets (Braun & Hendrichs, 2023).
Globally, approximately $2 of production-related external costs were embedded in every dollar of food expenditure in 2018 (Lucas et al., 2023).
Antibiotic Resistance (AMR)
An estimated 65-70% of total antibiotics globally are used in animal agriculture. Some regions use up to 80% of their total antibiotics for livestock instead of human medicine. (World Organization for Animal Health, 2024).
Despite industry claims, in the United States, about 65% of medically important antibiotics (MIAs) are used in food animals (CDC 2023).
AMR could cost up to US$ 3.4 trillion in GDP losses per year in 2030 and up to $1 trillion in additional healthcare costs by 2050 (Olga, J. et al., 2017).
Resistant infections already extend hospital stays by ~7 days, on average, and roughly double mortality odds. Healthcare costs for resistant infections are up to 10x higher than for non-resistant infections (OECD Health Policy Studies 2023).
Every $1 invested in AMR intervention returns an estimated $28. (Global Leaders Group on Antimicrobial Resistance, 2024)
In some countries such as Greece, India and Turkey, more than 40% of all infections caused by the 12 antibiotic-superbug combinations that OECD studied are expected to be resistant to antibiotics by 2035. (World Organization for Animal Health, 2024)
Almost as many people die from AMR than from HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and pneumonia combined (GBD Antimicrobial Resistance Collaborators 2024).
Diseases
The emergence and rise of zoonotic diseases has been linked to agricultural intensification and environmental change (Jones et al., 2013).
Since 2009, the direct cost of zoonotic diseases has been estimated at more than $20 billion and indirect losses at over $200 billion (Barratt et al. 2019). Indirect costs from these diseases can be much higher.
Total costs of infectious diseases within the livestock sector have been estimated at up to 20% of turnover in developed countries and as high as 35-50% of turnover in the developing world. (Pal, A & Chakrapaty, A 2022)
Over 20% of global animal production losses are caused by animal diseases, with a value of approximately US$300 billion. (Karmacharya. D 2024)
In sub-Saharan Africa, endemic diseases are estimated to cause annual losses of US$4 billion, or 25% of the total value of livestock production. (Countryman, A. et al. 2024)
The outbreak of African Swine Fever in 2019 led to the slaughter of over 200 million pigs in China, ~30% of their pig population, with estimates of the total economic loss at ~US$111.2 billion. (You et al., 2021). Global pork prices were estimated to increase by 17-85%.
Annual losses from mastitis are ~$2.0 billion in the U.S. and India ~Rs. 6053.21 crore per year. Total economic losses to U.S. dairy farmers have been estimated at $400 to $500 million, or anywhere from $23 – $150 per cow. (Pal, A & Chakrapaty, A 2022)
Every year, up to 40% of global crop production is lost due to plant pests and diseases, costing the global economy over USD $220 billion. (FAO 2022)
Environmental Externalities
Animal-sourced proteins can carry hidden environmental costs 5-10x higher than plant-based proteins on a mass basis: beef and lamb: €9.46-12.70/kg vs €0.22-2.08/kg for plant-based. (Azarkamand et al., 2024)
Hidden environmental costs of 1 kg of the different protein sources in the Spanish market in 2023.
Annual subsidies to nature-decline sectors total $1.7-3.2T (1.6-3.3% of global GDP), of which agriculture subsidies account for up to $851B (Reyes-García et al. 2025)
The estimated economic losses due to illegal logging, fishing, and wildlife trade are $1 trillion–$2 trillion per year- with more than 90% of these losses from ecosystem services that are not currently priced by the market (World Bank 2019).
In 2019 the beef industry in Brazil (including retail and associated sectors) contributed 8.5% of the country’s GDP but was linked to 90% of deforestation in the Amazon, causing losses equivalent to 15% of the country’s $285 billion GDP. (Figaredo & Chatsuwan, 2022)
Concentration
A sector is considered heavily concentrated when four firms (or fewer) control at least 40% of a market . Corporate concentration often leads to higher prices, reduced innovation, barriers to entry, wage suppression, poor working conditions, negative ecological and social externalities, greater vulnerability to system shocks; and marketing, research and lobbying advantages (Gaucher-Holm et al., 2023).
Every sector of the food supply chain is heavily concentrated. Millions of farmers must buy seeds, fertilizers and chemicals from the same few firms, while selling to just a few food processors and traders.
Four companies (Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge & Louis Dreyfus) control 90% of the global grain trade (Putz, 2018)
Four companies (Chem China, Corteva, Bayer & BASF) control 66% of the world’s agricultural chemicals markets (Howard & Hendrickson, 2020)
Four companies control 53% (Chem China, Corteva, Bayer & LimaGrain) of the world’s global seed market and three companies (Deer, CNH & Kubota) sell almost half of the world’s farm machinery (Clapp & Purugganan, 2020)
Six firms control 72% of the animal pharmaceutical market (ETC Group, 2022)
Ten food and beverage processing firms make 34% of sales earned by the top 100 firms and top ten retailer companies control 11% of consumer spending (IPES, 2023)
Over 70% of the world’s farmland is owned or controlled by just 1% of its farmers (Anseeuw & Baldinelli, 2020)
Four companies control 99% of the global chicken-breeding market (Agropoly 2013 but up to date)
Four firms run 75% of the world’s corporate beef packing plants & abattoirs and another four firms control 70% of corporate pork slaughter (Mooney et al., 2017).
Three companies (JBS, Marfrig, and Minerva) dominate Brazil’s beef market, accounting for over two-thirds of exports. (Barons, 2022)
JBS, Tyson, and Cargill are the world’s top meat companies, with combined annual revenues exceeding $126 billion. (Barons, 2022)
Four dairy firms control 44% of the global dairy market.
The world’s largest dairy company, Nestlé, generated over $24 billion from dairy sales in 2020.
As the largest dairy company in the Middle East and Africa, Almarai controlled 44% of the dairy market in the Persian Gulf region by 2014.
The global food supply’s domination by a very horizontally and vertically industrial concentrated has made it alarmingly non-resilient:
- Just four plants – wheat, maize, rice & soybean – account for ~60% of calories grown by farmers (D’Odorico et al., 2018)
- Four countries sell 76% of the world’s corn (US, Argentina, Brazil & France)
- Five countries sell 77% of the rice (Thailand, Vietnam, India, US & Pakistan)
- Five countries supply 65% of the wheat (US, France, Canada, Russia & Australia). (D’amour & Anderson, 2020)
- Three countries grow 86% of the world’s soybeans, which accounts for ¾ of world’s animal feed (Walton, 2019)
- 51% of the world’s crop calories are devoted to animal production (D’Odorico et al., 2018)
Meat
Four companies control 99% of the global chicken-breeding market (Agropoly 2013 but up to date)
Four firms run 75% of the world’s corporate beef packing plants & abattoirs and another four firms control 70% of corporate pork slaughter Mooney et al., 2017
Subsidies
Subsidies involve a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to private corporations. Theoretically they ensure the economic viability of farmers, but their distribution tends to favour large agribusinesses, intensive farming operations (subsidies are often tied to production volume) and export-oriented producers.
Overall Support
In 2016–18, the governments of the 79 countries for which data are available (accounting for 83% of global production) supported agricultural production and food consumption with measures that generated net transfers of $638 billion per year (Gautam et al., 2022).
The true global number likely exceeds US$1 trillion and 90% cause harm to natural areas (Damania et al., 2023),
Subsidies for products such as soybeans, palm oil, and beef cause farmers to push into the forest frontier and are responsible for 14% of forest loss every year. (World Bank, 2023)
Fisheries subsidies exceed $35 billion annually and are a key driver of dwindling fish stocks, oversized fishing fleets, and falling profitability:
Survey finds that 78% of US consumers want the government to subsidize food for direct human consumption over feed for farmed animals. ~30% of US farm subsidies go to produce feed crops for dairy, eggs & meat (Elbein, 2023).
82% of EU’s agricultural subsidies (through CAP) support emission-intensive animal products (38% directly, 44% for animal feed) Kortleve et al. 2024
Current support for agriculture delivers low value for money as a way of helping farmers; for every dollar of public support, the return to farmers is just 35 cents (Gautam et al., 2022)
Through a combination of direct subsidies, tariffs and price controls, the world’s major agricultural producers are providing support worth up to US $42.5 billion annually for ingredients such as beef and pork, which are used to create ultra-processed foods (UPFs)
Plant- vs. Animal-Based Subsidies
Subsidies for plant-based alternatives are significantly lower compared to those for meat and dairy industries: in 2023, global public funding for alternative proteins amounted to approximately $523 million, with an all-time investment total of $1.67 billion (GFI, 2023).
In contrast, the US and EU provide around 1,000x more subsidies to meat and dairy industries than to plant-based alternatives. Between 2014 and 2020, the EU allocated about 1,200x more public funding to animal-sourced food products, and in the US, approximately 800x more public funding went to meat and dairy products compared to plant-based alternatives (Vallone et al., 2023).
45% of dairy production is subsidized by the US government (Grey, Clark, Shih and Associates, Limited, 2018).
The 2023 Farm Bill included over $30 billion in subsidies for meat and dairy, but just $50 million for plant-based alternatives (EWG).
Distribution & Benefits
Current support for agriculture delivers low value for money as a way of helping farmers; for every dollar of public support, the return to farmers is just 35 cents.
Repurposing ~$70 billion of distorting subsidies a year (the equivalent of 1% of global ag output) would lead to net economic benefit of over $2 trillion USD in 20 years. (Gautam et al., 2020)
Farmers in the United States own only about 55% of subsidized farmland – non-farmer landlords own the remaining 45%. If the subsidy is fully passed on to the land owners through higher rental rates, almost 43% of all farm subsidies end up in the pockets of non-farmers (Kirwan and Roberts, 2016).
In the EU the distribution of domestic support includes 40-60% to animal production (such as breeding, fattening), 10-30% for milk and 20-30% for vegetables, fruits & nuts (Flaig and Boysen-Urban, 2019).
Repurposing Subsidies
Repurposing current agricultural subsidies to support the production of healthier and more sustainable foods could significantly increase the consumption of fruits, vegetables, and other horticultural products.
In OECD countries, fruit and vegetable consumption could increase by 55 g/d (10%) on average, and in non-OECD countries by 31 g/d (5%). These changes in consumption would lead to 444,000 fewer deaths in reductions in diet-related mortality (Springmann and Freud, 2022).
Disclosure
In the US, a change in disclosure of recipients receiving subsidies in 2019 – naming banks vs the recipients directly – makes it impossible to know how many people may be getting such payments, what they’re growing, and other key information – effectively concealing the beneficiaries of almost $3.1 billion in taxpayer dollars between 2019 and 2021 (Schechinger and Faber, 2023).
Lobbying
The US sector’s spending on lobbying legislation like the Farm Bill rose from $145 million in 2019 to $177 million last year (over half a billion dollars in four years), which is more than the total big oil and gas spent (Goswami and Stillerman, 2024)
Money spent by meat producers on lobbying the European Union government is three times higher than that spent by plant-based lobby groups, and 190 times higher in the US. Disproportionate spending means disproportionate access and influence. (Vallone & Lambin, 2023)
The top 10 meat and dairy companies and six largest trade associations, in the US alone, have spent over $330M just on lobbying related the environment since 2000 (Lazarus, McDermid, & Jacquet, 2021)
*Note, often times you will notice the pharmaceutical industry is one of the top global lobbyers. However, a good share of their business comes from animal agriculture, including over 70% of antibiotics.
Bailouts
Government bailouts for meat and dairy companies have been substantial, especially in recent years due to economic disruptions like trade wars and the COVID-19 pandemic.
U.S bailouts for animal agriculture more than doubled from $20 billion to over $50 billion in 2020, largely due to the COVID-19 pandemic and trade wars. Specific examples include $1.2 billion for pig farmers and $3.5 billion for dairy producers. In stark contrast, plant-based milk producers and oat farmers received only $44 million (Essig, 2022)
In the U.S., the Trump administration significantly increased support for the agriculture sector, including meat and dairy, during the trade wars and the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020 alone, subsidies and bailouts for these industries more than doubled to over $50 billion, (Luiz, 2022)
The USDA has historically implemented various programs to support the dairy industry, including the purchase of surplus products and financial assistance to manage price volatility.
For example, during the trade war with China, the USDA provided up to $12 billion in financial aid to affected agricultural producers, with significant portions allocated to meat and dairy farmers (Nankin et al., 2009)
Capital Misallocation
In 2023, $7.3T was invested globally in activities that degrade nature, against only $220B in nature-based solutions: a 33-to-1 destruction-to-protection ratio. Of that $7.3T, $4.9T came from private investment; private nature-negative finance grew a further 12% in 2024.
78% of EU27+UK fixed agricultural assets (€258B) are tied to animal-sourced food production, exposing the sector to €61-255B in stranded-asset risk under dietary transition scenarios.
Investment
Only 30% of shares in the largest agriculture and food firms are not owned by Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street and Capital Group (Clapp, 2017)
Livestock-related loans represent ~0.25% of major bank portfolios but account for ~11% of financed emissions, a 44-fold emissions disproportionality.
As of March 2023, a total of $323.3 billion in shareholdings and bondholdings were held by private financial institutions in the world’s largest 55 big livestock companies. Just five of the 55 companies – JBS, Marfrig, Cargill, Tyson Foods, and Minerva – combined cause an estimated 595 million tonnes CO2-equivalent in greenhouse gas emissions per year (more than the total emissions of the UK and Ireland.)
Investment in plant-based proteins has the highest emissions impact per dollar of invested capital of any sector. If plant-based proteins could replace the total addressable market, the impact return on capital employed – $221-$354 billion per trillion dollars of invested capital – is at least 3x greater than anything that corresponding abatement investments in other high-emitting sectors of the economy can achieve.
Based on value of $50-$80 per ton of CO2 (Source: Morach et al, 2022)
Trade
Food and agricultural trade nearly quintupled from USD 400 billion in 2000 to USD 1.9 trillion in 2022, with food trade making up around 85 percent of all trade in food and agriculture
Food and agricultural trade nearly quintupled, rising from $400 billion in 2000 to $1.9 trillion in 2022.
Adjusted for global growth, food trade increased from 930 kcal per capita per day in 2000 to 1,640 kcal per capita per day in 2021.
Almost 20% of global calories consumed are provided by trade (Manduna, 2024).
Though only 17% of all food by weight is currently traded across borders, it accounts for nearly 80% of calories in certain regions. And the value of trade has grown 8x over the past five decades, and production has tripled. Staple grains, mostly for animal feed, dominate this trade. (Laderchi et al., 2024)
Globally, an estimated 37% of harvested major crops is used for domestic food crops – the remainder goes to exports, processing, industry or other uses. (Laderchi et al., 2024)
Source: FAO, 2022
Livestock companies dominates a small number of regions characterised by both excess production and excess per capita consumption of meat and dairy, sometimes called the ‘surplus protein regions:
International trade agreements have included specific provisions for meat products that improve market access and create trade opportunities.
International meat trade will expand in response to growing demand from countries in Asia and the Near East, where production will remain largely insufficient to meet demand. Import demand in several middle and high income Asian countries has been steadily increasing in recent years due to a shift toward diets that include higher quantities of animal products (OECD-FAO 2021).
Exports
More than one-third of the value of global agricultural trade is concentrated among several large economies.
In 2025, the top five global agricultural exporters were the European Union, the United States, Brazil, China, and Canada (USDA Economic Research Service, 2026).
The Cairns Group (19 countries) together account for more than 25% of the world’s agricultural exports (Cairns Group)
Brazil, the U.S., and the EU dominate the global export of animal products, particularly beef, pork, and chicken, accounting for more than 60% of global meat trade (OECD-FAO, 2021)
Imports
40% of the world’s population depends on imported food, particularly in regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, making these areas vulnerable to global trade disruptions and price volatility (World Bank, 2023).
Net importers have roughly 2x the food insecurity of net exporters. 86% of countries are net importers of cereals, with only 34 nations currently classified as net exporters (UNCTAD 2025).
Labour
Under plant-based dietary scenarios, 46–83 of 179 countries (26–46%) see greater agricultural labor demand in 2030, driven by horticulture. Reductions concentrate in livestock-dominant economies.
Think we should update this or have a different interpretation? Contact us directly, we’re always open to discussing the evidence.