World's Meat Consumption: Luxembourg Eats The Most Per Person, India The Least

Of all the countries in the world, which consumes the most meat per person? The answer might surprise you.

"Nope, it's not the burger-loving U.S. (though we do consume the second most in the world) -- it's tiny European nation Luxembourg, which tipped the scales at 136.5 kg of meat per person a year, or roughly 300 pounds. Of the 177 countries included in the study, India consumed the least amount, at only seven pounds per person.

The information, gathered by the U.N. Food And Agriculture Organization (FAO) and analyzed by The Economist, indicates that consumption of meat has been on the rise worldwide over the last 50 years.

Tastes have changed, too:

Cow (beef and veal) was top of the menu in the early 1960s, accounting for 40% of meat consumption, but by 2007 its share had fallen to 23%. Pig is now the animal of choice, with around 99m tonnes consumed.

Although Western countries still eat the most meat per person, The Economist notes that it's middle-income countries like China that drive worldwide demand for it.

In addition to being linked to health problems, meat consumption has environmental experts crying foul. In 2008, Time reported that FAO data indicates that 18 percent of the Earth's greenhouse gas emissions were linked to worldwide livestock farming. In contrast, emissions from cars, trains, planes and boats worldwide combined accounted for only 13 percent.

Check out which world citizens consume the most and least meat below.

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[Roger Pelizzari]

08:38 AM on 05/25/2012

http://www.unwater.org/worldwaterday/faqs.html

It takes about 1500 liters of water to produce 1 kg of wheat, but it takes 10 times more to produce 1kg of beef! Producing feed crops for livestock, slaughtering and the processing of meat...also require large quantities of water.

[iowa67]

01:01 PM on 05/14/2012

Before you start running down farms and how they operate you should come spend some time on one.
I am thinking that we should quit hauling food into cities because the hydrocarbons that trucks produce every year is gagging the worlds population. That means all the worlds population that lives in cities will need to walk out to the country to pick up your food from now on since cars are killing people too. Good luck on the long walk!!!

[SanJoaquinValleyGrower]

03:31 PM on 10/29/2012

yes! yes! and yes!

You have to keep in mind though, farmers have way more friends than enemies in the cities.
The powers behind the anti meat ideology rely on the fact that less than 2% of the population farms anymore. That means that when they read a study claiming that beef uses such and such amount of water per pound of meat, without regard for the rain that would fall on all that grazing ground in the US anyway, those powers are hoping that there are enough city folk that won't follow up and investigate the facts for themselves.

The key will be education, and believing that most city folks want to be on our side, they just need to understand what, how, and why things happen the say they do on farms.

I talk to city folk every weekend at my farmer's markets stands in a major metropolitan area in CA. I know this to be true, at least on the west coast.

[Gayitri Ramesh]

04:39 PM on 05/12/2012

Luxembourg, Probably a lot of day trippers from belgium france germany eating a restaurent dinner/lunch and heading back. marginally affecting France Gremany but hugely affecting Luxembourg.
Should really exclude countries under 50 million people in 'global' comparisons. When you have 1 'happy' Denmark of 5 million people and 1 no so bubbly China with 1.3 B people , it is pointless.

[Gayitri Ramesh]

04:31 PM on 05/12/2012

China and India, have figured out that the best way to get the west is to eat more meat and drive more cars, i.e be just like them.
There is no anti ballistic Meat treaty, there is no Auto non proliferation treaty. So attack them by becoming just like them.
China is buying a formerly US owned refinery in Aruba that was processing america's oil temporarily parked in Venezuela.
Now that will go to China, likewise Canada's oil. Then america can preach how bad cars and meat are, because now 'those other' people are using it.

[Roger Pelizzari]

01:35 PM on 05/10/2012

As Beef Cattle Become Behemoths, Who Are Animal Scientists Serving?

Answer: the pharmaceutical companies

Powerful report on drugs used for fattening cattle...

The Chronicle of Higher Education
http://chronicle.com/article/As-Beef-Cattle-Become/131480/

[I-US]

07:10 PM on 05/17/2012

Indeed. Big Meat and Big PhRma go hand in hand in more ways than one.

[Roger Pelizzari]

04:01 PM on 05/08/2012

Margaret Mellon, sr. scientist, Food & Environment
April 26, 2012

Meat and Global Warming Emissions
It turns that the food sector accounts for 14 percent of U.S. global warming emissions and most of that is due to meat. Why is meat such a problem? Let’s start with beef, a trifecta of bad news on the warming front.

Happy cows grazing at the boyhood home of President Thomas Jefferson in Virgina. (Photo by Lance Cheung. Courtesy of USDA)

First, the stomach design that allows cows to digest raw plant materials makes them belch out methane, a gas that has 21 times more heat-trapping potential than carbon dioxide.

Second, although capable of thriving on grass, cows are are often gathered into confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and fed corn to fatten them up quickly. It takes about 7 pounds of grain to produce one pound of grain-fed beef and the emissions generated in corn production are part of the global warming tally for cows.

Finally, cows in CAFOs produce huge amounts of manure stored on site in piles or lagoons. When manure breaks down, even more methane is produced—yes, by a process similar to what goes on in a cow’s stomach.

Add all that up and it’s no surprise that cows have an outsized impact on global warming. In fact, a pound of beef is responsible for some 18 times the climate emissions of a pound of pasta.

[FaunaAndFlora]

12:07 AM on 05/09/2012

First, please explain to me how meat is worse than dairy. You do eat dairy, right? Dairy animals consume at least ten times more "grains" than ruminants that are raised for meat. (I use parentheses because most "grains" fed to livestock are wheat middlins, oilmeal cake and distillers grain... the byproducts of flour, vegetable oil and ethanol production.)

Second, there are no more ruminants now than there were 500 years ago. Only the type of ruminant has changed (for example, more cattle - fewer bison). Unlike, say, rice paddies, cattle, lambs and goats are not a new source of methane.

Third, that manure can and should be used as fertilizer. Some farmers are using their manure as fertilizer and as a biofuel. (Methane can be used as fuel.)

Here are a few links you might appreciate.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/9qz764vp#page-1

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=9336

http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/aph/stories/2008-atmospheric-methane.html

[Roger Pelizzari]

07:22 AM on 05/09/2012

We only eat dairy from grass fed cows. Cows were never meant to eat grains. When they eat grains, they get sick and their milk turns sour quickly. Not good.

Big commercial dairies use grains to fatten their cattle quickly. This is terrible for the cows and the environment. They also sell manure for biofuel. Agribusiness is the problem. It cares nothing for the health of animals, and nothing for the environment.

[TisKishnsing]

03:53 PM on 05/07/2012

ok. where is all this leadin to? i don't see the point in arguing who's eatin meat and who's not. live ur lives u pathetic fellas

[Margot Jupiter]

01:18 PM on 05/11/2012

Did you not read the article? The amount of meat consumption per person contributes to climate change via green house gas emissions, not to mention the devasting environmental degradation (notably deforestation, so the loss of carbon sinks) the meat industry causes.

[TisKishnsing]

03:12 PM on 05/11/2012

yeah...well, i guess they should minimise eating meat and be more of vegetarians

[frank day]

01:26 PM on 05/07/2012

Public Announcement: Please realize that an article like this is likely to bring out astroturfers for

the meat industry. So be discriminating when reading the thread.

[Maggie K]

03:39 PM on 05/07/2012

^^Disclaimer: Frank and others who've made this claim have no foundation for it other than the fact that people exist and comment on here who don't agree with their views on health and nutrition.

Lazy cheap tactic on your part frank. Do the words absolutist and zealot mean anything to you?

[elcerritan]

04:19 PM on 05/07/2012

The one thing we can count on is that French Toast, I-US, and frank day will show up with insults, misinformation, and outright lies directed at people who don't share their views. It's apparently all they've got. It really makes vegans and vegetarians look like a bunch of very angry people with mental health problems. Thank goodness I have friends who are vegetarians and vegans who are NOT like these nasty people or I'd have a VERY bad opinion of members of "Team Veg" in general.

[I-US]

05:35 PM on 05/07/2012

Huh. What was that about initiating personal attacks? Who is referring to whom as "team" anything while attempting to call for civil discourse not based on an "us" versus "them" mentality?

[elcerritan]

01:45 AM on 05/08/2012

I hope you're wearing your asbestos underwear, frank.

[I-US]

03:13 AM on 05/07/2012

The article that we're all commenting on says that India consumes the least amount of meat but provides an amount that clearly shows some percentage of the population consumes some meat, so it's strange that people are carrying on as if posters on here have claimed that nobody in India eats meat ever. Some people have suggested that the low amount of meat consumed is caused by economical levels; some have suggested that it is caused by historical, traditional, and cultural reasons. It seems reasonable that both explanations would have some validity in a country of over 1 billion people.

[elcerritan]

03:29 AM on 05/07/2012

People are not "carrying on as if posters on here have claimed that nobody in India eats meat ever." People are "carrying on" about the assertions by one poster in particular who claimed that most Indians are vegetarians (not true), that most Hindus are Brahmins (not true), that no Brahmins ever eat meat (not true), that Indians who DO eat meat eat mostly chicken (not true). Capice? I don't think anyone's disputing the likelihood that the relatively low per capita consumption of meat is attributable to both economic factors and religious/cultural factors.

[I-US]

03:57 AM on 05/07/2012

getalittlesneakpeek: "which means they are SUPPOSED to follow a vegetarian diet" (emphasis added).

[elcerritan]

04:05 AM on 05/07/2012

Did you actually read ALL of his INCORRECT statements? The ones that people are "carrying on" about? Or is your reading comprehension problem catching up with you again?

[BlackYowe]

08:24 PM on 05/06/2012

Yeah but this year India will also overtake the United States as the world’s third largest beef exporter. That kind of changes the big picture:
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/04/30/food-fascism-the-vegetarian-hypocrisy-in-india/

[FaunaAndFlora]

11:40 PM on 05/06/2012

Thought you might appreciate these articles.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7708836/A-Brahmins-Cow-Tales-History-of-Beef-Eating-in-India-by-Hindus

http://sociology101.net/readings/Indias-sacred-cow.pdf

[crimminy]

07:32 PM on 05/06/2012

Interesting - the more impoverished countries eat less meat.... but really, that model biting into that hunk of raw meat...gross....I wonder if she got Lady Gaga's hand-me-down meat dress for that photo shoot....

[Alvarask]

06:07 AM on 05/07/2012

It's a part of HuffPo's vegan agenda.

[NyJimbo]

02:33 PM on 05/06/2012

"United States (276 Pounds/Year)"

Really? I'm a meat eater and even I find it hard to believe we consume that much per person. Considering all the people who are vegan or on restricted diets who the heck is eating all of this meat ? I'm a big fat bastard and I dont think I average a half pound per day, sure some days I can kill a pound of steak but some days are meatless and thats not by choice, its just that some meals dont have meat, like a regular pizza or many pasta dishes.

I would love to see who is maintaining this average for us, meat ain't cheap, so its gotta add up at the register.

[Alvarask]

06:08 AM on 05/07/2012

I don't think this IS what people are eating. I think this is the meat that is available for eating and probably doesn't account for wastage.

[J0E1]

12:02 PM on 05/07/2012

The article is implying "consumption" of meat per person, per year.

[getalittlesneakpeek]

09:20 AM on 05/06/2012

I received a lot of backlash on my comment that Indians eat less meat because of their lifestyle and not whether they can afford if or not. this is my reasoning:

70% of Indians in India are Hindus...the rest (approx. 15-30%) are Muslims (there is also a small Christian population).

Think about it logically. 55% of the 70% of Hindus are Brahmins, which means they are supposed to follow a vegetarian diet. Now you said that many Hindus arent vegetarians, and that's TODAY. One generation ago, that wasnt the case. ALL Hindus are forbidden to eat cows, because they are sacred. Muslims are forbidden to eat pigs because they are considered dirty ("not halal").

So, there is no beef or pork production (like we have in the US). There are also no turkeys in India, and they also do not eat veal. Most Indians (in India) only eat chicken.

When you take into consideration the HUGE population of India, these numbers and customs make a HUGE difference in meat production.

[getalittlesneakpeek]

01:27 PM on 05/06/2012

thank you for clarifying!

[Maggie K]

04:09 PM on 05/06/2012

No backlash, just a simple correction. I like to keep things factual and accurate, and fair and reasoned. I know you aren't interested in those things, but rather your agenda. If you continue to try to silence others by fabricating information and essentially smearing other posters, I will report you.

[elcerritan]

05:31 PM on 05/06/2012

Part 1:

Actually, you "got a lot of backlash" because you don't know what you're talking about. Your notion of what percentage of Hindus are Brahmins is laughably over-inflated. About 80% of Indians, or about 968,000,000 people, are Hindus (at least nominally). A little less than 5% of the total Indian population of 1,210,000,000 are Brahmins, so let's call it 5%, which is somewhat inflated, which means that about 6,050,000 individuals are nominally Brahmins, which amounts to 6.25% of nominal Hindus, not 55% as you claimed.

You also act as if all Brahmins are actually vegetarians, but I know many, many Indians, including many, many Brahmins (and I'm guessing you don't and that you've never even been in the country), and most of them are NOT vegetarians, and even quite a few of them who aren't actually religious DO eat beef (same with non-religious Muslims who eat pork).

You say there's no beef for pork production and qualify it by saying "like we have in the U.S." and it's true that it's not "like we have in the U.S." but it's NOT true that beef and pork are not available or are not eaten. Cow slaughter is legal in West Bengal, Kerala, and the North Eastern States, and is also widely carried out ILLEGALLY elsewhere. Recently, conservative Hindus had pushed for tougher anti-cow- slaughter laws and enforcement, which wouldn't have happened if the slaughter weren't actually going on!

Cont'd.

[getalittlesneakpeek]

06:31 PM on 05/06/2012

Indians and Brahmins in INDIA are seriously vegetarian. Many Indians and Brahmins in AMERICA are not.

and yes i HAVE been to that country because i AM Indian and i AM Brahmin.

and okay. even if my numbers arent correct (i used wikipedia), your numbers are high enough to stop meat production.

that's all.

[BlackYowe]

08:04 PM on 05/06/2012

Have a look at the truth: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/04/30/food-fascism-the-vegetarian-hypocrisy-in-india/

[HighInfoVoter]

09:10 AM on 05/06/2012

Stretching the listing across another slideshow that adds nothing, but separates the data into less-easily compared pieces that communicate less.

Put the information in single table so it can read quickly. Data like this in a slideshow with unrelated images is a very ineffectual method of communication.

[klbrz]

07:34 PM on 05/07/2012

They aren't really trying to communicate anything. They have just found that they get more clicks if they have pretty pictures. :/

[sabelmouse]

01:13 PM on 05/08/2012

i mostly avoid clicking on the slideshow now. there's little info anyway and it's a waste of time.

[Bonnie Larkin]

06:42 AM on 05/06/2012

I grew up on a farm / ranch - still do the same for a living
I believe in eating meat - lots of it !
There is nothing better than prime rib / rack of ribs on a pit
Have you ever noticed that vegetarians always look pale and sickly ?
If not eating meat were the natural food for man to consume -- why the need for vitamins for those that refuse to eat meat ?

[Melanie Dean]

09:28 AM on 05/06/2012

Do you eat iodized salt? Drink flourinated water? Eat bread products and flour enriched with vitamins and minerals? Drink milk or OJ fortified with vitamin D? Yeah, I thought so. By your definition, those things aren't "natural" and yet your meat-centered diet seems to lack them.

[FaunaAndFlora]

12:13 AM on 05/07/2012

Industrial foods are fortified to either replace the nutrients that were lost in the processing (bread, pasta, flour), to add nutrients that are no longer available due to soil depletion (iodine) or to deal with a problem caused by a sedentary, indoor lifestyle (vitamin D).

For what it's worth, all nutrients can be obtained from meat... even vitamin C if the meat is raw or lightly cooked.

[French Toast]

01:13 PM on 05/06/2012

Google "Urijah Faber". He's a vegetarian. Look how pale and sickly he is. Bill Pearl won a Mr. Universe title as a vegetarian. Joe Namath became a vegetarian while still playing. You sound like you're going off of stereotypes and don't really know what you're talking about. Get off your ranch and go meet people.

"If not eating meat were the natural food for man to consume -- why the need for vitamins for those that refuse to eat meat ? "

Apparently you've never heard of seaweed, nutritional yeast, yeast extract spreads (Marmite), or spirulina. Most of the rest can be gotten from fortified foods. And we're not talking things geared towards vegans. We're talking breakfast cereals. Also, the absorption of b12 through meat has been found to be very overstated. And if we're going strictly by b12 content, oysters and clams put your little ranchy meat to shame, to an exponential degree really.

[FaunaAndFlora]

12:20 AM on 05/07/2012

Liver is the best source of B12. And for what it's worth, the 'absorption of B12 through meat' hasn't been overstated. What interferes with B12 absorption (at least in this country) is the overuse of antacids. Based on my own experience and observations, I have to wonder if all this indigestion is caused by the amount of gluten in the Standard American Diet.

[Bonnie Larkin]

05:37 AM on 05/07/2012

well I hope you continue to enjoy your diet of twigs and stems - that means more steak dinners with baked potatoes and real butter for my family.
Please note that we are farmers/ranchers - so you can kiss your assumption that we eat overly processed foods good-bye.
While you slap yourself on the back about your ' better diet ' I ask you just how capable of securing your food supply yourself are you ? Us well -- we know how to grow meat / veggies - how to store / preserve them , how to crop / butcher - etc -
I ask you - how long can you survive without outside assistance ?