How Our Dietary Choices Impact Species Extinction

A research model explains how eating foods produced with less impact on animal habitats can preserve biodiversity and prevent species extinction.

By Eric Hawrylyshyn

Across the globe, species are facing extinction at unprecedented rates. Surprisingly, the decisions each individual person makes every day can contribute to this global loss of biodiversity—specifically, our diets and the foods we choose to eat. This is mainly a result of land-use changes and habitat destruction for the production of food, including plant and animal products, with about 33 percent of the Earth’s surface being altered for agricultural purposes over the last 60 years. Land-use changes are only expected to increase as the global population and demand for food grows. Despite this, there has yet to be a specific method developed to consistently quantify the effect of food production on biodiversity.

In response to the changes observed to date, a team of scientists at the University of Cambridge developed a tool that would enable governments, individuals, and international bodies to better understand how the production of different food types drives the risk of extinction of vertebrates.

Study background

The Cambridge research team measured the effect that the production of 140 food types have on the extinction risk of more than 30,000 vertebrate species. Generally, they found that animal products, especially beef products, have a greater contribution to species extinction risk than typical staple plant-based products, although “luxury” plant-based products such as coffee and cocoa also have a large impact.

The researchers examined the mean per capita impact on extinction rate due to different food types in six different countries with a range of demographics. They broke this down even further to contribution as a result of imported and domestically produced food items.

bar chart comparing extinction opportunity cost for six countries, marking ruminant meat, poultry and pig, dairy and eggs, grains, fruit and vegetables, legumes, and spices. USA has 2.75 with 2.5 as ruminant meat, Japan 0.9 with 0.7 meat, UK 0.2, Brazil 1.0 with 0.5 meat, Uganda 0.25, and India 0.1. — Figure 1: The mean per capita extinction impact caused by consumption within the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Uganda and India. Note that sugar is excluded. Ruminant meat includes cattle (beef), sheep, and deer. Source: Fig. 2 in Ball et al. 2025, licensed as CC BY 4.0.

Of the countries analyzed, the United States has the largest per-capita impact on species extinction risk, predominantly due to domestically produced beef. Lastly, the researchers compared how different diets in the United States impact extinction risk. Their findings demonstrated that small changes in diet at the individual level, such as reducing the consumption of animal products, can make a significant difference in protecting global biodiversity.

The species extinction risks of different foods

The study researchers produced a model that quantified the risk of species extinction as a result of the production and consumption of 1kg of 140 different food types, based on several types of data. They used national data on food consumption and production location from the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations) and the LIFE (Land-cover change Impacts on Future Extinction) metric. The LIFE metric combines information of species habitat and natural ranges based on IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List data with estimates of restorable habitat to map the extinction risk of ~30,000 vertebrate species.

The results showed that animal products, particularly beef, had a larger impact on extinction risk than plant-based products. On average, beef had an estimated 340 times greater impact than grains. This was about 100 times greater in impact than plant-based proteins such as soybeans and legumes, which were comparable to the impact of egg and poultry production. These findings are further highlighted by the fact that more than 75 percent of the human-used land surface is dedicated to the production of animal products, while only providing about 17 percent of global calories.

box plot bar graph showing commodities on x-axis as different colored boxes gradually moving higher on y-axis, labeled "Extinction opportunity cost distribution" to indicate higher impact on species extinction. In ascending order, the food items start with sugar beet, vegetables, temperate fruit, sugar cane, then rice and soybeans in middle, and poultry, tea, pig meat, coffee, cocoa on right. — Figure 2: Global variation across and within commodities in the expected extinction impact of producing 1 kg of agricultural commodity or commodity group. This shows the lower and upper boundaries depending on the country, with the horizontal line showing weighted global median (50th percentile). Notice how animal products have a greater impact on species extinction risk. Ruminant meat includes beef, other cattle, sheep, and similar animals. Source: Fig. 1 in Ball et al. 2025, licensed as CC BY 4.0.

Of the six countries analyzed in this study, the countries with the largest negative impact on species extinction risk were mainly driven by beef production. “Luxury” plant-based products such as tea, coffee, and cocoa, which offer little in calories, had a high impact as well. Meanwhile, the impact of staple crops such as grains, vegetables, roots, and fruit was very low.

Geographical differences in food production–induced species extinction risk

Furthermore, where food is produced and consumed can also impact its effect on species extinction risk. This can be a function of the differing values of the LIFE metric in different areas where food is produced. Tropical and sub-tropical regions generally have greater LIFE metric values than temperate regions due to higher biodiversity levels, resulting in food being produced in these regions being more impactful on the risk of species extinction.

Interestingly, the researchers found that the percentage of impact of two temperate countries, the United Kingdom and Japan, was largely due to imported food from tropical and sub-tropical regions. Sustainably increasing domestic production in these countries could greatly reduce their species extinction risk footprint. Alternatively, increasing production efficiency in tropical and sub-tropical regions to prevent new land-use changes could increase the amount of food produced while limiting the impact on species extinction.

Daily dietary changes to limit species extinction

The results of the study clearly demonstrated that the production and consumption of some food types have a more negative impact on species extinction risks than others. Dietary changes could greatly reduce the risk of species extinction. The study showed that changing the amount of beef consumed in the average US diet to the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet, which would see the proportion of total caloric intake from beef products reduced from 4 percent to 1 percent, would also reduce the species extinction risk cost by about 75 percent.

The researchers also acknowledge the cultural, nutritional, and economic importance of high-risk foods such as beef and coffee. They suggest taking steps such as simply reducing the frequency and quantity of beef consumption, rather than fully eliminating it. Purchasing and consuming coffee produced in regions that have less of a negative impact, such as from southeast Asia instead of South American or sub-Saharan Africa, is another small step that can be taken without fully sacrificing the cultural aspects of the commodity. These everyday choices would still result in net-positive effects on reducing species extinction risks while maintaining the other important human dimensions.

bar chart showing per-capita extinction opportunity cost of baseline US diet at 2.75, with 2.5 of that due to meat consumption, then EAT-Lancet diet at 0.75, with 0.6 for meat, then vegetarian diet at 0.3, and plant-based diet at 0.25. — Figure 3: The extinction impacts of average daily per capita food consumption in the United States for consumption in 2021, the EAT–*Lancet* planetary health diet and hypothetical vegetarian and vegan diets. Source: Fig. 4 in Ball et al. 2025, licensed as CC BY 4.0.

Consider Table 1 to see how the different commodities from Figure 3 would be broken down in each diet.

Table 1 Contributions to total calories of different food groups in our baseline US and hypothetical diets as consumed in the United States

Note: Each hypothetical diet has the same overall calorific intake as the baseline. Sugar calories are omitted from the impact calculation as described in Figure 1. Source: Ball et al. 2025, licensed as CC BY 4.0.

While climate change and biodiversity loss often feel beyond the control of the average individual, this study demonstrated that small choices we make daily, such as occasionally substituting a beef patty for a chicken burger or plant-based burger, can have a significant effect on reducing the extent to which our diet drives species extinction.

This study was published in the journal Nature Food.

Read more about eco-friendly foods in Gene Alteration of Mushrooms for Better Plant-Based Meat.

Our pets eat meat too, learn more about The Surprising Environmental Impact of Pet Food.

Reference

Ball, T. S., Dales, M., Eyres, A., Green, J. M., Madhavapeddy, A., Williams, D. R., & Balmford, A. (2025). Food impacts on species extinction risks can vary by three orders of magnitude. Nature Food, 6, 848–856. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-025-01224-w

About the Author

Eric Hawrylyshyn received his Bachelor of Science in Zoology and Master of Science (MSc.) in Biomedical Science from the University of Guelph. Eric’s scientific and research interests focus on conservation, reproductive biology, and regenerative medicine. He has previously worked as a zookeeper at different zoos in Canada. In his spare time, Eric enjoys spending time in nature, reading, and exercising. Connect with Eric via LinkedIn.