2026 Impact Report: One month. A world of difference.

What can happen when tens of thousands of people change what’s on their plate for just one month?

Quite a lot, as it turns out.

In May 2026, 73,839 people across more than 50 countries took on the No Meat May challenge — cooking differently, eating more plants and discovering just how delicious change can be.

And the really exciting bit? The impact didn’t end when May did.

Our latest participant survey shows people are still eating significantly less meat, loading their plates with more high-fibre plant foods, and inspiring friends and family to make changes too.

Add all those individual choices together and the numbers get pretty extraordinary — for our health, animals and the planet.

73,839 people. 50+ countries. One epic month. 

Together, they joined a growing global community of more than 413,000 people who’ve taken part since 2013.

And on average, each participant inspires one more friend or family member to ditch meat in May and choose high-fibre, sustainable plant proteins.

That means as estimated 800,000+ people have been inspired to eat differently - showing that change is not only possible, it’s delicious.

And in 2026 alone: 

Our daily support posts reached 21 million people, sharing meat-free recipes, information and inspiration around the globe. 

That ripple matters. One person tries a new recipe. Their partner eats it too. A friend asks for the recipe. Someone swaps their usual chicken dinner for lentils once a week. Small changes spread.

The changes are sticking

No Meat May has never been about perfection. It’s about giving people the opportunity, support and inspiration to try something different - and discover just how delicious and achievable plant-rich eating can be.

And 3 months after the 2026 challenge, 90% of participants surveyed reported cutting down or cutting out meat and animal products.

Across participants surveyed, that equated to an average:

64% reduction in red and processed meat

55% reduction in chicken meat, and a

29% reduction in fish and seafood consumption

And for many, No Meat May (may have) became No Meat Life - 21% have stopped eating red and processed meat altogether, while 25% have stopped eating chicken meat.

As one participant put it:

No Meat May is a brilliant idea because it makes trying something different feel achievable rather than all-or-nothing. Even if somebody only carries a few new meat-free meals into the rest of the year, that's still a change worth making.

And we couldn’t agree more.

Less meat. More of the good stuff.

After taking part in No Meat May people are eating healthier, and reducing their risk of many chronic diseases by replacing meat with more high-fibre foods.  Our participants reported an average:

38% increase in consumption of high-fibre fruit & vegetables

60% increase in heart-healthy pulses and legumes

38% increase in nutrient-rich nuts and seeds

Water savings:

And then there’s water:

an estimated saving of 20.2 billion litres annually,

enough to fill around 8,080 Olympic swimming pools

Not bad for a challenge that starts with one simple question: what if I gave meat a miss for May?

Climate impact:

• Baseline: The average participant’s food-related footprint was taken as on average 2.5 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent emissions per year.

• After No Meat May: average reductions in food-related emissions equate to approx.  0.6 t CO₂-equivalent emissions per year per person.

• Multiply average reduction by 73,839 participants → approximately 44,303 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent emissions saved per year.  

• If these changes were sustained over 40 years → saving grows to approximately 1.772 million tonnes of CO₂-equivalent emissions.

these figures include production emissions from food; they exclude additional drawdown potential from rewilding/land-use change if less land is used for livestock. 

Water savings:

• Baseline: What we eat and drink makes up about half of our water footprint; and a healthy plant-rich diet typically uses about half the freshwater of a meat-heavy diet.

• For this estimate, we modelled food-related water use at 3,000 litres per person per day and applied an estimated 25% reduction based on participants' reported dietary changes.

• Totals: 25% × 3,000 litres per day × 73,839 people ≈ 20.2 billion litres per year.
  If these changes were sustained over 40 years → approximately 808.5 billion litres of water could be saved.
  

Crops saved:

• Why this matters: animal-based foods require significantly more resources than most plant-based foods - more land, more water, more feed inputs. (e.g., soy); almost 80% of global soy is fed to livestock to produce farmed meat.

• The animal feed required to produce meat ranges from 4.5 kg of feed to produce 1 kg of chicken meat to up to 25 kg of feed to produce 1 kg beef. 

• Observed change: participants’ reductions in animal products equate to approximately 50% less animal feed required per person — about 425 kg of crop feed saved per year each.

• Totals: 31,382 tonnes of crops/year.

• If these changes are sustained over the next 40 years  → approximately 1.255 million tonnes of crops saved.  

Animals spared:

• Baselines: average animals consumed per person per year (e.g., 23.7 chickens, 0.7 turkeys, 0.4 pigs, 0.1 cows, 0.1 ducks, 341 sea animals, bycatch animals, sea animals used as feed etc.). 

• May 2026 alone: multiply average animals consumed per month by 73,839 participants - 2,297,161 animals spared. 

• Apply 2026 behaviour changes (e.g., 54.6% less chicken, 64% less red meat, 26% less sea animals). Multiply by 73,839 participants × 40 years to get lifetime-style totals by species. “Feed fish” are included based on an average 50% reduction in feed ratios per average consumer. 

• If 2026 behaviour change is sustained for the next 40 years, estimated lives spared grows to:

• Chickens: 38,219,657
• Pigs: 756,111
• Cows: 189,028
• Turkeys: 1,128,850
• Ducks: 645,057
• Sea animals eaten: 128,890,404
• Bycatch animals: 39,264,626
• Sea animals used as feed: 212,656,320 

Caveats: These are good-faith estimates from self-reported data, rounded for readability. They’re conservative because (a) we exclude unregistered family/friends who joined in, and (b) climate figures omit potential land-use change benefits from rewilding.