The Environmental Impacts of the Western Diet

Article at a Glance:

• The Standard American Diet is characterized by ultra-processed, nutrient-poor foods that offer little health benefit and are destroying the planet. 
• The environmental impacts of the Western diet are significant.
• The biggest culprits are animal foods, thanks to the negative effects of overpopulated farms and the resources required to raise livestock. 
• It’s not too late to make dietary changes that are better for the environment, such as adopting a more plant-predominant menu. 

It’s no exaggeration to say the Standard American Diet (SAD) is, well… sad. It’s a diet dominated by convenience, cheap calories, and an unexpected side of ethical issues and environmental destruction. 

Think of it as the fast food joint of dietary trends: easy, greasy, and harmful if consumed without caution. From hyper-processed snacks in crinkly bags to super-sized burgers, SAD relies on agricultural practices that guzzle our natural resources, pollute waterways, and contribute to climate change. 

Here’s the good news: it doesn’t have to be this way, and you can do something about it. You hold a lot of power on your plate. No, for real. 

By understanding the environmental impacts of the Western diet, we can make smarter choices that aren’t just focused on waistlines and wallets—they help protect and save the Earth, today and years from now.

Here’s how our everyday meals in America are transforming ecosystems for the worse and exhausting resources—and what we can do to serve up some solutions.

A Menu of Environmental Issues

First, let’s take a look at some of the major environmental impacts of the Western diet. Keep in mind that while the SAD originated in the United States, it has expanded across the globe, along with countless fast food chains. 

There’s even research showing that countries that have adopted more of a SAD eating pattern are also experiencing an uptick in SAD-related chronic diseases. But I digress. 

Agriculture: The Farm-to-Trash Pipeline

Industrialized agriculture is the backbone of the SAD, and while modern farming techniques have helped feed billions, they’ve also created an environmental headache that’s only going to get worse for future generations if we don’t make a change. 

First, industrial farming prioritizes high yields over sustainability, leading to deforestation, soil erosion, and monoculture planting. This kind of farming is like that one student who crams for tests and forgets everything the next day: it gets the job done in the short term but leaves long-term consequences.

Animal agriculture is particularly problematic. Cows, pigs, and chickens take up enormous amounts of space, require a ton of resources, and, yes, burp and poop their way into infamy as major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. 

Livestock feed requires monoculture crops, which deplete the soil and reduce biodiversity—a fancy way of saying we’re turning our fields into barren wastelands, resulting in a less diverse ecosystem.

Water: The Hidden Thirsts of Our Diet

Your double-bacon burger with cheese isn’t just a calorie bomb; it’s also a water hog. Agriculture uses 80-90% of all freshwater in the U.S., and animal farming is one of the thirstiest industries. 

Producing a single pound of beef can require up to 1,800 gallons of water. That’s like leaving your shower running for over 24 hours just to enjoy a steak you eat in less than 10 minutes. Yikes.

Farming runoff, filled with fertilizers, pesticides, and animal doo-doo, also wreaks havoc on waterways. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) blames agriculture for over 70% of domestic waterway pollution, leading to dead zones where aquatic life simply can’t survive. 

For example, the Gulf of Mexico (eh, America?), for instance, has a dead zone the size of Connecticut, thanks to agricultural waste from the Corn Belt. Dead zones are areas in the ocean, usually near inhabited coastlines, where there’s not enough oxygen for much of anything to live.

They develop because of a human-powered process called eutrophication. This is when a body of water receives too many nutrients—like phosphorus and nitrogen from farm runoff—which causes an overgrowth of blue-green algae (cyanobacteria). The algae blooms prevent light from getting underneath the surface of the water, as well as oxygen from reaching life under there. 

Why does this matter? Dead zones disrupt the entire food chain, causing long-term damage to ecosystems and coastal economies that depend on them. Plus, it’s just sad. 

Land: When the Grass Ain’t Greener

Modern farming isn’t just thirsty; it’s also land-hungry. 

Agriculture occupies about half of the habitable land in the world, and much of it is used for grazing livestock or growing feed crops like corn and soybeans. Overgrazing and monoculture farming strip the soil of nutrients, making it less productive and more dependent on chemical fertilizers. 

To add insult to injury, it can take an estimated 100-400 years to form just one centimeter of topsoil.

Livestock are particularly greedy when it comes to land use. Raising cattle for beef takes up to 28 times more land than growing the same amount of protein from pork, chicken, dairy, and eggs, and 44 times as much land as is needed to grow peas. 

Imagine if your backyard was used to grow salad greens instead of sustaining a single hamburger—you’d have enough produce to feed a small village.

Energy: The Carbon Footprint of Cheeseburgers

Food production accounts for somewhere around 18% of U.S. energy use, with much of it burned up in transportation, processing, and packaging. Ever wonder how your avocado toast became so trendy? That avocado probably traveled 1,500 miles to reach your plate, leaving behind a trail of carbon emissions.

Livestock farming is even more energy-intensive and much less fancy. 

Feedlots require 35 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce just one calorie of food energy. And that doesn’t include the energy needed for meat processing, refrigeration, and transportation. 

Specific Offenders on the Menu

Okay, now that we’ve examined some of the major environmental impacts of the Western diet, and how it’s affecting the health of the planet (planetary health is a thing), let’s hone in on specific foods that are driving these consequences. 

Meat and Dairy: The Heavyweights

Meat and dairy are the undisputed champs of environmental destruction. Americans consume an average of 225 pounds of meat per person per year. Let that sink in for a minute. To feed growing consumer appetites for animal products, over 92 billion livestock are raised for food globally—every year. 

According to a report from 1997, livestock eat five times more grain than the entire US population. Three decades later, imagine how much larger that number is given the explosion of CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations AKA factory farms).

Furthermore, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from livestock are significant. Greenhouse gases from agriculture have increased by 8% since 1990, making up around 10% of total contributions in 2022 in the US alone. 

And let’s not forget the methane. A single dairy cow can release up to 500 liters of methane daily—mostly through burps and farts. Why do we care? Methane has a warming potential of more than 28 times that of carbon dioxide (CO2) and stays in the atmosphere much longer. With hundreds to thousands of cattle on a single farm, well, that’s a lot of methane production.

Finally, taking into account the natural resources required to raise, grow, and slaughter cows, a quarter-pounder requires at least 15 gallons of water, 13.5 pounds of grain, and 64.5 square feet of land and contributes 0.126 pounds of methane and 4 pounds of total carbon footprint. Other estimates are significantly higher. 

That’s enough to make anyone lose their appetite.

Crops for Livestock vs. People: The Global Malnutrition Connection

Industrialized animal agriculture doesn’t just harm the environment—it also contributes to global malnutrition. Crops like corn and soy, which could be used to feed people in need, are instead grown to feed livestock. 

In fact, over 36% of global crop calories are used for animal feed, and only a fraction of those calories are returned as meat or dairy. This inefficiency means fewer resources are available to combat hunger in vulnerable populations. 

Consider this: the grain used to fatten livestock in the US alone could feed over 800 million people on a plant-based diet instead. Removing the “middle-cow” and redirecting even a portion of these resources could make a significant impact in reducing food insecurity worldwide. 

As of 2018, one in nine people around the globe were living with food insecurity. 

So, by choosing plant-based foods, we’re not just saving water and land—we’re also supporting a more equitable global food system.

Enter: A New Recipe for Sustainability

The current state of the environment is rough, thanks in no small part to the damage that’s been done by the explosion of industrialized animal agriculture. Fortunately, it’s not too late to be a part of the solution that helps reverse the environmental impacts of the Western diet —and when many people start changing their ways, it adds up. 

Eat More Plants, Save the Planet

Switching to a plant-based diet is one of the most effective ways to reduce your environmental impact, period. Plant-based diets in general require significantly less water, land, and energy to produce compared to meat and dairy. 

According to a report from the sustainability program at UCLA: 

• 1 pound of beef requires anywhere between 2000 and 8,000 gallons of water to produce (mostly to grow feed for the cows), according to studies conducted by UC Davis. 
• 1 gallon of cow’s milk requires 1950 gallons of water.
• 1 pound of tofu requires 302 gallons of water to produce
• 1 pound of unprocessed oats requires 290 gallons of water to produce 

Sustainable Agriculture: Less Moo, More Woo-hoo

Sustainable farming practices like crop rotation, organic farming, and improved irrigation can also help reduce our footprint and reverse some environmental impacts of the Western diet.

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs are another great way to support local, eco-friendly farms. With CSA memberships, you get fresh, seasonal produce while helping farmers adopt sustainable methods.

Think of CSA boxes as the original subscription box—except instead of beauty products, you’re getting veggies that nourish you from the inside out.

Small Changes, Big Impact

Even small dietary shifts can make a difference. Meatless Monday, for instance, is an easy way to start to cut back on meat consumption, and you can increase your meatless days over time.  

Opting for locally grown, seasonal produce reduces transportation emissions, and choosing certified organic products supports eco-friendly farming. 

It can also be fun to learn how to grow some of your own produce in an indoor or outdoor garden. Things like tomatoes and herbs are pretty easy to grow abundantly, and broccoli sprouts are super prolific. 

Skipping bacon and eggs at least once or twice a week won’t hurt. Besides, it’s a great excuse to experiment with plant-based recipes that won’t leave you missing meat. (Have you seen some of the plant-based meat alternatives today? Talk about convincing—and versatile).

LiveComplete Takeaways

The environmental impacts of the Western diet are significant, but this doesn’t have to define our future. By making conscious choices, we can reduce our environmental footprint and contribute to a more sustainable food system. 

It doesn’t have to be all or nothing if that’s not really your thing. Whether it’s swapping a burger for a veggie bowl or supporting local farmers, every little bit helps.

Rethinking our diets is one of the simplest, most effective things we can do—starting today. So let’s make plant-based eating the star of the show—for our health, for the planet, and for the animals, too.

Sources

1. Vega Mejía, N., Ponce Reyes, R., Martinez, Y., Carrasco, O., & Cerritos, R. (2018). Implications of the Western Diet for Agricultural Production, Health and Climate Change. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 2, 422541. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00088 
2. Schulz LO, Bennett PH, Ravussin E, Kidd JR, Kidd KK, Esparza J, Valencia ME. Effects of traditional and western environments on prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Pima Indians in Mexico and the U.S. Diabetes Care. 2006 Aug;29(8):1866-71. doi: 10.2337/dc06-0138. PMID: 16873794.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16873794/ 
3. University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems. (2024). U.S. Water Supply and Distribution. https://css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/2024-10/U.S.%20Water%20Supply_CSS05-17.pdf 
4. National Geographic. Dead Zone. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/dead-zone/ 
5. Liston B. (2014). Scientific American. ‘Dead Zone’ in the Gulf of Mexico is the Size of Connecticut. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dead-zone-in-the-gulf-of-mexico-is-the-size-of-connecticut/ 
6. Ritchie H, Roser M. (2024). Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture. https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture 
7. Nuwer R. (2014). Raising Beef Uses Ten Times More Resources Than Poultry, Dairy, Eggs or Pork. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/beef-uses-ten-times-more-resources-poultry-dairy-eggs-pork-180952103/ 
8. Land use per kilogram of food product. (2018). Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-per-kg-poore 
9.  John Hendrickson, Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, UW-Madison. Energy Use in the U.S. Food System: a summary of existing research and analysis. https://cias.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/194/2008/07/energyuse1.pdf
10. Energy and food production. (2010). Emory Unversity. https://sustainability.emory.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/InfoSheet-Energy26FoodProduction.pdf 
11. Mago A, Dhali A, Kumar H, Maity R, Kumar B. Planetary health and its relevance in the modern era: A topical review. SAGE Open Med. 2024 May 20;12:20503121241254231. doi: 10.1177/20503121241254231. PMID: 38774741; PMCID: PMC11107315. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38774741/ 
12. Valcu-Lisman A. (2022). Per capita red meat and poultry consumption expected to decrease modestly in 2022.  https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=103767 
13. Block K. (2023). Humane Society of the United States. More animals than ever before—92.2 billion—are used and killed each year for food. https://www.humanesociety.org/blog/more-animals-ever-922-billion-are-used-and-killed-each-year-food 
14. Cornell Chronicle. (1997). U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat
15. EPA. (2025). Agriculture Sector Emissions. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/agriculture-sector-emissions 
16. EPA. (2025). Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions 
17. Johnson KA, Johnson DE. Methane emissions from cattle. J Anim Sci. 1995 Aug;73(8):2483-92. doi: 10.2527/1995.7382483x. PMID: 8567486. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8567486/ 
18. Clarity and Leadership for Environmental Awareness and Research at UC Davis. (2020). Why methane from cattle warms the climate differently than CO2 from fossil fuels. https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/why-methane-cattle-warms-climate-differently-co2-fossil-fuels 
19. Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment. General information for AFOs, CAFOs, and HCSFOs. https://cdphe.colorado.gov/dehs/eag/info
20. Capper, J. L. (2012). Is the Grass Always Greener? Comparing the Environmental Impact of Conventional, Natural and Grass-Fed Beef Production Systems. Animals, 2(2), 127-143. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani2020127 
21. Harvey C. (2015). Business Insider. We are killing the environment one hamburger at a time. https://www.businessinsider.com/one-hamburger-environment-resources-2015-2 
22. Horrigan L, Lawrence RS, Walker P. How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environ Health Perspect. 2002 May;110(5):445-56. doi: 10.1289/ehp.02110445. PMID: 12003747; PMCID: PMC1240832. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1240832/ 
23. Compassion in World Farming. (2019). Why we do not need to produce 70% more food to feed the growing world population. https://www.ciwf.org.uk/media/7439864/why-we-do-not-need-to-produce-70-more-food-to-feed-the-growing-world-population-july-2019-final.pdf 
24. Boliko MC. FAO and the Situation of Food Security and Nutrition in the World. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 2019;65(Supplement):S4-S8. doi: 10.3177/jnsv.65.S4. PMID: 31619643. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31619643/ 
25. Hunnes D. The Case for Plant Based. https://www.sustain.ucla.edu/food-systems/the-case-for-plant-based/
26. Beckett JL, Oltjen JW. Estimation of the water requirement for beef production in the United States. J Anim Sci. 1993 Apr;71(4):818-26. doi: 10.2527/1993.714818x. PMID: 8478283. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8478283/