For the First Time, U.S. Agencies Consider a Diet for a Healthy Planet
If the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Committee has its way, America's dinner plates are about to include a healthy portion of much needed environmental awareness. For the first time, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is charged with integrating ecological concerns into its recommendations on what Americans should be eating.
If the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Committee has its way, America's dinner plates are about to include a healthy portion of much needed environmental awareness. For the first time, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is charged with integrating ecological concerns into its recommendations on what Americans should be eating. The Committee will be deliberating these issues at their fifth public meeting to be held September 16th and 17th, the last public meeting before the release of final draft guidelines in early 2015.
The Committee is on the right track
Given the profound impact of what we eat and the general public's limited knowledge about the widely varying environmental footprint of different foods, I'm thrilled that our government plans to provide direction on food choices that are better for human health and the planet. I am also encouraged by the serious efforts of the Committee to do its homework on this issue.
At its July public meeting, Miriam Nelson, chair of the Sustainability and Food Safety Subcommittee, made clear that their review of 1600 studies provided overwhelming evidence of significant environmental impacts of "higher consumption of animal foods" and that "a dietary pattern lower in animal based foods and higher in plant foods has lesser environment impact and at same time is more health promoting than the current American diet."
Indeed, the science is clear: a diet with less meat and more plant protein is better for our health and the health of the planet.
We know that Americans consume significantly more meat and fewer plant-based foods than is recommended by current USDA guidelines and far more meat than the rest of the world. The vast majority of this meat is produced from animals raised in cruel and unsanitary conditions on factory farms. Heavy meat consumption is associated with increased risks of diet-related disease (heart disease, diabetes, and cancer). It also requires large quantities of energy-intensive inputs (like water, pesticides, fertilizers and fuel) and generates large amounts of air and water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Not all animal proteins are created equal
Beef in particular has an outsized environmental impact. Compared to chicken, beef requires 69 times the land, 22 times the water, 10 times the nitrogen fertilizer, and generates 10 times the greenhouse gas emissions per unit of protein. A recent University of Michigan study found that while beef represents four percent of our food supply by weight, it contributes 36 percent of our nation's food-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
In contrast, plant-strong diets are more sustainable for people and the planet because they require far fewer resources per gram of protein. Unlike the typical hamburger, an equal serving of lentils requires 65% less water than beef and its production emits thirty times fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Plant-based proteins like those in lentils also foster healthier body weight, reduced diabetes risk and longer life spans.
Stronger guidance needed around less and better animal products
Given these facts, it is critical that the committee issue clear and unequivocal guidance on the important health and ecological benefits of eating more plant-based proteins, and less industrial meat and dairy. Since half of all meals are consumed outside the home, it guidelines must effectively reach food service operations who can make a big difference by reducing meat portion sizes and putting more plant protein dishes on the menu.
Equally important, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines must recognize that not all meat is cut from the same cloth. There are well-defined health and ecological benefits of meat and dairy products produced organically without antibiotics, hormones, chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Many studies have shown that these production methods result in cleaner water, healthier, carbon-rich soils, fewer toxins, and greater biodiversity and pollinator habitat when compared to conventional, chemical-intensive industrial production. A 2010 review of three decades of research found that grass-fed beef provides higher levels of nutrients, including Omega-3 fats, beta-carotene, and conjugated linoleic acid than grain-fed meat. And if we eat less meat, the higher cost of these ecologically-sound approaches are less of a barrier at the checkout stand.
It is time to align our nutrition and environmental goals, and there is no better way to forge this path than with formal acknowledgement of these connections in our nation's Dietary Guidelines. After all, even a modest reduction of meat and dairy in the average American diet, and shift to more sustainable, humane sources of meat and dairy, could have far-reaching positive impacts on our environment, economy and health.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just three days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
If the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Committee has its way, America's dinner plates are about to include a healthy portion of much needed environmental awareness. For the first time, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is charged with integrating ecological concerns into its recommendations on what Americans should be eating. The Committee will be deliberating these issues at their fifth public meeting to be held September 16th and 17th, the last public meeting before the release of final draft guidelines in early 2015.
The Committee is on the right track
Given the profound impact of what we eat and the general public's limited knowledge about the widely varying environmental footprint of different foods, I'm thrilled that our government plans to provide direction on food choices that are better for human health and the planet. I am also encouraged by the serious efforts of the Committee to do its homework on this issue.
At its July public meeting, Miriam Nelson, chair of the Sustainability and Food Safety Subcommittee, made clear that their review of 1600 studies provided overwhelming evidence of significant environmental impacts of "higher consumption of animal foods" and that "a dietary pattern lower in animal based foods and higher in plant foods has lesser environment impact and at same time is more health promoting than the current American diet."
Indeed, the science is clear: a diet with less meat and more plant protein is better for our health and the health of the planet.
We know that Americans consume significantly more meat and fewer plant-based foods than is recommended by current USDA guidelines and far more meat than the rest of the world. The vast majority of this meat is produced from animals raised in cruel and unsanitary conditions on factory farms. Heavy meat consumption is associated with increased risks of diet-related disease (heart disease, diabetes, and cancer). It also requires large quantities of energy-intensive inputs (like water, pesticides, fertilizers and fuel) and generates large amounts of air and water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Not all animal proteins are created equal
Beef in particular has an outsized environmental impact. Compared to chicken, beef requires 69 times the land, 22 times the water, 10 times the nitrogen fertilizer, and generates 10 times the greenhouse gas emissions per unit of protein. A recent University of Michigan study found that while beef represents four percent of our food supply by weight, it contributes 36 percent of our nation's food-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
In contrast, plant-strong diets are more sustainable for people and the planet because they require far fewer resources per gram of protein. Unlike the typical hamburger, an equal serving of lentils requires 65% less water than beef and its production emits thirty times fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Plant-based proteins like those in lentils also foster healthier body weight, reduced diabetes risk and longer life spans.
Stronger guidance needed around less and better animal products
Given these facts, it is critical that the committee issue clear and unequivocal guidance on the important health and ecological benefits of eating more plant-based proteins, and less industrial meat and dairy. Since half of all meals are consumed outside the home, it guidelines must effectively reach food service operations who can make a big difference by reducing meat portion sizes and putting more plant protein dishes on the menu.
Equally important, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines must recognize that not all meat is cut from the same cloth. There are well-defined health and ecological benefits of meat and dairy products produced organically without antibiotics, hormones, chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Many studies have shown that these production methods result in cleaner water, healthier, carbon-rich soils, fewer toxins, and greater biodiversity and pollinator habitat when compared to conventional, chemical-intensive industrial production. A 2010 review of three decades of research found that grass-fed beef provides higher levels of nutrients, including Omega-3 fats, beta-carotene, and conjugated linoleic acid than grain-fed meat. And if we eat less meat, the higher cost of these ecologically-sound approaches are less of a barrier at the checkout stand.
It is time to align our nutrition and environmental goals, and there is no better way to forge this path than with formal acknowledgement of these connections in our nation's Dietary Guidelines. After all, even a modest reduction of meat and dairy in the average American diet, and shift to more sustainable, humane sources of meat and dairy, could have far-reaching positive impacts on our environment, economy and health.
If the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Committee has its way, America's dinner plates are about to include a healthy portion of much needed environmental awareness. For the first time, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is charged with integrating ecological concerns into its recommendations on what Americans should be eating. The Committee will be deliberating these issues at their fifth public meeting to be held September 16th and 17th, the last public meeting before the release of final draft guidelines in early 2015.
The Committee is on the right track
Given the profound impact of what we eat and the general public's limited knowledge about the widely varying environmental footprint of different foods, I'm thrilled that our government plans to provide direction on food choices that are better for human health and the planet. I am also encouraged by the serious efforts of the Committee to do its homework on this issue.
At its July public meeting, Miriam Nelson, chair of the Sustainability and Food Safety Subcommittee, made clear that their review of 1600 studies provided overwhelming evidence of significant environmental impacts of "higher consumption of animal foods" and that "a dietary pattern lower in animal based foods and higher in plant foods has lesser environment impact and at same time is more health promoting than the current American diet."
Indeed, the science is clear: a diet with less meat and more plant protein is better for our health and the health of the planet.
We know that Americans consume significantly more meat and fewer plant-based foods than is recommended by current USDA guidelines and far more meat than the rest of the world. The vast majority of this meat is produced from animals raised in cruel and unsanitary conditions on factory farms. Heavy meat consumption is associated with increased risks of diet-related disease (heart disease, diabetes, and cancer). It also requires large quantities of energy-intensive inputs (like water, pesticides, fertilizers and fuel) and generates large amounts of air and water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Not all animal proteins are created equal
Beef in particular has an outsized environmental impact. Compared to chicken, beef requires 69 times the land, 22 times the water, 10 times the nitrogen fertilizer, and generates 10 times the greenhouse gas emissions per unit of protein. A recent University of Michigan study found that while beef represents four percent of our food supply by weight, it contributes 36 percent of our nation's food-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
In contrast, plant-strong diets are more sustainable for people and the planet because they require far fewer resources per gram of protein. Unlike the typical hamburger, an equal serving of lentils requires 65% less water than beef and its production emits thirty times fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Plant-based proteins like those in lentils also foster healthier body weight, reduced diabetes risk and longer life spans.
Stronger guidance needed around less and better animal products
Given these facts, it is critical that the committee issue clear and unequivocal guidance on the important health and ecological benefits of eating more plant-based proteins, and less industrial meat and dairy. Since half of all meals are consumed outside the home, it guidelines must effectively reach food service operations who can make a big difference by reducing meat portion sizes and putting more plant protein dishes on the menu.
Equally important, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines must recognize that not all meat is cut from the same cloth. There are well-defined health and ecological benefits of meat and dairy products produced organically without antibiotics, hormones, chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Many studies have shown that these production methods result in cleaner water, healthier, carbon-rich soils, fewer toxins, and greater biodiversity and pollinator habitat when compared to conventional, chemical-intensive industrial production. A 2010 review of three decades of research found that grass-fed beef provides higher levels of nutrients, including Omega-3 fats, beta-carotene, and conjugated linoleic acid than grain-fed meat. And if we eat less meat, the higher cost of these ecologically-sound approaches are less of a barrier at the checkout stand.
It is time to align our nutrition and environmental goals, and there is no better way to forge this path than with formal acknowledgement of these connections in our nation's Dietary Guidelines. After all, even a modest reduction of meat and dairy in the average American diet, and shift to more sustainable, humane sources of meat and dairy, could have far-reaching positive impacts on our environment, economy and health.