Planetary Boundaries and Animal Agriculture (1 of 6): Land Use

Over 15 years ago, a group of scientists set out to understand the limits of our planet. They aimed to answer the question: how much can humans alter the Earth before it veers into an unstable state?

Led by Johan Rockström, this team of 28 top scientists created what would become one of the most important scientific frameworks of the 21st century: the planetary boundaries.

With this framework, Johan and his colleagues drew a line in the sand. Actually, nine lines. Nine boundaries. Limits. Guardrails. A map of the safe zone where humans and planet can thrive. They called it “a safe operating space for humanity.” [1]

They focused on nine critical Earth system processes. Each one essential to the stability of our biosphere. Each one pushed and pulled by human activity in ways that may at first seem inconsequential, but that collectively add up.

These 9 boundaries are: land system change, climate change, novel entities, biogeochemical flows (phosphorus and nitrogen), biosphere integrity, freshwater use, atmospheric aerosol loading, stratospheric ozone depletion, and ocean acidification.

Like everything else in nature, these boundaries are interconnected. A shift in one can create cascading effects across the system.

When the planetary boundaries were first introduced in 2009, three had been crossed. As of 2023, we have breached six out of nine. What are the key drivers? And what are the solutions?

In this series, we’ll dive into breached boundaries one at a time, focusing on the human activities pushing us past the safe limit. In particular, we will shine a light on animal agriculture’s role and the technological solutions that offer a path back to a safe operating zone.

Breached Boundary 1: Land System Change

The land system change planetary boundary refers to how much of Earth’s surface we’ve transformed. For thousands of years, we have been turning forests, grasslands, and wetlands into cities, roads, and farmland. While dense cities and sprawling suburbs are likely what first comes to mind when we think of human land use, urban areas are just a small fraction of the land that humans have taken as our own. Agriculture uses nearly half of the Earth’s ice-free land, compared to just 1% for urban areas.” [3]

The planetary boundaries framework uses forest cover as a key variable for land system change, with thresholds set to maintain ecological stability across tropical, temperate, and boreal zones. When forests are cleared, we lose more than just trees. We lose carbon sinks, rainfall generators, and biodiversity strongholds. Our vast conversion of land has profound consequences, not just for the land itself, but for the entire Earth system.

We’ve already crossed the line. Global forest cover has fallen below safe levels, especially in tropical regions, where current deforestation is most intense. While annual deforestation peaked in the 1980s and early 1990s, we continue to destroy significant amounts of forest. Between 2010 and 2020, we lost almost 5 million hectares each year. [4]

Key Drivers of Land System Change

Agriculture is the single largest driver of deforestation world wide. Today, we use half of the planet’s habitable land for agriculture [6]. As of 2011, agriculture had already claimed over 70% of the world’s grasslands, 50% of the savannah, 45% of deciduous forests, and 27% of tropical forests. [7] The majority of this land is not used for crops to feed directly to people, instead it’s used for livestock feed. Three quarters of all agricultural land today is dedicated to livestock, either for grazing or for growing their feed. [6]

Beef is the greatest culprit. 80% of Amazon deforestation in the last 30 years has been due to cattle, both for grazing and to grow the crops that feed them. [8] The inefficiency is staggering. To produce just one calorie of beef, a cow must consume 50 calories of feed. For poultry, it’s 8 to 1. [9] This means we must deforest vastly more land to feed ourselves with meat and dairy than if we ate crops grown on that land directly.

Producing a calorie or a gram of protein from beef or lamb requires 50 to 100 times more land than producing the same from plant-based sources like legumes [10, 11]. While some grazing occurs on land unsuitable for crops, this only accounts for a small portion of total pasture. Further, much of the global livestock system depends on feed crops, which are grown on fertile land that could otherwise support direct human food production. Take soy, for example, 75% of it is eaten by animals, not people. [12]

Agriculture’s, and especially animal agriculture’s, massive land footprint intensifies pressure on ecosystems, accelerates deforestation in regions like the Amazon, and pushes the planet further beyond its safe operating space. It does not have to be this way.

Food Tech as a Solution

Alternative protein technologies, like those that Synthesis invests in, are one of the most powerful levers we have to reduce society’s land needs. By producing meat and dairy without animals, we can enjoy the foods we love, just produced using far fewer resources. The widescale adoption of alternative protein could free up vast swaths of land, which coupled with re-wilding, could return us back within the safe planetary boundary.

A number of the companies in the Synthesis portfolio can provide significant reductions in land use, notable examples include:

• Redefine Meat makes 3D-printed plant-based meats that mimic the taste, texture, and structure of animal meats (pictured below). Redefine Meat’s Flank steak can offer a 71% reduction in land use when compared to beef from cows [13]. Other analyses suggest even greater land savings. [11]
• Savor uses chemistry to create fats without agriculture. Savor’s fats can lead to a 98% reduction in land use when compared with agricultural fats, like soy or palm oil, and more than a 99% reduction when compared to animal-based fats. [14, 15]
• Mozza Foods engineers soybeans to produce dairy proteins, specifically casein, the protein that makes cheese stretch and melt. Mozza estimates that their cheese will lead to a 81-91% reduction in land use when compared to cheese using dairy from cows [11, 16].

On top of this, further improvements in the production of alternative proteins can unlock additional land savings. This includes developing more efficient host organisms, implementing continuous processing methods, utilizing less land-intensive feed stocks, and advancing other enabling technologies. All of these are areas where Synthesis is actively focused.

The potential land impact is enormous. A 2024 report found Europe could free up 44% of farmland if plant-based, fermented, and cultivated proteins replaced two-thirds of Europe’s meat and dairy. [17] By shifting demand away from land-intensive animal products, alternative proteins can help halt deforestation, restore degraded ecosystems, and reduce pressure on critical geographies like the Amazon. Transitioning to less animal product-intensive diets, like the EAT-Lancet diet, could significantly reduce land use. [18] Animal agriculture is the biggest driver of deforestation, and as such, we cannot solve the land problem without alternative protein.

Closing Thoughts

Our breach of the land system change boundary should be a call to action. Land use does not exist in isolation, it’s deeply entangled with climate, water, biodiversity, and other crucial planetary systems. Animal agriculture is the largest driver of this disruption and alternative protein technologies offer tangible solutions. By shifting how we produce and consume food, we can begin to lessen the land burden of our diets.

Sources

[1] Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a

[2] Azote for Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University. Based on Richardson et al. (2023), Steffen et al. (2015), and Rockström et al. (2009). https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html

[3] IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Shukla, P. R. et al. (Eds.) (2019). https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781009157988%23prf2/type/book_part

[4] Ritchie, H. Deforestation and Forest Loss. Our World in Data (2021). https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation

[5] Grunwald, M. Your Burger Habit Is Destroying the Earth. U.S. News & World Report (2025). https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2025-06-30/summer-beef-burger-earth-amazon-climate

[6] Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture. Our World in Data (2019). https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture

[7] Foley, J., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452

[8] Skidmore, M. E., Moffette, F., Rausch, L., Christie, M., Munger, J., & Gibbs, H. K. Cattle ranchers and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: Production, location, and policies. Global Environmental Change 68, 102280 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102280

[9] Alexander, P. et al. Energy conversion efficiency (Alexander et al. (2016)). Processed by Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-efficiency-of-meat-and-dairy-production

[10] Ritchie, H. If the world adopted a plant-based diet, we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares. Our World in Data (2021). https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

[11] Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992. [Accepted Manuscript]. Retrieved from https://josephpoore.com/Science 360 6392 987 - Accepted Manuscript.pdf

[12] Fraanje, W. & Garnett, T. (2020). Soy: food, feed, and land use change. (Foodsource: Building Blocks). Food Climate Research Network, University of Oxford. https://www.tabledebates.org/building-blocks/soy-food-feed-and-land-use-change

[13] Redefine Meat’s internal estimates.

[14] Davis, S. J., Alexander, K., Moreno-Cruz, J., Hong, C., Shaner, M., Caldeira, K., & McKay, I. (2023). Food without agriculture. Nature Sustainability. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01241-2

[15] Quantis. Life Cycle Assessment: Flora Plant Butter Spreadable – Technical Summary UK. Upfield (2021). https://www.flora.com/en-gb/-/media/Project/Upfield/Brands/Flora/Flora-UK-New/Assets/LCAs-2024/Plant-Butter/Flora-Plant-Btter-400g-LCA-Statement-UK.pdf

[16] Mozza Foods’ internal estimates.

[17] Collas, L., & Benton, D. A new land dividend: the opportunity of alternative proteins in Europe. Green Alliance (2024). https://green-alliance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/A_new_land_dividend.pdf

[18] Van Vuuren, D. P., Doelman, J. C., Tagomori, I. S. et al. Exploring pathways for world development within planetary boundaries. Nature 641, 910–916 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08928-w