Eat less meat? Ready or not, welcome to the great food processing

[ad_1]
<div _ngcontent-c14 = "" innerhtml = "

Can a healthy diet also be good for the planet? Yes, according to & nbsp;the& nbsp;EAT-Lancet Commission, a three-year project of 37 experts & nbsp; calling & nbsp; make radical changes in food systems to improve human health and preserve environmental resources.

"The food we eat and the way we produce it is critical to the health of people and the planet, and we are seriously wrong," said Tim Lang, one of the authors of the commission. "We need a major overhaul, changing the global food system to an unprecedented scale."

With a increasing world population, the reduction of environmental resources and the intensification of environmental threats to health, such as famine caused by drought, threaten the food supply, the EAT-Lancet commission demands a radical overhaul of the way in which food are grown, produced and consumed around the world.

There is no single agricultural ordinance to feed more people with fewer resources. Organic foods are not the solution, nor are GMOs. Authors prefer & nbsp;"Sustainable Intensification", a theory that "more with less, while protecting the earth's natural resources". & Nbsp;

For sustainable intensification To become a standard of the food system, however, advocates of food justice will have to make peace with highly efficient "breeding farms" and "techno-optimists" will have to make room in their Fitbit heart – in good health for small farms and on "nb" farms; diversity of cultures.

Reducing food waste throughout the system is also a key part of the equation. & Nbsp;But the most & nbsp;The attractiveness of this report is constituted by dietary recommendations, especially the reduction of global consumption of red meat.

"The world's diets need to change dramatically," says report co-author Walter Willett, MD. "More than 800 million people lack food, while many others eat an unhealthy diet that contributes to premature death. to disease. "

Diets that are harmful to people and the planet have particularly serious consequences, such as "premature deaths caused by poor air quality" and "famine exacerbated by extreme weather events such as drought".

"To be healthy," says Willett, "Diets must have adequate caloric intake and be composed of a variety of plant-based foods, low amounts of animal-based foods, fats unsaturated rather than saturated and some refined grains, highly processed foods. and added sugars. "

Critics & nbsp; are strike against the commission"s conclusions, However, stating that the recommended dietary intakes of meat & nbsp; are neither feasible nor desirable. They see an individual prescription rather than a blanket prescription, which"t surprising& nbsp; since the directives & nbsp; were presented & nbsp; like & nbsp; the daily intake of one person.

"It's a very sensitive subject," says & nbsp; Richard Waite, Research Associate for & nbsp; World Resources InstituteFood program.& nbsp; WRI works on & nbsp; dietary recommendations since 2016. (One of the & nbsp;WRI board members sit on the TAT advisory board, and WRI and EAT are partners in a new coalition focused on food and land use, Waite itself does not participated in the EAT-Lancet report.) & Nbsp;

"You want to be clear," says Waite, that most of the reduction in beef consumption should take place in countries that already consume a lot, so that other developing countries can increase their consumption. "Part of reducing the consumption of meat and animal foods in the west is to open a global space for people who consume very little [meat] to be able to consume more. "

Walter Willett & nbsp; argues the commissionRecommendations of& nbsp; "Allow the flexibility needed to support various types of foods, farming systems, cultural traditions and individual food preferences – including many omnivorous, vegetarian and vegan diets."

It is therefore not surprising that the National Beef Cattle Association disagrees with the commission. Sara Place, PhD, a research scientist specializing in zootechnics at NCBA, says US beef producers are at the forefront of sustainable intensification and that beef can truly be part of a healthy and sustainable diet. & Nbsp;

Place worked with a USDA researcher on a life cycle badessment of beef production in the United States for several years, in the hope & nbsp; to help & nbsp; livestock breeders & nbsp; to become even more efficient. & nbsp; "What were Go at make& nbsp;is really look at what& nbsp;our producers& nbsp; can & nbsp;make through the full country"She says & nbsp;"using a Case study approach at reduce greenhouse gas shows, Cut ammonia& nbsp; eAssignments, and make so in a way this is economically viable."& nbsp;

Richard Waite & nbsp; agrees that increasing the efficiency of beef production is a very good thing, crucial in fact for the type of sustainable intensification that WRI and EAT-Lancet would like to see in the future. He also agrees with Place that most American pastures are already being used sustainably.& nbsp;

Right hereWhere they do not agree.& nbsp;WRIS& nbsp; research& nbsp; watch & nbsp; beef"The & nbsp; greenhouse gas emissions & nbsp; to be superior to those of & nbsp; the cattle industry"s life cycle badessments based on production calculate, and thatS& nbsp; because & nbsp; WRIS& nbsp; modeling & nbsp; includes land-use change, which Sara Place acknowledges is beyond the scope of its badessment. Waite explains that their research accounts for carbon emissions & nbsp; lost & nbsp; from cleaning forests and other high-carbon lands to produce beef.S& nbsp; real role in climate change on a global scale.

"If we want to help the world stop deforestation and even put some trees back," says Waite, "the demand for land for agriculture needs to go down," but it's important to understand that the land is a variable. While & nbsp; a lot of cattle pastures in South America & nbsp; are on a cleared rainforest & nbsp; it would be better if & nbsp; be reforested, pIn North America, for example, astures are best placed on the land & nbsp; only to continue to graze cattle. & nbsp; & nbsp;

The bottom line, according to Waite, is that beef actually contributes to climate change, and that"s why people (at least some of them) should eat less meat and pasture (at least part of it) would be better off.

The recommendations of the commission & nbsp; EAT-Lancet are much larger and more complex than a simple & nbsp;"eat less meat, but it is the dietary component that is causing much of the debate right now. & nbsp; As herbal diets and narcotic carnivores seem to be growing in popularity, the future of beef is becoming increasingly popular. & nbsp;

& nbsp;

& nbsp;

& nbsp;

">

Can a healthy diet also be good for the planet? Yes according to the EAT-Lancet Commission, a three-year project of 37 experts calling for radical changes in the food system to improve human health and preserve environmental resources.

"The food we eat and the way we produce it determines the health of people and the planet, and we make a serious mistake," said Tim Lang, PhD, one of the authors of the commission. "We need a major overhaul, changing the global food system to an unprecedented scale."

In the face of global population growth, declining environmental resources and the intensification of environmental threats to health, such as drought-induced famine, threatening food supplies, the EAT-Lancet commission calls for a radical overhaul of how food is grown, produced and consumed around the world.

There is no single agricultural ordinance to feed more people with fewer resources. Organic foods are not the solution, nor are GMOs. The authors favor rather "Sustainable Intensification", a growing theory with less while simultaneously protecting the Earth's natural resources.

For sustainable intensification to become a standard of the food system, food justice advocates will have to make peace with extremely efficient "factories-factories" and techno-optimists will have to make room in their Fitbit-healthy heart. for small farms enhancing crop diversity.

Reducing food waste throughout the system is also a key part of the equation. But the most The attractiveness of this report is constituted by dietary recommendations, especially the reduction of global consumption of red meat.

"The world's diets need to change drastically," says report co-leader, Walter Willett, MD. "More than 800 million people lack food, while many others consume an unhealthy diet that helps premature death and disease. "

Diets that are harmful to people and the planet have particularly serious consequences, such as "premature deaths caused by poor air quality" and "famine exacerbated by extreme weather events such as drought".

"To be healthy," says Willett, "Diets must have adequate caloric intake and be composed of a variety of plant-based foods, low amounts of animal-based foods, fats unsaturated rather than saturated and some refined grains, highly processed foods. and added sugars. "

Critics are strike against the commission"s conclusions, however, stating that the recommended dietary intakes of meat are neither feasible nor desirable. They see an individual prescription rather than a blanket prescription, which is not"t surprising since the guidelines were presented as the daily intake of one person.

"It's a very sensitive topic," says Richard Waite, research badociate for the World Resources InstituteFood program. WRI has been working on sustainable food recommendations since 2016. (One of the most WRI Leaders on EAT Advisory Board, and WRI and EAT Partners in New Food and Land Use Coalition, Waite Himself Not Involved in EAT Report -Lancet.)

"You want to be clear," said Waite, "that much of the reduction in beef consumption is expected to occur in countries that already consume a lot, so other developing countries can increase their consumption. "Part of reducing the consumption of meat and animal foods in the west is to open a global space for people who consume very little [meat] to be able to consume more. "

Walter Willett supports the commissionRecommendations of "Allow the flexibility needed to adapt to various types of foods, farming systems, cultural traditions and individual food preferences – including many omnivorous, vegetarian and vegan diets."

Not surprisingly, the National Cattlemen 's Beef Association disagrees with the commission. Sara Place, PhD, an animal science researcher at NCBA, says that American beef producers are at the forefront of sustainable intensification and that beef can certainly be part of a healthy and sustainable diet.

Place has been collaborating for several years with a USDA researcher on a life-cycle badessment of beef production in the United States, hoping to help livestock producers become even more effective. "What were Go at make is really look at what our producers can make through the full country," she says, "using a Case study approach at reduce greenhouse gas shows, Cut ammonia eAssignments, and make so in a way this is economically viable."

Richard Waite recognizes that increasing the efficiency of beef production is a very good thing, essential in fact for the type of sustainable intensification that WRI and EAT-Lancet would like to see at # 39; future. He also agrees with Place that most American pastures are already being used sustainably.

Right hereWhere they do not agree. WRIS research shows the beef"Greenhouse gas emissions are higher than those of the cattle industry"s life cycle badessments based on production calculate, and thatS because WRIS The modeling includes land-use change, which Sara Place acknowledges is beyond the scope of its evaluation. Waite explains that their research takes into account the carbon loss resulting from the clearing of forests and other high-carbon lands in order to produce beef. This calculation shows thatS real role in climate change on a global scale.

"If we want to help the world stop deforestation and even re-establish trees where they used to be," says Waite, "the demand for land for agriculture has to go down." But it is important to understand that the earth is a variable. While many pastures of cattle in South America are on a cleared rainforest, it would be better to reforest, pIn North America, for example, the stars are on dry land that it would be better to leave alone to continue grazing livestock.

The bottom line, according to Waite, is that beef actually contributes to climate change and that"s why people (at least some of them) should eat less meat and pasture (at least part of it) would be better off.

The recommendations of the EAT-Lancet commission are much more radical and complex than "eat less meat ", but it is the food component that is causing most of the debate at the moment. While herbal diets and carnivorous diets seem to be gaining popularity, the future of beef is anything but settled.