In 1933, H. G. Wells imagined a world of the future in his novel The Shape of Things to Come. Set in 2106, it foresaw a transformed global society shaped by technological progress and shifting ideologies. Nearly a century later, we find ourselves at another juncture – one marked not by speculative fiction, but by real and urgent questions about the shape of our food systems and their impact on the planet, animals, and ourselves.

This reflection begins with a premise: at some point in the not-so-distant future, humanity will significantly reduce its reliance on animal slaughter as the dominant form of protein production. Meat will forever be part of our diets, but my premise is that at one point its production and consumption will align far better with our responsibilities to animals, ecosystems, climate, and health.

That future might be distant, perhaps more like 2106 than 2025. And yet, the outlines – the shape of things to come – are already visible today.

A difficult present

Before we turn to those emerging shapes, we must acknowledge the reality of our current moment: the transition to a less meat-dominated diet is immensely challenging.

The FAO Report Feeding the World in 2050 indicates that global population growth continues to drive food demand upward. In many regions, rising incomes correlate with increased meat consumption. Meanwhile, global cooperation – so crucial for systemic transformation – is under strain. Multilateral institutions face declining legitimacy and financial support, while political polarization undermines climate and animal welfare policy. The international legal system is still largely silent on the implications of industrial meat production.

Even in the European Union – often considered a global leader on animal welfare – efforts to further integrate animal welfare objectives into the Green Deal have faced delays and political resistance. A recent report from the European Environmental Bureau shows that proposals to revise legislation on animal transport and slaughter have been postponed or diluted, underscoring how contested these issues remain even in relatively supportive regions.

Globally, the picture is even more sobering. The United States – among the highest per capita meat consumers in the world is moving in the opposite direction. A recent publication was tellingly titled “Every president is friendly to the meat industry – but Trump is taking it to another level”. The current US administration’s actions reinforce, rather than reform, the structural dominance of industrial meat production.

The economic and cultural entrenchment of industrial meat is deep and persistent. Efforts to reform food systems are often dismissed as elitist or culturally imperial (see, for instance, this paper), making them politically sensitive – or outright toxic.

Some observers hoped that major crises – such as pandemics linked to zoonotic diseases or climate emergencies – might serve as catalysts for systemic change in global meat production (see, for instance, here and here). Yet so far, such transformative change has not materialized.

In short, 2025 is not a particularly favorable time for grand international breakthroughs in global meat governance.

Markers of change

And yet, those who believe that transformation is not a fanciful dream but an eventual reality – a matter of time rather than possibility – may be able to identify signs of change. They may take hope and inspiration from four key developments that, if one assumes an optimist posture, may suggest we are witnessing the early architecture of a new global food system.

Extending the no-harm principle

One marker of change lies in the reinterpretation of existing international legal principles – especially the “no-harm” rule, which obliges states to prevent activities within their jurisdiction that may harm other states or areas beyond their jurisdiction.

Historically applied to transboundary pollution, the no-harm principle is now being extended to climate change. And if it applies to greenhouse gases, then it must logically apply to the massive methane emissions from industrial meat production.

In practice, this means that continued state subsidies for industrial livestock production must be seen as legally problematic. It creates a legal opening for policy claims advocating for a “transition away” from current meat production practices—a phrase first adopted in the fossil fuel context at COP 28. Notably, in the margin of COP 29, some states supported the same language in relation to the global meat system.

The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on states’ obligations relating to climate change of 23 July 2025 has affirmed the relevance of the no-harm principle, as it accepted that the obligation to prevent significant harm to the environment applies fully to the climate system (par. 273), also when such harm is caused by cumulation (par. 276). This will further legitimize legal and policy arguments targeting the environmental and transboundary impacts of industrial meat production.

Recognition of this principle should also spur international institutions to intensify their engagement, particularly in areas such as WTO discussions on agricultural subsidies – where entrenched economic interests have long driven the overproduction and overconsumption of meat.

The Rise of a global governance complex

The second marker of change is that over the past few years, a “global governance complex” has emerged – an interwoven network of institutions that, while fragmented, collectively promote a transition toward more sustainable food systems.

Institutions like the FAO and World Bank have pivoted from a growth-at-all-costs paradigm to recognizing the hidden costs of food production. FAO’s 2024 State of Food and Agriculture report and the World Bank’s Recipe for a Livable Planet both spotlight the climate impacts of agriculture and outline reform strategies, including proposals for true cost accounting that assign environmental, social, and health costs to food production.

Other bodies have layered new mandates onto existing frameworks. The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), initially focused on animal health, has adopted welfare standards. The UNFCCC, through initiatives like the Global Methane Pledge, has recognized livestock emissions as a major source of climate disruption. And as I explain more fully in a recent paper, the Quadripartite collaboration (FAO, WHO, WOAH, UNEP) reflects an integrated understanding of the links between food, health, animal welfare, and the environment.

Of course, international institutions do not wield real power in the international system. But their technical expertise, legitimacy , and support for the day-to-day functioning of the global food system make their actions consequential. The incorporation of animal welfare and environmental protection into their mandates and policies is thus highly significant—even where political leadership lags behind.

One Health and Planetary Health as normative frameworks

The third marker of change is a growing normative convergence of food, health, environment, and animal welfare concerns under the “One Health” banner. Promoted by the Quadripartite, One Health acknowledges the interdependence of human, animal, and ecosystem health. A closely related framework is “Planetary Health”, that has gained traction in scientific and policy circles. This emphasizes the integrity of natural systems as essential for long-term human and animal well-being.

In these frameworks, industrial meat production emerges not just as an ethical issue but as a threat to public health (e.g., zoonotic diseases, antibiotic resistance), environmental sustainability, and animal welfare.

Critics rightly point out that the current application of One Health often centers human interests and marginalizes animals as agents in their own right. But even with these limitations, One Health and Planetary Health mark a shift toward more holistic governance and could become cornerstones of future global food policy.

Operationalizing change

Principles like no-harm, One Health and Planetary Health are important, but they mean little without operationalization through concrete steps. The global meat production complex reflects a profoundly systemic problem, and addressing it requires more than postulating one or two general principles.

Equally important, therefore, is a fourth marker of change: the fact that the emerging global governance complex has spurred a range of policy initiatives aimed at transforming the food system. The WHO has issued guidelines on sustainable healthy diets and briefings on meat consumption.

The EAT-Lancet Commission has published its 2025 report on healthy, sustainable, and just food systems, and the World Bank is supporting scalable interventions to reduce agri-food emissions.

Of particular importance is the support for true cost accounting. For instance, the FAO is promoting true cost accounting as a foundation for future reform. True cost accounting has gained broader support – not just from international institutions but also from academic researchers, think tanks, and private sector actors. It is increasingly seen as a necessary step to align market signals with sustainability goals and reduce distortions caused by current subsidy regimes, as explained in this piece in Nature Food.

International institutions and states are also supporting and investing in the development of sustainable protein alternatives, from plant-based products to lab-grown meat. These alternatives, once niche, are now central to policy discussions as well as research funding and, at least in some regions, are increasingly finding their way into markets and consumer diets.

Of course, none of this yet constitutes hard international law; it forms an ecosystem of norm-setting, agenda-shaping, and policy support – one that future generations in 2106 may well look back on as early shapes of something that became impactful much later on.

Shifting the system from below

Even though the current global situation is clearly unfavorable to transformative change in global meat production, we should recognize that lack of political will does not necessarily preclude change. Change does not always come from above. It often starts from below – as evidenced by this recent systemic review.

Consumers are shifting preferences. Civil society groups are advocating. Local governments are experimenting. Innovators are developing alternatives for meat. Scientists are publishing evidence. And slowly, international institutions are adapting.

These bottom-up forces, when supported by legal and institutional frameworks – however soft or fragmented – can create momentum. They may not be sufficient on their own, but collectively they may reshape practices.

As discussed in this wonderful volume, international law can undergo tipping points – moments when cumulative pressures in global society and normative shifts lead to rapid legal change. Once a new norm gains, bottom up, critical social mass, the legal system may “tip”, producing doctrinal transformation and underpinning the development of global principles and practices of transformative meat governance. The drafting of the 2025 Heidelberg Declaration on Transforming Global Meat Governance may foreshadow such transformation.

The shape of things to come?

To speak of “the shape of things to come” is to engage with uncertainty. We do not know when or how the legal freedom to subsidize industrial meat will be curtailed. We cannot predict which institution will take the lead in coordinating this complex transition. Nor can we be sure how global governance will accommodate the vast diversity of regional food systems and priorities.

Optimists may derive hopes and expectations from historical evidence demonstrating that humanity is capable of achieving substantial improvements in health, well-being, and living conditions over time, as documented in Hannah Ritchie’s Not the End of the World. If that transformative capacity has served humans, why not animals as well?

To skeptics, it is naïve to believe that even though there may be shapes, “things” will eventually come. A transformative global meat governance may be just another speculative fiction of a better world, as we have seen so many before.

Skeptics are right to urge caution. International law is replete with grand ideals that never moved beyond aspiration – consider, for instance, the long-standing but largely unrealized calls for a binding right to development, for a new international economic order, or for a comprehensive prohibition of nuclear weapons binding on all states. Yet history also records ideals that, against the odds, became reality: the international ban on landmines, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, and the 2023 Treaty on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction all began as bold proposals before evolving into operational legal regimes.

We do not yet know in which basket sustainable meat governance will ultimately fall. But history also reminds us that outcomes are not predetermined. We are not passive observers of the future – we are its authors. Whether the shapes we see today harden into “things” (lasting and impactful structures) will depend, in part, on the choices we make now.