Shifting from animal-based to alternative proteins could dramatically reduce land use in both the United States and the Netherlands, freeing up millions of acres for environmental restoration, biodiversity conservation, and carbon sequestration.
Recent studies by the Good Food Institute (GFI) in the US, and Strootman Landscape Architects in the Netherlands highlight how reducing reliance on traditional animal proteins could transform land use, contributing significantly to climate goals and environmental sustainability.
The GFI study projects that by substituting half of animal-based protein with alternative proteins in the US could release 47.3 million acres of cropland. Similarly, the analysis from the Netherlands suggests that a full transition to plant-based diets across the country could free up 41% of the Netherland's agricultural land, equivalent to over 14,000 square kilometres, offering new opportunities for sustainable land use and environmental protection.
The GFI report Transforming land use: Alternative proteins for U.S. climate and biodiversity success explores the significant land-use savings that could be achieved through a dietary shift in the US. Currently, 131 million acres of US cropland are dedicated to growing feed for livestock, representing about 40% of the nation’s total cropland. By shifting just 50% of protein consumption from animal-based to alternative sources—such as plant-based, fermentation-derived, and cultivated proteins—47.3 million acres could be liberated for other uses.
This freed land could play a crucial role in ecological restoration and carbon capture. The study estimates that restoring just 2.5% of the contiguous US land—equivalent to the 47.3 million acres saved—could help restore 64% of the country’s most threatened ecosystems. Additionally, this shift could boost the national carbon sink by 22%, sequestering approximately 177.8 million metric tons of CO2 annually, contributing significantly to the US’s climate goals.
The land-use efficiency of alternative proteins is a key factor in these potential benefits. Plant-based proteins require only about 18.22 square meters of cropland per kilogram of protein produced, a stark contrast to the much larger area required for animal proteins. This efficiency not only reduces the environmental footprint of food production but also opens significant possibilities for land restoration.
The GFI report highlights that the benefits of land restoration would be most pronounced in regions such as the Midwest and the South of the US, which would account for 33% to 48% of the restored acreage. By focusing restoration efforts on these areas, which are critical for both biodiversity and agriculture, the US could make substantial progress toward its environmental objectives.
The Netherlands faces similar challenges but on a smaller scale. Currently, 72% of the Netherlands’ agricultural land is used for animal feed and livestock production, much of it for export. Strootman Landscape Architects and the Center for Environmental Sciences in Leiden examined the land-use implications of a hypothetical transition to a fully plant-based diet in the report Netherlands Veganland: Less meat and dairy = more space for nature, relaxation, climate, biodiversity, and justice.
If the Netherlands were to switch entirely to plant-based protein production, the study estimates that 41% of the land currently used for agriculture could be freed up, translating to over 14,000 square kms. This land could be repurposed for a variety of environmental goals, including habitat restoration, urban green space expansion, and flood prevention. The study also emphasises the potential for significant biodiversity gains, as the transition would encourage more sustainable and diverse farming practices.
Both the GFI and Strootman reports underline the global significance of these findings. The GFI study notes that the US shift toward alternative proteins could reduce the country’s reliance on land-intensive animal agriculture, lessening its contribution to global deforestation, particularly in regions like the Amazon. This reduction would not only benefit the US but also help mitigate the environmental and social impacts in regions that currently supply the feed for American livestock.
The Strootman report adds that a similar transition in the Netherlands would have far-reaching implications for global climate justice. By reducing the demand for imported animal feed, such as soy from deforested areas in South America, the Netherlands could contribute to a more equitable global food system. This shift would also help alleviate some of the pressures on vulnerable communities in these regions, which are often disproportionately affected by environmental degradation.
To realise these benefits, both reports stress the need for strategic land restoration and robust policy support. The GFI report calls for US policymakers to prioritise regions with the greatest potential for biodiversity recovery and carbon capture, such as the Midwest and South. This could involve increased funding for alternative protein research and incentives for farmers to switch from livestock to plant-based crops.
The Dutch report recommends that the government take proactive steps to support the transition to a more plant-based food system. This could include subsidies for sustainable farming practices, investment in alternative protein research, and policies that encourage reduced meat and dairy consumption. The report also highlights the importance of engaging the public in this transition to ensure that it is both equitable and inclusive.
