Joint action to lower emissions - Plant-based, real food and planetary health
Dear all of you concerned about┃real┃food - and no secondarily - PLANETARY HEALTH:
Individuals and families without business interest, agricultural companies, farmers, manufacturers and processors, food wholesalers, packaging companies, retailers, restaurants, grocery-delivery services and so many more valuable actors and participants in providing us with food, day after day.
We are currently living in the context of a climate emergency.
"We should all know and take seriously that climate change is real and human activities are the main cause." (IPCC)
A huge part of human activities are driven by creating and satisfying needs for consumption. Food related activities have a major role in that.
Now or - maybe never - it is the time for more responsible, coherent, rigorous and unifying actions.
Since eating is a tangible and recurring habit of all of us, we can create a new model if we change what we eat day by day. This might be the responsibility of the consumer (however, not exclusively).
I truly believe that it can be realized. The disquieting question is: if early enough.(?)
Should only consumers take all the responsibility of changing a model bottom up that is no longer sustainable? (I don’t mean economically.)
The world's food systems are responsible for more than one-third of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. (FAO, Nature Food, Our World in Data)
Greenhouse gas emissions linked to food systems are concentrated, first and foremost, in the changes we generate by agricultural land use, and in the production itself. (Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek, 2018)
Much attention focuses on CO2 but nitrous oxide and methane are even more powerful greenhouse gases and their effective reduction could mean a huge advance in climate change mitigation.
Nitrous oxide is 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide, and it also depletes the ozone layer. Since it also has a shorter life span, reducing it could have a faster, significant impact on global warming. (Inside Climate News)
Methane is more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. (EPA)
Globally, agriculture is the largest contributor both to methane and nitrous oxide emissions. (Our World in Data - Methane, Inside Climate News, Our World in Data - Nitrous oxide)
By agriculture, I am not talking about cultivating and after transporting tomatoes from a Mediterranean country to a Nordic one, food transportation has much lower effect on emissions than we normally attribute to it and even much lower when we compare it with livestock and its related activities (deforestation, land use to produce food for animals etc.). So we should not overestimate the commonly believed benefits of lower emissions of local or relatively local food, and especially not across different food groups. Giving an oversimplified example, legumes from the other continent will still result in less emission than local beef meat.
Livestock has an impact on a much larger scale than other food sources, for the fact that animals consume more resources and emit more methane than CO2. One might believe that other non-food related sectors are the main emitters; however, agriculture even compared to them is still the largest contributor (mainly due to livestock). (Our World in Data, Methane emissions are driving climate change - UNEP)
Though The Glasgow Climate Pact - COP26 has reached new promises that can affect livestock management in a positive way and lower methane production, devastating consequences of many years of insufficient action are reaching us each time more frequently and severely. Deep reductions in methane (as well as in nitrous oxide) will be necessary to help limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C.
“The unlikelihood of achieving a rate of decarbonization sufficiently fast means the world faces a global temperature increase that will rise above 1.5°C. Every fraction of additional warming above 1.5°C will bring worsening impacts, threatening lives, food sources, livelihoods and economies worldwide.” (UNEP)
I ask again:
Could consumers become fast enough conscious choice makers when it comes to purchasing food?
Could they generate an impact powerful enough in this little time frame to induce the reorganisation of our food systems for the good? What do you think?
So, should it not be way more practical, and way faster to facilitate this transition with the help of the business sector to be able to mitigate the consequences of the damage that has been already made?
Shouldn't we create and apply environmentally responsible and ethical models, production methods, services and products for consumers before they obligate us to do so (when it may be already too late) ?
Wouldn't it accelerate the process?
“Climate change and related extreme events will significantly increase ill health and premature deaths from the near- to long-term. Globally, population exposure to heat waves will continue to increase with additional warming, with strong geographical differences in heat-related mortality without additional adaptation. Climate-sensitive food-borne, water-borne, and vector-borne disease risks are projected to increase under all levels of warming without additional adaptation. In particular, dengue risk will increase with longer seasons and a wider geographic distribution in Asia, Europe, Central and South America and sub-Saharan Africa, potentially putting additional billions of people at risk by the end of the century.” (Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability - IPCC)
Why do many of us still consider having livestock at such a scale might be still viable?
Why do many of us still consider eating beef and other impactful animal products is still okay, while facts are clear on the point that eating plant-based results in the lowest emissions and can definitely bring us more health benefits than today's commonly realised eating patterns deficient in fresh and minimally processed plants?
The following research reveals some answers to the second question: A Comprehensive Review of the Benefits of and the Barriers to the Switch to a Plant-Based Diet: Sustainability
Is deciding what to eat and what not to eat is a matter of personal right or a matter of public interest?
Is our right to choose what to eat (regardless of its impact) more important than giving (indirectly) more probability to live a decent life to many vulnerable people by making ourselves consume less and more consciously?
These are very serious and difficult ethical questions to answer. However I think they have to be answered by each of us to be able to make daily decisions which can generate a positive overall impact for the planet and for us.
Protein source: Animal or Plant?
When it comes to - environmentally - sustainable food and nutrition, one of the most important questions is how we gain quality protein to provide essential amino acids for optimal health. From an animal or a plant-based source?
For example, if I got along exploiting animals and especially cattle, I would suggest myself to reconsider my activity and invest in cultivating plants that can provide a complete source of protein (both healthy and sustainable) if and only if I was truly interested in the destiny of the planet and of the people living on it.
“If the world adopted a plant-based diet (thanks to our joint effort) we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares (by 75%). This large reduction of agricultural land use would be possible thanks to a reduction in land used for grazing and a smaller need for land to grow crops.” (Our World in Data).
Even maintaining the livestock in circumstances adequate to certify our products as eco or organic, it will probably still require more resources and contaminate more than cultivating only plants. This fact is mainly due to the general characteristics (higher resource need and higher impact) of producing animal products, though labelling requirements could also improve for reducing emissions more effectively.
In his book Tu dieta puede salvar el planeta (Your diet can save the planet), Aitor Sánchez makes a great point about the fundamental reasons why: For a product to obtain the bio or eco certificate, certain requirements must be fulfilled regarding the origin and agricultural practices used, however, among these requirements there is almost none that requires complying with (closely) environmental criteria. In other words, it is not guaranteed that a food produced by this system will have fewer associated emissions and fewer resources used for its production. In extreme cases, the most unsustainably produced plant is still more sustainable than the most sustainably produced animal product.
Emphasising even more the importance of choosing plant-based protein sources, we should take a look at the comparison - also described in the book mentioned above - that shows producing 1 kg animal made protein, roughly, can be 10 times more expensive and 10 times more contaminating than the plant-based counterpart. High-impact production – with a footprint greater than 11 kgCO2eq – produces just 25% of our protein, but 70% of its emissions. To put this ‘high-impact production’ in context: the top quarter of protein production emits more than five billion tonnes of CO2eq each year. This is more than the EU’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors. (Our World in Data)
Passing from the livestock vs. plant cultivation example to the world of restaurants. In the case of a hypothetical situation that I was a restaurant owner and I offered meat, seafood and dairy in the menu or, maybe with a totally good intention, I used only products labelled as ecological/organic but still in the form of meat, seafood and dairy, in both case, I would recommend myself to make the shift to a substantially or totally plant-based profile. If and only if I was committed to giving real importance to environmental sustainability. As we discussed before, today's E.U. regulations on ecologic/organic production do not fully guarantee environmentally more sustainable practices and products, but even if they did, plant-based protein source is still simply more resource efficient and less contaminating in comparison with the animal one. Thus, restaurants with good intentions in an environmental sense, if we want to lower emissions to the highest degree possible throughout the meals you provide, offering plant-based menus and meals are the most effective ways to do so. In addition, as conscious promoters of an eating pattern with less environmental impact, we will contribute to further reduction by spreading the practice on a larger scale.
As we see, to gain a broader influence and lower emissions on the whole food chain, it seems quite reasonable to cut out animal products partly or totally from what we produce, process, promote, transport and sell and at the same time investing in the global accessibility of wholesome plant-based food options. Some can say that it would be discriminatory and would risk many workplaces and income for many families and could generate food insecurity being as a drastic shift. Talking about food security, today's relative inaction is the one that puts us at real risk from that aspect. Undoubtedly, we should do this transition gradually, not from one day to another, through well thought and gradually imposed rational measurements, retraining and decent contribution for each participant in the food chain, among many other factors.
The delay we have generated by insufficient actions in climate change prevention and mitigation is who are calling for drastic transitions, not the people who finally stand up for its urgency.
The good news is some changes are already happening, though the true willingness for reaching environmental sustainability in many companies is still quite questionable.
Say no to Ultra-processed - be coherent if you are truly concerned about sustainability
Does your business promote vegetarian style of eating, proud to have sustainable practices throughout its processes or even contribute to veganism but does not dare giving space to ultra-processed food at the same time?
At this point it is more than important to draw attention to the misleading highly processed food approach as a form of being vegan or environmental friendly or promoting this way of eating by any business activity.
This offer, what ‘ultra-processed products’ means, we all (should) well know, mainly because it surrounds us everywhere creating a type of addiction-promoting food environment where it is a real challenge to choose healthy options.
Carlos Ríos, in his book Eat Real Food (Come comida real) explains very well the technique that this entity of interests promoting ultra processed products use among many others: it designs macro- and micro-environments perfect for the consumption of ultra-processed products thanks to the great availability, accessibility, promotion and superiority compared to healthy options. They make the worst choice the easiest. They load the gun for you and you just have to pull the trigger gently. If it was not enough, these highly processed products are even there in the willingly environmentally more conscious vegetarian and vegan restaurants when it comes to menu creation and food item selection for the different dishes.
When they are already in your plate it is a bit more difficult to identify; however it is not impossible either.
They most likely have many added ingredients such as sugar, salt, fat, artificial colourants and preservatives. Ultra-processed foods are made mostly from substances extracted from foods, such as fats, starches, sugars, and hydrogenated fats. They may also contain additives like artificial flavours and/or stabilisers. Examples of these foods are frozen meals, soft drinks, hot dogs and cold cuts, fast food, packaged cookies, cakes, and salty snacks. (Harvard Health Publishing)
I totally agree with Aitor Sáchez about the predictive and sad scenario as the the democratisation of vegan products does not only mean more comfort in the transition for people who want to take steps to a plant-based diet without changing too much the dietary pattern, it also poses a paradigm shift in all the health benefits that were traditionally associated with vegetarian and vegan diets. From this decade, if we keep following this model of eating ultra-processed products, the advantages that eating more legumes and vegetables used to mean could gradually begin to disappear.
Why is it bad and incoherent eating and/or promoting ultra-processed food if you consider yourself responsible in the matter of sustainability?
Without health, there is no sustainable future (either economically).
Ultra-processed food consumption contributes to the existence and increase of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) through its negative impact on the diet. (Nutrition Research, BMJ Open, Environmental Research and Public Health, Preventive Medicine)
‘’A meta-analysis provides evidence associating higher consumption of ultra-processed food with a 20% to 81% increased risk of various noncommunicable diseases when assessed cross-sectionally and a 22% to 28% increased risk of depression and mortality when examined prospectively in adults.’’ (Wiley - Obesity Reviews)
Another large observational prospective study, higher consumption of ultra-processed foods was associated with higher risks of cardiovascular, coronary heart, and cerebrovascular diseases. (BMJ, 2019)
The economic burden of NCDs is on the rise and is projected to show steeper increases in the future, especially in less developed economies and among the poor in middle- and high-income countries. Falling mortality rates across all ages are contributing to increasing life expectancy; however, decreasing mortality at the expense of increasing morbidity means more years spent with chronic illnesses. (European Commission) NCDs were already the world’s largest cause of death more than ten years ago, accounting for 36 million deaths in 2008, or 63 percent of the global total, with 78 percent of these deaths occurring in middle- and low-income countries. They were also a leading cause of morbidity and poor health (World Bank - WHO 2011a).
Converting our current seductive and irresponsible food environment driven by economic interests to a one that takes into account the long term health of the consumers and at the same time facilitates climate change mitigation to a significant degree is a huge challenge. But also a necessary one. The costs of ultra-processed food consumption through its influence on the rise of NCDs seems considerable.
In 2015, an estimated 110,807 million € as healthcare cost and 99,354 million € as non-healthcare cost were spent by the EU only on Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). (European Commission)
Dietary factors make the largest contribution to the risk of CVD mortality and CVD DALYs at the population level across Europe of all behavioural risk factors. (European heart network)
‘’CVDs account for most NCD deaths, or 17.9 million people annually’’. (WHO, 2022)
‘’Every minute, 28 lives between the ages of 30 and 70 are cut short because countries have not taken policy, legislative and regulatory measures to respond to the needs of people living with or at risk of cardiovascular diseases, cancers, diabetes, chronic respiratory diseases, or mental health conditions, including preventive, curative, palliative, and specialized care.
Twenty-five (25) out of 28 lives lost each minute occur in low- and middle-income countries where the social, economic, and physical environments afford populations much lower levels of protection from the risks and consequences of NCDs than in high-income countries, including protection from tobacco use, the harmful use of alcohol, unhealthy diets, physical activity, and air pollution.’’ (WHO)
The cited detail from the World Health Assembly deadline for a set of nine voluntary global targets for the prevention and control of NCDs 2025-2030 puts the responsibility on countries and their policy, legislative and regulatory measures.
However, should not we consider all of us responsibles for the progression towards a truly sustainable future?
‘’NCDs pose a substantial economic burden and this burden will evolve into a staggering one over the next two decades. For example, with respect to cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease, cancer, diabetes and mental health, the macroeconomic simulations suggest a cumulative output loss of US$ 47 trillion over the next two decades. This loss represents 75% of global GDP in 2010 (US$ 63 trillion). It also represents enough money to eradicate two dollar-a-day poverty among the 2.5 billion people in that state for more than half a century. Cardiovascular disease and mental health conditions are the dominant contributors to the global economic burden of NCDs.’’ (Harvard School of Public Health)
As we can see, the mortality and morbidity rates driven by ultra-processed food consumption related NCDs represent a considerable resource use. The public health costs of NCDs are huge given the high consumption of drugs and high demand of different therapies and healthcare services to palliate the symptoms and consequences (high blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, digestive symptoms, palliative treatments, surgical operations, days spent in inpatient care and hospital resources, etc.) related to the high consumption of ultra-processed foods. (Come comida real: Carlos Ríos)
Maybe one of the key characteristics that makes ultra processed food unsustainable from environmental and health aspects is:
Its capacity to generate overconsumption abusing the helplessness of our evolutionary and biological makeup that can hardly let us say no to such cheap, easy-to-get, calorie-dense, momentarily hyper rewarding (for the brain) food-like substances with an unimaginable variety and availability. Due to these characteristics, these products have the capacity to create mass food addiction, equal massive overconsumption, from food-like substances which do not nourish us wholly.
Overconsumption requires more and more resources, resources which we already overused globally without putting enough effort into their regeneration. Overconsumption contributes to even more greenhouse gas emission and further biodiversity degradation. Ultra processed food related overconsumption may cost unnecessarily not only plant and animal life loss, but also keep playing an important negative role in 41 million humans’ deaths each year due to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), equivalent to 74% of all deaths globally (WHO, Nutrition Research, Mayo Clinic Proceedings).
FAO estimates that, to satisfy the growing demand driven by population growth and diet changes, food production will have to increase by at least 60 percent in the next decades. This will be on its own challenging enough and will result in further emission increase.
Ultra-processed foods are not compatible with our health nor the health of the planet. Achieving the above 60 per cent and the additional emissions growth together with the burden of non-communicable diseases associated with ultra-processed food, might generate unimaginably harsh circumstances both to humanity and to all living creatures of the planet.
Do we want to make it even worse by generating the same vicious consumption pattern that could lead us, as society, to a seemingly impossible situation to resolve or shall we take as much responsibility in the matter as we can and consequently, have much more chance to adapt?
The research and expert opinion summarised above let us conclude that we need to act urgently to make radical changes at production, service, information and dietary levels to keep global temperature rise below 1,5°C. If we will be able to do this, we will be able to do it | only | together.