Global meat consumption has risen steadily in the second half of the 20th century as a result of population and income growth [1], with heterogeneous growth rates across regions [2]. The demand for meat is slowing down in high-income countries, particularly in Western Europe and North America, and accompanied by significant changes in the preferences for meat type and quality. Regions such as Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia exhibit high levels of meat consumption. However, apart from China, which is the world's largest consumer of meat (27% of global consumption), per capita meat consumption in these regions lags behind that of Western countries.

Meat production and consumption support both the livelihoods and nutritional needs, particularly in low-income countries [3,4]. When included in a mixed diet, meat provides an important and unique combined source of high-biological value protein and a range of micronutrients including riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, iron and zinc to the human body. Together with amino acids of meat proteins, these essential micronutrients play a crucial role in energy metabolism and overall human health and development [5]. There is, however, mounting evidence indicating that excessive consumption of meat, whether red or processed varieties, can be detrimental for health and that it is associated with pathological conditions and an increased risk of certain chronic diseases such as cancers, diabetes, or coronary heart disease among others [4].

Because of the high intake of red and processed meat in high-income countries, the World Health Organization (WHO) and many national dietary guidelines recommend limiting their consumption. However, the question of how governments can efficiently implement policies to reduce the health costs of meat consumption remains open and complex. In this paper, we explore health-related policy instruments and potential economic mechanisms that could reduce meat intake. Currently, there are few policy interventions in place globally. They include fiscal and regulatory instruments, public procurement, information provision and educational campaigns, nutrition labeling as well as behavioral interventions [6,7]. Eating less meat can also advance other sustainable development goals (SDGs), including environmental co-benefits. Agriculture has an important impact on environmental resources. If the current emission levels remain unchanged, the food chain could release enough emissions to cause an additional warming of 0.7°C by 2100, exceeding the 1.5°C Paris Agreement objective threshold [8]. Livestock production itself is responsible for almost 80% of agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, thereby contributing markedly to climate change [4]. Livestock production also causes air, soil, and water pollution and is a major user of water resources. In addition, it negatively affects biodiversity through its significant impact on land use and land use change [9]. Ruminant meat, especially beef, has a higher environmental impact compared to other types of meat [4,10,11]. This review summarizes the evidence on the environmental impacts of meat consumption and shows how health-related policy instruments thereby can lead to positive environmental outcomes.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 outlines the methodology used for this review. Section 3 synthesizes results of two literature reviews. First, we provide research evidence on the link between meat consumption and the environment. Second, we describe health policy instruments that aim to decrease meat consumption and their economic mechanisms. Section 4 presents a discussion on the environmental co-benefits of health policy instruments and their contribution to achieving other SDGs. This section also highlights the policy challenges that need to be addressed to generate these co-benefits. Section 5 concludes.