Eat Healthy to Go Green
Poor dietary choices is the risk factor most responsible for global deaths due to chronic, non-communicable illnesses like cardiovascular disease. Additionally, it is a major factor contributing to environmental harm. As a study from the University of Minnesota and Oxford University shows, our dietary choices are crucial to both personal and environmental well-being.
In this study, Clark et. al. performed a meta-analysis on data from 19 nutritional studies linking a specific food group to a disease and an environmental impact. In total,15 foods were associated with 5 health outcomes (mortality, coronary heart disease (CHD), type II diabetes, stroke, colorectal cancer), and with 5 environmental impacts (global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, land use, scarcity-weighted water use, acidification, eutrophication). Health outcomes were measured in relative risks (RRs) of a disease due to eating an additional serving of a certain food a day relative to the average consumption for the entire cohort. Environmental outcomes were measured by environmental impact of the production, manufacturing, and resource utilization processes involved in producing a serving from a food group.
Findings demonstrated that generally foods such as whole grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and olive oil are associated with lower disease risk (RR < 1) and lower environmental impact. The only exception is fish since it has an intermediate level of environmental impact despite its health benefits. In contrast, unprocessed and processed red meat are associated with higher disease risk (RR > 1) and a higher environmental impact. In fact, the environmental impact of red meat is 10 to 100 times greater than those of plant-based foods. However, highly-processed sugary foods are harmful to health but not so much to the environment. Overall, compiling all these data together helps reveal a general, convincing trend that healthier foods are also more environmentally friendly.
In this study, Clark et. al. performed a meta-analysis on data from 19 nutritional studies linking a specific food group to a disease and an environmental impact. In total,15 foods were associated with 5 health outcomes (mortality, coronary heart disease (CHD), type II diabetes, stroke, colorectal cancer), and with 5 environmental impacts (global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, land use, scarcity-weighted water use, acidification, eutrophication). Health outcomes were measured in relative risks (RRs) of a disease due to eating an additional serving of a certain food a day relative to the average consumption for the entire cohort. Environmental outcomes were measured by environmental impact of the production, manufacturing, and resource utilization processes involved in producing a serving from a food group.
Findings demonstrated that generally foods such as whole grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and olive oil are associated with lower disease risk (RR < 1) and lower environmental impact. The only exception is fish since it has an intermediate level of environmental impact despite its health benefits. In contrast, unprocessed and processed red meat are associated with higher disease risk (RR > 1) and a higher environmental impact. In fact, the environmental impact of red meat is 10 to 100 times greater than those of plant-based foods. However, highly-processed sugary foods are harmful to health but not so much to the environment. Overall, compiling all these data together helps reveal a general, convincing trend that healthier foods are also more environmentally friendly.
Agriculture, which is mainly centered around livestock, is largely inefficient and has many harmful environmental effects.
Image Source: John Lambeth
The results from this study are supported by evidence of the various health and environmental consequences of red meat production. Red meat, especially processed red meat, is high in saturated fat which can raise blood cholesterol levels. Too much cholesterol can clump into “plaques” on arterial walls, significantly reducing blood flow and thus increasing cardiovascular risk. While the connection between red meat and colorectal cancer is less clear, one likely reason is the formation of compounds that increase cancer risk by facilitating DNA mutations. And heme iron, which gives red meat its color, is linked to possible damage of especially the insulin-producing pancreatic tissue, thereby conferring higher risk of type II diabetes.
In regards to global warming, food production has a significant carbon footprint — comprising 26% of GHG emissions — attributable to the maintenance of livestock and fisheries, land use, crop production, and the supply chain. Notably, livestock raised for meat, dairy, and eggs — especially ruminant meat like beef and lamb — contribute the most to GHG emissions because they house bacteria that ferment ingested food and release methane gas as a byproduct. Additionally, agriculture utilizes 50% of habitable land on Earth, much of which goes toward growing crops for animal feed and maintaining pastures for grazing. The deforestation to make this much land available not only removes carbon dioxide previously stored in the trees and plants, but also endangers species by irreversibly altering or destroying habitats. Furthermore, livestock has a huge water footprint due to the copious amounts of water necessary to produce animal feed. Intensive grazing can also lead to eutrophication, the pollution of waterways with an overabundance of nutrients. This is because cattle eat plants which soak up water and thus help reduce runoff. Consequently, the cattle’s nutrient-rich feces easily leech into waterways, elevating nutrients to levels toxic to various aquatic species.
Evidently, poor dietary habits endanger us, our natural environment, and the rich diversity of species inhabiting our planet. While agriculture is only one part of the problem, cutting back on meat and dairy and incorporating more plant-based foods in a diet can significantly improve health and reduce global environmental burden. The environment shapes us as much as we shape it, and by taking care of it, we will also do a service to ourselves.
In regards to global warming, food production has a significant carbon footprint — comprising 26% of GHG emissions — attributable to the maintenance of livestock and fisheries, land use, crop production, and the supply chain. Notably, livestock raised for meat, dairy, and eggs — especially ruminant meat like beef and lamb — contribute the most to GHG emissions because they house bacteria that ferment ingested food and release methane gas as a byproduct. Additionally, agriculture utilizes 50% of habitable land on Earth, much of which goes toward growing crops for animal feed and maintaining pastures for grazing. The deforestation to make this much land available not only removes carbon dioxide previously stored in the trees and plants, but also endangers species by irreversibly altering or destroying habitats. Furthermore, livestock has a huge water footprint due to the copious amounts of water necessary to produce animal feed. Intensive grazing can also lead to eutrophication, the pollution of waterways with an overabundance of nutrients. This is because cattle eat plants which soak up water and thus help reduce runoff. Consequently, the cattle’s nutrient-rich feces easily leech into waterways, elevating nutrients to levels toxic to various aquatic species.
Evidently, poor dietary habits endanger us, our natural environment, and the rich diversity of species inhabiting our planet. While agriculture is only one part of the problem, cutting back on meat and dairy and incorporating more plant-based foods in a diet can significantly improve health and reduce global environmental burden. The environment shapes us as much as we shape it, and by taking care of it, we will also do a service to ourselves.
Featured Image Source: Ella Olsson
RELATED ARTICLES
|
Vertical Divider
|
Vertical Divider
|
Vertical Divider
|
