Pork as protein: nutrition, cost and emissions
What it found
Pork provides protein at a lower price and with lower greenhouse gas emissions than beef or lamb, according to analyses of US and global food data.
The work also looked at how demand for pork rises as countries get richer.
What they found
Studies in people
Demand and income
In 164 countries in 2019, higher incomes were linked to less beans, peas and pulses, and more pork, chicken and beef. The increase was mostly for pork and chicken rather than beef.
Other findings
Protein content
Fresh pork contained a mean of 25.4 g of protein per 100 g, compared with 27.3 g for beef and 23.2 g for chicken. Pork items averaged 27.6 g per 100 g, not significantly different from red meat or poultry.
Protein per calorie
Pork, turkey, beef and lamb provided the most protein per 100 kcal. Getting 50 g of protein from grains would require more than 2000 kcal.
Affordability
The price for 50 g of protein from pork was not significantly different from poultry and eggs, and was significantly below other types of meat. Fresh pork was closer in price to chicken and beans than to lamb or beef.
Greenhouse gas emissions
Fresh pork had significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions per 50 g of protein than beef and lamb, and was closer to eggs, chicken and beans.
Diet modelling
When pork was separated from beef in modelling of low-cost food plans, the algorithm preferentially selected fresh pork. Diets with fresh pork as the only meat protein were both nutritious and low cost.
What the authors conclude
“Pork meat is a source of affordable high-quality protein and may have a lower environmental (GHGE) impact than previously supposed.”
Also in their conclusions
- They conclude that pork meat is a source of affordable high-quality protein and may have a lower environmental impact than previously supposed.
- They say that separating pork from other red meat may reshape ideas about diets and health and the environmental cost of meat production.
- They suggest that the rising demand for meat in lower- and middle-income countries may be hard to stop, given that it is consistent with Bennett's law.
How it was done
Most studies on sustainable diets group pork with beef and lamb, which may hide differences in nutrition, cost and environmental impact. The authors wanted to look at pork on its own.
The authors analysed publicly available data from the US Department of Agriculture, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Bank. They compared protein content, price and greenhouse gas emissions across food categories, and looked at meat demand in 164 countries in 2019.
What it can’t tell you
- This paper analyses food composition, prices and food supply data. It cannot show what happens to health when people eat pork.
- The greenhouse gas estimates are averages from previous studies and the authors say any calculations should be viewed as preliminary and nondefinitive.
- The food supply data do not include informal trade and are used as a proxy for what people actually eat.
Who paid
- Authors work at
- University of Washington, United States
The paper
- Title
- Perspective: The Place of Pork Meat in Sustainable Healthy Diets
- Type
- ReviewThe authors read earlier studies and describe what they found. It isn’t a new study.
- Evidence
- Studies in people
- Summarised from
- Full text
- Cite
- Drewnowski A (2024). Perspective: The Place of Pork Meat in Sustainable Healthy Diets. Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.). doi:10.1016/j.advnut.2024.100213Free full textPubMed 38508316DOI
Summary written 26 Sep 2026. Check it against the paper before it changes what you eat. How we summarise papers · Report an error