Zero Carbon Analytics (ZCA) released a sobering new analysis showing that even incremental cuts in red and processed meat consumption in high-income countries could unlock billions of dollars in much-needed health savings. According to the study, a 10 percent reduction in the disease burden from processed meat could free up around $9 billion annually—enough to pay the salaries of nearly 130,000 additional hospital nurses across the studied nations. A more aggressive 30 percent decline could unlock $28 billion, or fund more than 374,000 nursing positions.
Canva
The health savings from cutting the disease burden tied to red meat are also substantial: a 10 percent decrease could divert $6.3 billion per year (funding over 86,000 nurses), while a 30 percent drop could redirect nearly $19 billion, supporting more than 260,000 nurses.
Such figures place dietary change squarely among the most powerful levers for public health systems under strain, and lend weight to calls for policies that shift consumption rather than simply treating disease.
Burden, cost, and inequality: the deeper findings
ZCA frames its findings by estimating each country’s share of disease burden attributable to red and processed meat, then applying that proportion to national health expenditures. Nursing salary estimates were drawn from health statistics from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Getty
Among the highest per-unit spenders, Switzerland leads the pack—paying as much as $99,000 in treatment and screening to avoid one year of lost healthy life from processed meat-related disease, and $76,000 for red meat-related disease. It is closely trailed by Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway.
Yet high spending does not guarantee success. The US ranks among the biggest healthcare spenders but still shows worse disease outcomes linked to meat consumption than many peer nations—suggesting that sheer financial investment without preventive lifestyle shifts is insufficient.
“Our diets are failing us and our healthcare systems,” warns Chris Van Tulleken, MD, PhD, and professor of global health and infection at University College London.
“Red and processed meat-heavy diets are driving disease and draining health budgets, yet the industry continues to shape policy and marketing in its own interests. We’ve seen this before from the likes of tobacco, alcohol and sugar and it’s proven that prevention saves lives and money,” Van Tulleken continues. “It’s clear processed meat belongs in the same category—this can’t remain unchecked.”
Lujain Alqodmani, MD and Health Professional Networks Lead at Health Care Without Harm, adds urgency: “Rich countries pay a steep price for their addiction to red and processed meat. Nations with strong healthcare systems may absorb the impact of this overconsumption, but many others cannot, even after throwing money at the problem.”
Getty
Alqodmani further warns that the problem is poised to get worse. “And this is only the beginning, as meat consumption rises across middle- and lower-income countries, it threatens to take an even greater toll on human lives and economies worldwide as healthcare systems won’t be able to keep up,” she says.
Health risks and upward trends
Processed meats and red meats are strongly linked to increased risks of cancer, type 2 diabetes, kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease. In 2021 alone, the Global Burden of Disease study attributed 295,000 deaths to processed meat and 334,000 to red meat. Combined, consumption of processed and red meat contributed to some 10.4 million and 9.6 million years of healthy life lost, respectively (years lived burdened by diet-related illness).
Unsplash
The World Health Organization classifies processed meat as carcinogenic to humans and red meat as probably carcinogenic. Yet global meat consumption is climbing: in the 2002 to 2022 period, total meat intake grew by nearly 20 percent, while processed meat use surged more steeply—rising 152.8 percent between 1990 and 2018.
In the US alone, a 30 percent cut in red and processed meat (roughly equivalent to six fewer rashers of bacon per person per week) could prevent over one million cases of type 2 diabetes, nearly 400,000 heart attacks or strokes, more than 84,000 colorectal cancers, and more than 60,000 deaths over a 10-year horizon. Comparable gains are possible in Europe, where processed meat contributes to over 1.8 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost annually.
Canva
ZCA emphasizes that prevention—reducing meat consumption specifically—is far more cost-effective than treating disease. The report cites earlier work showing, for example, that treating disease associated with high salt diets can be over 100 times more expensive than implementing salt-reduction policies.
Where meat taxes and dietary policy are heading
ZCA recommends that governments prioritize dietary prevention strategies by cutting red and processed meat consumption, ideally through fiscal measures such as taxes or marketing restrictions drawn from successful precedents with sugar or salt.
Such approaches are gaining traction. In Europe, reforming Value-Added Tax (VAT) rates to make meat more expensive and plant foods cheaper has been proposed as a way to nudge consumption patterns. A recent Nature Food analysis found that increasing VAT on meat and dairy while reducing VAT on fruits and vegetables would yield health, environmental, and fiscal benefits. In such a regime, raising VAT rates on meat could reduce meat demand on average by nine percent, while zero-rating fruits and vegetables could raise their demand by eight percent—producing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of around five to six percent across Europe. Health gains included averting 170,000 diet-related deaths per year.
Getty
In the UK, the Climate Change Committee’s seventh carbon budget underscores the importance of diet shifts, referencing healthier diets among its pillars of a cleaner, healthier future. Meanwhile, fiscal policies that adjust tax incentives across food groups are no longer theoretical: leveraging existing tax systems is increasingly seen as a less politically fraught alternative to devising new taxes.
Although ZCA’s analysis focuses on high-income, high-consumption countries, it situates its findings in the broader context of rising meat intake in middle- and lower-income nations—and warns that, absent preventive action, the health and economic toll could escalate globally.
Complementary studies and cautions
Other research within the past year supports the power and challenges of meat reduction policies. A campus-based meat-free day intervention found that eliminating animal-based meals one day per week led to a 52.9 percent drop in food-related greenhouse gas emissions, improved fiber intake by 26.9 percent, and lowered cholesterol by 4.5 percent—though these gains were tempered by declines in protein intake, increases in sugar consumption, and a notable bounce back effect in subsequent days.
Globally, the case for moderate meat reduction is growing. Analyst firm Perfundo estimated that replacing 30 percent of meat consumption with plant-based alternatives could offset nearly all global airline emissions and free up vast amounts of land and water.
Still, challenges remain. Behavior change is slow, industry pushback is fierce, and policy proposals must carefully navigate equity concerns to ensure meat taxes do not disproportionately burden low-income populations. Indeed, much like with sugar and tobacco, food industries have a long record of influencing policy and marketing to protect profits.
