By JORDAN STRICKLER

Kentucky Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — According to two new studies from The Lancet, a leading medical journal, red meat and dairy should be greatly reduced to protect both individuals and the environment. The two studies, released in January, said these are partially responsible for obesity, under-nutrition and climate change, and one of the biggest threats to the world population.

The first report, issued on Jan. 16 by the EAT-Lancet Commission – a panel of 37 experts from 16 countries specializing in health, economics, agriculture, nutrition and politics – said food production is exceeding planetary boundaries. It is also driving climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution due to over-application of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers, and unsustainable changes in water and land use.

In order to curb both this and malnourishment, it suggests a 50 percent decrease in “unhealthy” foods, in which is included red meat and dairy, such as lowering red meat to 14 grams per day, with no more than 28 grams. It advises doubling one’s consumption of fruits, nuts, vegetables and legumes.

It also concludes that 500 mg per day of dairy is adequate, compared to the 1,200 mg recommended by the United States and 700 mg by the United Kingdom.

“Feeding a growing population of 10 billion people by 2050 with a healthy and sustainable diet will be impossible without transforming eating habits, improving food production and reducing food waste,” the researchers said in their report.

That study estimates that changes in food production practices could reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 by approximately 10 percent and that increased consumption of plant-based diets could reduce emissions by up to 80 percent.

This number is being questioned, though. In a Washington Times editorial, Richard Berman, founder of the Center for Organizational Research and Education, said the issue may lie more with marketing from the beef industry than actual pollution problems.

“Data from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has shown that livestock comprises only about 5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions,” he wrote. “Agriculture is also the only industry, aside from the closely related forestry sector, which has not increased greenhouse gas production over the last two decades.

“Yet rather than highlight the successes of modern agriculture, like biogas digesters converting manure to renewable energy or using seaweed feed to cut livestock methane emissions by a third, the meat industry has elected to call its products sustainable and wash its hands of any further conversation.”

Additionally, the recommended diet is being called into question by nutritionists.

“There are scientifically plausible reasons to question whether removing animal foods from the diet may pose real risks to human health,” said Nina Teicholz, executive director for the Nutrition Coalition of Washington, D.C. “The undisputable requirement for (vitamin) B12 supplementation aside, plant foods lack several key nutrients, and some of the nutrients they do contain come in forms that are more difficult for the human body to utilize.

“To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a human clinical trial designed to test the health effects of simply removing animal foods from the diet, without making any other confounding diet or lifestyle changes. Unless and until such research is conducted that finds benefits of this strategy, the assertion that human beings would be healthier without animal foods remains an untested hypothesis, and therefore should not form the basis of public health recommendations.”

Ag should promote itself

The study was lambasted by agricultural groups. “Let’s call the EAT-Lancet Commission’s report what it is – yet another organized attack on animal agriculture that is not reflective of the current and accurate science on the industry’s substantial sustainability advances,” said Joel Newman, CEO of the American Feed Industry Assoc.

“The animal food industry has been working with farmers and ranchers, the scientific research community and other global partners – likely long before the report’s authors began touting a plant-based lifestyle – on bringing new technologies and enhanced nutritional formulas to the marketplace, significantly reducing the animal agriculture industry’s environmental impact, while providing animals with optimal nutrition and health.

“The animal food industry is doing even more than ever before in benchmarking its environmental footprint and providing data to farmers and ranchers so they can make better decisions,” he said.

The most recent report issued by the Lancet Commission on Obesity on Jan. 27 states that the influence of “Big Food” must be curbed around the world if obesity, malnutrition and climate change are to be effectively tackled. Made up of 43 public health experts from 14 countries, the Commission emphasized those three problems are inextricably linked by factors such as overconsumption, unchecked marketing and government failures.

It calls for a global treaty to limit the political influence of the food industry; that government subsidies of $500 billion to beef, dairy and other food industries worldwide should be shifted to sustainable and healthy farming; and that $5 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies should be moved to renewable energy and sustainable transport.

A $1 billion fund and action strategies targeting food policy and production are needed urgently to support health, the environment and economic well-being, it adds.

As an example, the group points to a $50 million push in 2016 by soft drink companies to lobby against U.S. government initiatives aimed at reducing consumption of the beverages thought to contribute to poor nutrition and obesity. Almost four million obesity-related deaths are reported each year, and some 815 million people are chronically undernourished, the study says.

“What we’re doing now is unsustainable,” said William Dietz, an author of the study and public health expert at George Washington University, in a conference call with reporters. “The only thing we can hope is that a sense of urgency will permeate. We’re running out of time.”

The Commission said political leaders and civil society must step up to counter the commercial interests and lobbying of the food industry. It called for a United Nations treaty that mirrors the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) to support countries in drawing up sustainable and healthy food policies. As the FCTC does with the tobacco industry, the proposed treaty would ban food and drink companies from discussions.

“Malnutrition in all its forms, including under-nutrition and obesity, is by far the biggest cause of ill health and premature death globally,” said the group. “Both under-nutrition and obesity are expected to be made significantly worse by climate change.”

The two studies come amidst an already declining diet of red meat and dairy. Millennials and the younger Generation Z – together, the largest consumer cohort – are going meatless in record numbers. According to GlobalData, 70 percent of the world’s population is reducing its meat intake and in the U.S. alone, there has been a 600 percent increase in people identifying as vegans (those who omit meat, dairy and eggs) since 2014.

Currently, a quarter of Americans aged 25-34 say they follow vegan or vegetarian diets.

“For the youth, tying vegetarianism to global sustainability seems like a strong, uncontroversial strategy,” wrote Berman. “Animal rights activists have taken notice, as have the companies trying to pass heavily processed soy sludge as meat.

“The answer to meat’s marketing problem is to recognize that there’s a problem in the first place. The industry must speak to consumers with the acknowledgment that anti-meat messaging beat them to the table. In less than a generation, companies that chose to maintain the messaging status quo will be left wondering one thing: Where’s the beef?”