Toward a Healthier Planet and Humanity: Industrial Animal Agriculture, Glyphosate Risk, Slaughter Suffering, and the Case for a Global Plant-Based Dietary Transition

IN A NUTSHELL
Author's Note 
Industrial animal agriculture—driven by high-input, chemically intensive, and GMO-based feed systems—has become one of the most powerful contributors to climate change, biodiversity collapse, and global health burdens (Poore & Nemecek, 2018; Crippa et al., 2018). It also causes the mass suffering and slaughter of trillions of land and aquatic animals each year (Aleksandrowicz et al., 2016). Growing concerns over glyphosate exposure, especially its potential interactions with milk proteins such as casein, highlight additional risks embedded within current dietary patterns (Bouvard et al., 2015; WHO, 2015).

Plant-based diets, in contrast, consistently demonstrate strong benefits for human health, climate mitigation, and social equity (Willett et al., 2019; Tilman & Clark, 2014). 

Drawing on epidemiological research, environmental modeling, animal welfare evidence, and the ethical frameworks advanced by the Sustainable Health Equity Movement (SHEM, 2024), this manuscript reviews the scientific, ethical, and political case for reducing animal-based foods in favor of more plant-centered systems. It also integrates SHEM analyses of excess mortality arising from excess production, trade, and consumption—fueled by inequitable income and wealth structures and heavily reinforced by the global animal-based food industry

By Juan Garay

Co-Chair of the Sustainable Health Equity Movement (SHEM)

Professor/Researcher of Health Equity, Ethics and Metrics (Spain, Mexico, Cuba, Brazil)

Founder of Valyter Ecovillage (valyter.es)

By the same Author on PEAH: see HERE

 Toward a Healthier Planet and Humanity: Industrial Animal Agriculture, Glyphosate Risk, Slaughter Suffering, and the Case for a Global Plant-Based Dietary Transition 

Health, Ecology, Equity, and the Sustainable Health Equity Movement (SHEM)

 

 

Introduction

Modern animal agriculture operates on a scale without historical precedent. Tens of billions of terrestrial animals and vast, uncounted populations of aquatic animals are raised and slaughtered annually, often in systems that compromise basic welfare and expose workers, communities, and consumers to environmental and health risks (Aleksandrowicz et al., 2016; Poore & Nemecek, 2018). These systems rely heavily on genetically modified feed crops, herbicides such as glyphosate, and extensive water and land use (Bouvard et al., 2015; Clark et al., 2019).

Beyond ecological and health concerns, today’s food system is deeply linked to global inequity. As highlighted by SHEM (2024), excess production, trade, and consumption—driven by concentrated income and wealth—create avoidable morbidity and mortality, with industrial animal agriculture playing a central role in these unjust patterns. Corporate political influence from meat, dairy, feed, and agrochemical sectors further entrenches a system that prioritizes profit over planetary and human well-being (Dagevos & Voordouw, 2013).

This manuscript synthesizes scientific evidence on slaughter and suffering, glyphosate and casein risk hypotheses, health impacts of animal-based diets, and environmental and equity benefits of plant-based transitions.

Methods

This narrative review draws from:

Peer-reviewed epidemiological and toxicological studies (Sinha et al., 2009; Bouvard et al., 2015)

Meta-analyses on diet and mortality (Willett et al., 2019; Hallström et al., 2015)

Animal welfare and slaughter research (Aleksandrowicz et al., 2016)

Environmental and climate modeling (Clark et al., 2019; Poore & Nemecek, 2018)

Policy reports and investigative journalism (Crippa et al., 2018)

SHEM frameworks and sustainable-health equity analyses, including work linking excess mortality to inequitable production and consumption systems (SHEM, 2024).

The review also incorporates perspectives from climate governance debates (e.g., COP30) and sustainability scholarship.

Results

The Scale of Slaughter and Suffering

Industrial animal agriculture kills approximately 83 billion land animals each year, primarily chickens, pigs, and cattle (Aleksandrowicz et al., 2016). Aquatic slaughter exceeds even this scale: hundreds of billions of fish are killed annually, many without legitimate stunning—via methods such as ice-slurry immersion or CO₂ asphyxiation—prolonging suffering (Aleksandrowicz et al., 2016).

In dairy systems, the routine early separation and culling of male calves, treated as production by-products, represents a major and often overlooked animal welfare issue.

These realities demonstrate profound ethical concerns and reinforce the need for systemic dietary change.

Glyphosate, Casein, and Possible Synergistic Carcinogenicity

Glyphosate is widely used on herbicide-tolerant feed crops. Although regulatory bodies have established “acceptable daily intake” thresholds, scientific debate continues (Bouvard et al., 2015; WHO, 2015). Some animal and in vitro studies show that glyphosate formulations can induce proliferative or toxic responses in mammalian cells (Bouvard et al., 2015).

A theoretical—but currently under-studied—concern is the potential interaction between glyphosate and casein (milk protein), possibly enhancing carcinogenic processes. While human evidence remains limited, the plausibility identified in mechanistic studies warrants precaution and further epidemiological research.

Human Health and Chronic Disease

Large substitution meta-analyses show:

Replacing red and processed meats with legumes, whole grains, or nuts significantly reduces all-cause mortality and cardiometabolic disease (Sinha et al., 2009; Willett et al., 2019).

Cohort evidence indicates ~10% lower all-cause mortality among individuals adhering more strongly to plant-based diets (Hallström et al., 2015).

Vegetarian and vegan diets are associated with ~29% lower cardiovascular disease incidence and ~32% lower ischemic heart disease mortality (Tilman & Clark, 2014).

Evidence on dairy and cancer remains mixed, especially for hormonally sensitive cancers, and is further complicated by feed-related chemical exposures (e.g., glyphosate) (Bouvard et al., 2015).

Environmental and Emissions Impacts

Studies show that:

Switching to a vegan diet can reduce individual food-related GHG emissions by ≈46% (Clark et al., 2019).

Vegetarian and vegan diets routinely reduce emissions by one-third to one-half compared to high-animal-product diets (Poore & Nemecek, 2018).

Diet–climate–health co-benefits suggest mortality reductions of 6–10% if plant-based transitions were adopted at population scale (Willett et al., 2019; Tilman & Clark, 2014).

Equity, Excess Mortality, and Structural Drivers

SHEM (2024) emphasizes that modern societies suffer from excess mortality driven by:

Excess production

Excess trade and distribution of harmful commodities

Excess consumption

And deeply unequal income and wealth structures.

 

Industrial animal agriculture exemplifies these dynamics:

It generates environmental burdens borne disproportionately by poorer regions (Aleksandrowicz et al., 2016; Crippa et al., 2018).

It consumes land, water, and subsidies that could nourish many more people through plant-based systems (Tilman & Clark, 2014).

It reinforces inequitable global trade patterns and diet-related disease inequalities (SHEM, 2024).

Reducing animal-based diets therefore becomes not only a health and environmental strategy but also a key equity intervention.

Discussion

The findings support a multi-dimensional critique of industrial animal agriculture:

  1. Widespread Suffering: Trillions of animals endure poor welfare and painful slaughter methods (Aleksandrowicz et al., 2016).
  2. Chemical Risk: Glyphosate-heavy feed systems and the potential interactions between glyphosate and casein demand precaution and further research (Bouvard et al., 2015).
  3. Human Health Benefits: Strong, consistent evidence shows that shifting toward plant-based diets reduces mortality and chronic disease (Willett et al., 2019; Hallström et al., 2015).
  4. Climate & Ecosystem Recovery: Dietary change is among the most powerful levers for lowering emissions and protecting biodiversity (Clark et al., 2019; Poore & Nemecek, 2018).
  5. Equity & Excess Mortality: SHEM’s analyses reveal how current animal-based food systems fuel avoidable deaths through inequitable production and consumption (SHEM, 2024).
  6. Structural Barriers: Protein-industry lobbying and concentrated corporate power resist meaningful transformation (Dagevos & Voordouw, 2013).

The convergence of scientific, ethical, ecological, and equity evidence makes dietary transition an urgent moral responsibility.

Conclusion

Industrial animal agriculture causes profound and interconnected harms: ecological degradation, chemical exposure risks, chronic disease burdens, and the suffering of countless animals. Evidence around glyphosate—especially in combination with casein—adds further concern for long-term human health (Bouvard et al., 2015).

Plant-based dietary transitions offer a proven pathway toward lower emissions, reduced mortality, healthier ecosystems, and more equitable distribution of resources (Willett et al., 2019; Tilman & Clark, 2014). From a global equity viewpoint, reshaping diets aligns with the ethical principles advanced by SHEM, addressing excess mortality rooted in excess production, consumption, and wealth inequality (SHEM, 2024).

Transforming food systems is not merely advisable—it is essential. Integrating plant-based dietary goals into national guidelines, climate negotiations, and global health governance represents a practical and moral imperative for the decades ahead.

 

References
  1. Aleksandrowicz, L., Green, R., Joy, E. J., Smith, P., & Haines, A. (2016). The impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, and health: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 11(11), e0165797. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165797
  1. Bouvard, V., Loomis, D., Guyton, K. Z., Grosse, Y., Ghissassi, F. E., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., … Straif, K. (2015). Carcinogenicity of glyphosate. The Lancet Oncology, 16(5), 490–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70134-8
  1. Clark, M. A., Springmann, M., Hill, J., & Tilman, D. (2019). Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(46), 23357–23362. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906908116
  1. Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N., & Leip, A. (2018). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 1, 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9
  1. Dagevos, H., & Voordouw, J. (2013). Sustainability and meat consumption: Is reduction realistic? Sociologia Ruralis, 53(1), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2013.11908115
  1. Hallström, E., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., & Börjesson, P. (2015). Environmental impact of dietary change: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 91, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.008
  1. Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216
  1. Sinha, R., Cross, A. J., Graubard, B. I., Leitzmann, M., & Schatzkin, A. (2009). Meat intake and mortality: A prospective study of over half a million people. Archives of Internal Medicine, 169(6), 562–571. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.6
  1. Sustainable Health Equity Movement (SHEM). (2024). Webinars on health, ecology, and equity. SHEM. https://www.sustainablehealthequity.org/webnair
  1. Tilman, D., & Clark, M. (2014). Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature, 515(7528), 518–522. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13959
  1. Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., … Murray, C. J. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet, 393(10170), 447–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
  1. World Health Organization (WHO). (2015). IARC Monographs evaluate glyphosate. WHO. https://monographs.iarc.who.int/