Subscribe now to our free newsletters to stay informed with the latest news, insights and trends from across the nutrition industry. WHO withdraws endorsement of EAT-Lancet diet A UN official warned that widespread adoption of the diet could risk jobs and traditional diets linked to cultural heritage. If you found this article valuable, you may wish to receive our newsletters. Subscribe now to receive the latest news directly into your inbox.
Related Articles Date Popularity. FDA sodium targets: Industry flags challenges and opportunities around taste and shelf life. UK to lead Europe-wide sugar and calorie reduction network. Nutrient density in plant-based: Consumers look for nourishing and sustainable options, says industry. More Articles. Dear industry colleague, I would like to share this article with you as I believe you may find it interesting. May I also remind you to subscribe now to the NutritionInsight newsletter service.
This will bring timely news, key trends and product developments right into your inbox. Privacy Policy. Food groups and subgroups whose values in the DGA patterns were outside of the ranges recommended by EAT-Lancet were fruit, starchy vegetables, red meat, nuts and seeds, and discretionary calories. EAT-Lancet included a greater quantity of protein foods than all 3 DGA patterns, but with a starkly different distribution by subcategory. The animal protein food amounts included in the VEG pattern were within the ranges provided by EAT-Lancet, the latter of which had a lower bound of zero grams for all animal-based foods.
The MED pattern had the highest animal protein foods recommendation because it included the same amount of all protein foods as the HUS pattern, plus a higher seafood recommendation.
The subcategories included in EAT-Lancet are palm oil, lard or tallow, and added sugars, whereas the DGA category included all discretionary allowances, such as for solid fats, added sugars, and alcohol. The differences between the patterns in part reflect different approaches to developing dietary guidance.
There are 2 broad and competing approaches to improving diet quality that are considered when developing dietary recommendations. The other broad approach recognizes that current diet patterns have remained far below optimal, despite decades of dietary guidance, and represent an urgent public health problem. For example, 0. Thus, this transformational approach recommends more immediate, extensive changes to diet patterns. Although diet transformation could be argued solely on the basis of health, the contribution of diets to ecological crises, such as climate change, that require rapid, large-scale mitigation efforts provides additional justification for this approach 1.
For example, the health benefits of whole grains compared with refined grains are well-established, and include a reduced risk of incident cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and a wide range of intermediary conditions Clearly, a nutritionally perfect consumption amount of refined grains would be zero, which is reflected in the EAT-Lancet pattern 1.
Similar differences in food-based recommendations between EAT-Lancet and DGA can also be observed for protein foods animal-based versus plant-based , dairy, and discretionary calories like saturated fats and added sugars. These differences bring to the forefront the delicate issue of providing health-based nutrition recommendations that are at once practical and achievable. Although several differences between the EAT-Lancet and DGA patterns may have implications for environmental sustainability, differences in the levels of animal-based foods are particularly salient.
Healthy diets that rely primarily on plant-based foods generally have lower environmental burdens when compared with average US consumption, though variation exists depending on how the alternative pattern is operationalized 3 , 22 — In a recent study, modeled future shifts to a vegetarian diet in the USA resulted in lower greenhouse gas emissions and similar land, water, nitrogen, and phosphorus use compared to the EAT-Lancet pattern 3.
The EAT-Lancet global reference diet was intended to provide a broad framework for dietary guidance, and therefore includes point estimates and ranges to account for heterogenous conditions across countries 1. The point estimates and ranges are helpful to compare against other established patterns, as we do. At the same time, dietary recommendations should consider cultural context 27 , and perhaps be tailored to age, sex, and activity level 9.
Since the EAT-Lancet pattern lacks these nuances by design, it may be challenging to adapt the pattern to country-specific conditions. If a country wanted to use EAT-Lancet as a starting point, the pathway to establishing a balanced recommended pattern that includes deviations from the point estimates EAT-Lancet provides is not clear.
For example, if a country wanted to shift from the point estimates for red meat and poultry to the top ends of those ranges, what compensatory changes would need to be made to ensure a nutritionally balanced and environmentally sustainable pattern? Further research is needed to examine the alignment and divergence of EAT-Lancet with country-specific recommendations beyond the USA and to examine the range of healthy diets that could be achieved while staying within the EAT-Lancet ranges.
This research provides the nutrition community with an empirical starting point to debate and study the relative merits of the EAT-Lancet and DGA patterns. Additionally, we have highlighted a key tension to be addressed in sustainable nutrition policy: to what extent should dietary guidance reflect practicality when large-scale change is required to address urgent health and sustainability issues? To further complicate matters, truly sustainable nutrition will require integration of economic and social outcomes, in addition to outcomes related to human health and the environment.
Recent estimates of the affordability of the EAT-Lancet diet globally 28 and the relative costs of current US diets and DGA patterns 29 are important advances in this area. These works point to some of the structural factors that impede adoption of recommended diets, particularly for low-income and other marginalized populations. Continued interdisciplinary collaboration is needed to develop dietary guidance and other policies that promote sustainable nutrition for all.
Lancet North Am Ed. Google Scholar. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail.
The Lancet Planetary Health. Fischer CG , Garnett T. Plates, pyramids and planets: developments in National Healthy and Sustainable Dietary Guidelines: a state of play assessment. Google Preview. Scientific report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Vilsack T , Burwell S. Linking sustainability to the healthy eating patterns of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans: a modelling study. Mekonnen MM , Fulton J. The effect of diet changes and food loss reduction in reducing the water footprint of an average American.
Water Int. Department of Health and Human Services, U. Department of Agriculture. Report No. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. Food Patterns Equivalents Database — Small-changes obesity treatment among veterans: month outcomes. Am J Prev Med. This will also contribute to the growing social and economic costs of poor public health, climate disaster relief and environmental degradation.
Avoiding these risks calls for a significant reduction of unhealthy food consumption — particularly poorly produced meat — in high- income countries, in addition to avoiding increasing consumption trends in middle-income countries.
At the same time, it is critical that the food system ensures sufficient access to healthy levels of protein that are sustainably produced where hunger and malnutrition persist. Although this is a generalization supported by global trends, the EAT- Lancet Commission urges individuals, companies and government officials to use the scientific targets provided by this report to develop context-specific plans of action to ensure a healthy and sustainable future for all.
It does flag that there are significant economic and social values to the recommendations, including in reducing national and individual healthcare expenditures, improving quality of life, and collective contributions to environmental security with significant implications on disaster spending.
Food will continue to be one of the most important industries and global employers with significant innovations and improvements in food production, processing, transportation and preparation are needed to meet global food and environmental security targets. While we anticipate that demand for some crops will decrease locally and regionally, these decreases will need to be replaced by increased production of other crops and food items. For example, the Commission notes that the production of fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes will need to more than double to meet global needs by Actions that help ensure dignified employment in the food sector from production, preparation to reutilization are important solutions.
Policies that support transitioning rural economies toward the production of healthy foods with environmental benefits will be critically important. The EAT- Lancet Commission agrees that the number one priority for combating climate change is the transition to a carbon free economy by This is not an insignificant challenge and calls into question increasing meat and feed production — notably beyond dietary needs — in the face of acute underproduction of fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes required in healthy diets.
However, the Commission does flag that even with the assumption that the world fully decarbonizes by , reaching the Paris Agreement requires three important contributions from agriculture: 1 halting land expansion into carbon rich ecosystems; 2 reducing methane and nitrogen dioxide emissions from agriculture, notably rice production and enteric fermentation from livestock; and 3 increased carbon storage in agricultural lands through improved cropland, pasture and rangeland management practices.
Food is by no means the only means to achieve global climate targets, but it is an important contributor nevertheless. Hence, the focus needs to be on both the reduction of fossil fuel emissions and the changing of diets.
The Commission states very clearly that global decarbonization is necessary, emissions must be halved by and net zero carbon emissions should be achieved by However, even if all these goals are achieved but dietary patterns see no shifts, the world will fail to meet the Paris Agreement. While CO 2 and decarbonization are absolutely critical, food does matter. The EAT- Lancet clearly demonstrates that success on both fronts are required. Can we feed a future population of 10 billion people a healthy diet within planetary boundaries?
The Planetary Health Diet Learn more about what constitutes a healthy and sustainable diet and how you can be involved. The EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health brought together 37 world-leading scientists from across the globe to answer this question: Can we feed a future population of 10 billion people a healthy diet within planetary boundaries?
The Summary Report. Download here.
0コメント