How much more protein does the world need?

How often have you heard the claim that we need to massively increase protein production by 2050 to meet the needs of the expected global population? Figures of a 70% increase or even a doubling are often quoted. But how much more protein do we really need? How much of this is hype? And if we produce this protein, will it mean an end to hunger?

Hunger, including a lack of protein, is a real issue for approximately 700m people worldwide, many of whom are in sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia (FAO et.al. 2025)^[1]. Analysis by the Sustainable Nutrition Initiative (SNi), based on FAO data and incorporating protein-quality considerations, suggests that in 2020 there were 570m people living in countries where the total amount of digestible protein in food consumed was insufficient to meet the average requirements of their citizens (Figure 1) (Fletcher et al. 2024). In other countries, while the overall supply may be adequate, inequality results in hunger for many.

At the other end of the scale, there are many countries where protein consumption is well above basic requirements. The same analysis indicates that in 2020 3.28bn people (42% of the global population) were living in countries where the average protein intake was at least 50% above requirements. The total global protein supply was sufficient to provide everyone with 142% of their requirements if distributed in accordance with need.

So, how much protein does the world really need? If we took the protein consumed in 2020 and distributed it evenly to the expected 2050 population, there would be enough for everyone to meet the base requirement (Figure 2). However, this is unlikely to happen unless we remove individual choice. We are attracted to protein-rich foods, and a natural consequence of growing prosperity is an increase in the consumption of these foods, as has been observed in China over recent decades.

Looking into the future, the question is: what level of protein intake should we target?

• Maintaining current levels of consumption where these are adequate and bringing other countries up to a just-sufficient level requires a 26% increase in global protein supply.

• Targeting the current world average supply for everyone requires a 27% increase, matching the expected population growth between 2020 and 2050.

• If everyone has the equivalent of China’s 2020 supply (176%), we require a 57% increase, and matching the United States (191%) requires a 70% increase.

Will producing more protein end hunger? The simple answer is: it depends on how we produce it, but probably not. Beyond acute protein-energy malnutrition there are a range of nutrient deficiencies that are significantly more prevalent. Estimates of the prevalence of “hidden hunger” give a figure of up to 2.8bn people, many of whom may have significant dietary protein and energy surpluses yet be short of critical nutrients—being overfed and undernourished. The impact of this is less obvious than stunting and wasting from hunger. Instead there are long-term health impacts and the failure of people to realise their full potential—all of which can be hard to diagnose—with consequences for both the individual and society. If we wish to achieve “zero hunger”, we must eliminate malnutrition in all its forms.

One thing that is clear is that production of protein in isolation—eg, using precision fermentation or similar technologies—will do nothing for micronutrient deficiencies unless the protein ingredients produced are formulated into food products that contain the missing micronutrients. This may be possible in developed economies with well-established food manufacturing and distribution, and a population that can afford these products, but is unlikely to be suited to the countries with the greatest need. It is also yet to be proven whether the claimed cost and environmental benefits of these novel technologies can ever be realised.

Instead, when we create interventions to close protein and energy gaps, we also need to look at micronutrients. What do we get in addition to the protein? With cereals we get dietary fibre and zinc, with dairy products we get calcium, riboflavin and other vitamins, and with meat we get bioavailable iron, vitamin B12 and vitamin A. The best options depend on the specific local needs, and, given the economic challenges that typically go hand in hand with hunger, must often be locally sourced.

Whilst the world doesn’t need more protein, the world wants more. We could manage with the amount we currently produce if we shared it around equitably, but we won’t. So, when we do close protein gaps, we should do this with foods that are affordable for the target population and deliver the micronutrients that are in short supply in their diet.

Views or opinions expressed are those of the author and any individuals cited, and do not necessarily reflect those of Economist Enterprise or any other member of The Economist Group.