Transition to more sustainable food systems must be driven by strong evidence-based nutrition
As we approach the Cop26 conference, it is not surprising that the sustainability of our Food Systems is making headlines within the media.
In the statement below, the Trustees of the Academy of Nutrition Sciences acknowledge the urgent need for a transition to more sustainable and healthy food systems. However, they emphasise that such changes:
1. must be built on full nutrition composition data from strong evidence-based nutrition science.
2. must take account the impact on health, livelihoods and wellbeing of the entire global population.
Call to ensure that strategies to sustainably transform global food systems put human health and nutrition at their centre
Cop 26 and Global Net Zero
On 31st October World Leaders will come together in Glasgow at Cop26 to discuss how we are to achieve ‘Global Net Zero’ by 2050. Inevitably, and quite rightly, transforming global food systems to reduce carbon footprint, land use and pollution will be a key topic of discussion. For many, such a transformation is envisaged as a partial move away from animal-derived foods and towards more plant -based diets. While the Academy of Nutrition Sciences is generally supportive of this, we also feel it is vital that all future strategies for transforming our food systems are developed with adequate consideration of strong, evidence-based nutrition science and with due consideration of all demographics of our global population, as well as safety, affordability and accessibility.
Meat in focus
While there is little doubt that both the health and environmental footprint of those eating large amounts of red and processed meat would benefit from a reduction in consumption, for others, these foods in moderation represent an affordable source of high-quality protein and a range of micronutrients, particularly iron and zinc. This includes not only the most economically deprived individuals, but also many of the oldest in our ageing societies. While the UK has clearly seen a movement towards more plant-based diets, as of 2019, 79% of the population still identified themselves as meat-eaters. Nevertheless, consumption of meat, especially red and processed meat, has been falling over the past decade. The recent recommendations for a National Food Strategy from Henry Dimbleby noted that if everyone complied with the 70g/day maximum, consumption of red and processed meat would fall by at least 27%.
Livestock production represents a major source of income for some of the poorest individuals in the world. Of course, the livestock industry does not only produce red meat, but also poultry, dairy products, eggs, fish and other aquatic animals. All these foods generally have fewer negative impacts on human health and represent vital sources of nutrition for many individuals. However, production of each represents a challenge to our changing environments, for example, drawing upon large areas of land for production of feed (and wild aquatic resources for fish feed) and contributing to pollution of our land and waterways. Furthermore, livestock systems are associated with untenable levels of waste, with as much as two-thirds of animal protein lost during production and processing as well as at the retail and consumer level.
Not just about protein
Understandably, the food industry is recognizing growing levels of concern within the general public about the impact of the livestock industry. As a result, we have seen a plethora of meat and dairy alternatives emerge. However, there is a real danger that the public will automatically assume that they not only have a lower environmental footprint but that the nutritional value of such products is at least as good nutritionally as those which they replace. However, of course, this is not always the case. As recognized at a recent BBSRC Food Systems Dialogue (https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/29617/official-feedback-29617-en.pdf?t=162705701), better information is needed both on the full environmental impact of plant-based alternatives and their nutritional value. There is a significant risk that they will have a poorer nutritional profile, often with reduced micronutrient content, and/or poor digestibility and absorption due to the presence of anti-nutritional factors, and often accompanied by presence of relatively high levels of salt and/or saturated fat. Protein seems to have become the primary focus in product development: yet, in reality, the foods derived from livestock typically deliver a parcel of essential nutrients alongside their protein content.
Full nutrition composition needs more consideration
The Academy of Nutrition Sciences calls for routine consideration of full nutrition composition in life cycle assessments of foods. It fully supports a transformation to more sustainable food systems and accepts that this will include a move away from such a heavy dependence on animal- derived foods. However, this needs to be done cautiously, with full consideration of the requirements of the entirety of humankind, not only our own country, but the world. In high-income countries, it is likely we will see a reduction in the production of livestock for the domestic market, but for the foreseeable future it is important that we maintain viable production systems to support those consumers who remain dependent on them. This must include more sustainable production systems, perhaps drawing on a range of novel feed ingredients, including insects, single cell organisms and food waste, together with introduction of novel land management strategies and, possibly, greater use of biotechnological interventions. Again, nutrition science has a major role to play in establishing such novel practices. Guided by a strong evidence-base, we should ensure an appropriate transition of our food systems. One which makes us less dependent on animal products but continues to provide adequate and safe sources of nutrition to maintain health for all sections of our populations, whilst reducing the environmental impact of food production and consumption.