Healthy food and health: The role of pollinators and urban gardening

In a recent study by Smith et al. (2022) published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, researchers “calculated that 3%–5% of fruit, vegetable, and nut production is lost due to inadequate pollination, leading to an estimated 427,000 (95% uncertainty interval: 86,000, 691,000) excess deaths annually from lost healthy food consumption and associated diseases. Modeled impacts were unevenly distributed: Lost food production was concentrated in lower-income countries, whereas impacts on food consumption and mortality attributable to insufficient pollination were greater in middle- and high-income countries with higher rates of noncommunicable disease. Furthermore, in the three case-study countries [Honduras, Nepal, and Nigeria], the authors calculated the economic value of crop production to be 12%–31% lower than if pollinators were abundant (due to crop production losses of 3%–19%), mainly due to lost fruit and vegetable production.”

According to the authors’ analysis (Smith et al., 2022), “insufficient populations of pollinators were responsible for large present-day burdens of disease through lost healthy food consumption.” In addition, the authors “calculated that low-income countries lost significant income and crop yields from pollinator deficits. These results underscore the urgent need to promote pollinator-friendly practices for both human health and agricultural livelihoods.”

“Despite large increases in global food production over the past half-century, providing adequate nutrition on a global scale has remained elusive for many populations.” Approximately 800 million people are undernourished worldwide, and that number has been growing steadily since 2015, following a decade of decline. In addition to those suffering from hunger, 2 billion people globally have been estimated to experience micronutrient deficiencies, although global monitoring data is infrequently collected. Inadequate intake of healthy foods, such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts, is also driving large burdens of disease. Considering these persistent challenges, strategies for global food and nutritional security have begun to shift from strictly producing adequate calories to providing more nutritious diets (Smith et al., 2022).

“Coincident with recognition of the need for more nutritious diets has been a growing awareness that we need to reduce the environmental toll of global food production. Agriculture is the single largest driver of biodiversity loss, land-use change, growing scarcity of freshwater, and land degradation globally” (Smith et al., 2022). Furthermore, the food system is a significant contributor to climate change, responsible for one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions (Crippa et al., 2021). As such, “growing more nutritious foods with lower environmental impact has become one of the great challenges of the 21st century” (Smith et al., 2022). Hence, Smith et al. 2022 concluded that: “Our results underscore the importance of pollinators for human health and increase the urgency of implementing pollinator-friendly policies to halt and reverse the trends of pollinator declines.”

Diverse Strategies to Support Pollination

“Diverse research investigating the optimal policies to benefit pollination have shown remarkable consensus around a short list of highly effective strategies: increase flower abundance and diversity on farms, reduce pesticide use, and preserve or restore nearby natural habitat. This encouraging scientific agreement has already spurred action worldwide, with many countries creating and implementing their own national pollinator protection strategies. Despite this promising momentum, immense challenges remain for the restoration of pollinator populations globally. In this analysis, we have demonstrated that the protection of animal pollinators is not solely an ecological or environmental issue but also has significant implications for human health and economic well-being” (Smith et al., 2022).

On December 21, 2022, there was a major development regarding a bee-killing pesticide:

Appeals court faults EPA for approving bee-killing pesticide

Court faults EPA for approving bee-killing pesticide

“EPA failed to properly consider the environmental impacts of a controversial pesticide, according to an appeals court decision that faulted the agency over a Trump-era decision that drew outrage from environmental groups.

In a decision issued Wednesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asserted that regulators should have considered the impacts of the bee-killing insecticide sulfoxaflor when it expanded that product’s use for long-term approval.

That action, taken under former President Donald Trump, drew legal wrath from beekeepers who argued that the agency had bypassed public comment in making its decision while also violating several protective statutes.”

Honeybees gather in a hive

Honeybees gather in a hive at Councell farms on Dec. 15 in Arcadia, Fla. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Furthermore, as observed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2016), “The absence of an appropriate habitat for bees could lead to a continuous decline in pollination. Mono-cropping, pesticides, and higher temperatures associated with climate change all pose problems for bee populations and, by extension, the quality of food we grow. Declining pollination also poses an immediate threat on nutrition.” If this trend continues, nutritious crops such as fruits, nuts and many vegetable crops will be substituted increasingly by staple crops, such as rice and corn, eventually resulting in an imbalanced diet (FAO, 2016).


Urban Gardening Supports Pollinators

In addition to the strategies recommended by Smith et al. (2022), including increased flower abundance, diversity on farms, reduced pesticide use, and preserving and/or restoring natural habitats, recent research published in the Journal of Ecology (Tew et al., 2021) reported that “urban areas in the U.K. are a significant source of nectar and floral diversity for insects. The authors of the study aimed to understand how the nectar supply differs between urban and rural areas and where the nectar sources are concentrated in urban settings. It is the first study to quantify nectar in urban areas on the landscape level. The standard method for measuring an area’s nectar supply is by using a proxy like flower abundance.” (Tew et al., 2021) (McCoy, 2021).

“To understand the differences in pollinator food supply on different landscapes the researchers did indeed tally plant samples, but they also measured actual nectar production from hundreds of flowering plants in and around 12 towns and cities across the U.K. In each location, flora were sampled in an area that fell into one of three categories: urban, farmland or nature reserve. 

Although urban and farmland landscapes had much higher numbers of non-native plants than nature preserves, the team found that the three landscapes produced similar amounts of nectar. Among the urban sources of nectar, which were much more diverse compared to both farmland or nature preserve sources, 85 percent was attributed to gardens. Even paved areas contributed to nectar sources in some instances with flowering shrubs growing through cracks or in parking lots. Within gardens, 83 percent of nectar-producing plants were non-native.” (Tew et al., 2021) (McCoy, 2021).

This recent research underscores the role urban areas can play as nectar hotspots and the value that some non-natives plants may add to support pollinator health. More specifically, the study authors observed that, “This research highlights the importance of gardens in supporting our pollinating insects and how gardeners can have a positive impact through their planting decisions,” says Stephanie Bird, co-author and entomologist at the Royal Horticultural Society, in a press release. “Gardens should not be seen in isolation—instead they are a network of resources offering valuable habitats and provisions when maintained with pollinators in mind” (Tew et al., 2021) (McCoy, 2021).

The American Community Gardening Association (ACGA) notes that urban gardens play an essential role in pollination conservation; this is due to the fact that bees need the pollen and nectar that flowers provide, and flowers need bees’ pollination services (ACGA, 2022).

Here are some tips by Tew and colleagues (2022) on what to plant by season:

Urban gardens are critical food sources for pollinators: here’s what to plant every season (Tew et al., 2022)

  • What to plant in winter

“Few pollinators are still active in winter. Most species die off leaving the next generation behind as eggs, larvae or pupae.

But bumblebees and honeybees remain in flight, taking advantage of the warmer climate and winter flowers that cities can provide. By vibrating their wings, bumblebees can warm up to forage in temperatures barely exceeding freezing point, but they need a lot of energy-rich nectar to do so. If you want to attract bees into your garden during the winter some of the best options are Mahonia, sweet box, winter honeysuckle and the strawberry tree.

  • What to plant in spring

The first queen bumblebees emerge from winter hibernation in February and March. They need food straight away.

At this time of year nectar-rich plants are vital energy sources for warming up cold flight muscles, with pollen providing the necessary protein for egg laying and larval growth. In early spring much of the countryside is still bleak and inhospitable.

Gardeners can help by planting borders of hellebore, Pulmonaria and grape hyacinth. Trees and shrubs such as willow, cherry and flowering currant are also fantastic for packing a lot of food into a small space.

A bee on a willow flower
Willow in bloom. Ira Kalinicheva | Shutterstock
  • What to plant in summer

In late spring and early summer, pollinators have more food available – but there is also more competition for it. So it is crucial to ensure you have a diverse array of different flowering plants. This will guarantee there is attractive and accessible food to suit a wide range of insects and provide them with nutritionally balanced diets.

A great assortment of plants, including honeysuckle, Campanula and lavender, can provide floral resources in summer. Mowing the lawn a little less often will help too, giving the chance for important so-called weeds, such as clover and dandelion, to bloom.

Ivy in bloom with a red admiral.
Ivy in bloom with a red admiral. Seepix | Shutterstock
  • What to plant in autumn

By late summer and autumn there are fewer species still flowering in gardens. A handful dominate the nectar supplies, particularly Fuchsia, Salvia and Crocosmia.

For many pollinators, however, these flowers are entirely useless. Their nectar is hidden away down a tube, only accessible to insects with long tongues, such as the garden bumblebee.

This means solitary bees and hoverflies may need to find other sources of food. The gardener can help by prioritizing open and accessible flowers. Opt for species such as ivy, Sedum, Echinacea and oregano.”

Urban Gardening Contributes to UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Zero Hunger (SDG 2) and Good Health and Well-Being (SDG 3)

In addition to supporting pollinators, urban gardening contributes to several of the UN SDGs, including Zero Hunger (SDG 2) and Good Health and Well-Being (SDG 3) (Nicholls et al., 2020).

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (credit: yukipon on Shutterstock)

Urban gardening contributes to hunger prevention (Zero Hunger, SDG 2).

Gardening contributes to hunger prevention through increased availability of and access to fresh fruits and vegetables whereas conventional agriculture produces more grains, fats, and sugar than fruits, vegetables, and sources of plant-based protein (Nicholls et al, 2020).

In South Africa, Modibedi et al. (2021) found that sustainable food production in community gardens can improve food availability in urban communities. The authors reported that, “Community gardens were able to sustainably provide vegetables to about two-thirds of the farmers throughout the year because of high yields even though harvests declined during dry months (March to August).”  The urban farmers also reduced their reliance on markets and supermarkets as sources of vegetables (Modibedi et al., 2021). 

In a recent meta-analysis published in the journal Earth’s Future (2022), researchers reported that when they ran a crop-by-crop comparison, they discovered that urban farms across all these contexts were producing even more food, or at least the same amount, as regular fields (Payen et al., 2022; Bryce, 2022).

Finally, a review by Rahimi et al. (2022) found that, “Urban environments have a high diversity of plants and bees that provides a good opportunity to increase agricultural production in these environments. Planting native plants and creating artificial nests for solitary bees and bumblebees can help attract more bees to urban environments. Converting lawns into floral resources or carrying out agricultural activities around green spaces can also effectively help to increase agricultural production in the city.”

Urban gardening contributes to good health and well-being (Good Health & Well-Being, SDG 3).

“Urban gardening contributes to better health because it improves both physical and mental health. Physical health is improved as working on a farm or allotment is a good exercise; mental health is improved because of being able to reconnect with nature, and with other community members. Some research indicates that people who have their own gardens consume more nutritious, health-promoting foods – including fruits and vegetables – than people without gardens (Nicholls et al., 2020).

The Magic Harvest program is a community gardening program initiated in outer metropolitan South Australia in 2010. The program provided education and support for community members to grow fruits and vegetables in their backyards or community spaces. Through their involvement in growing and sharing food via a community gardening program, participants reported higher levels of household fruit and vegetable consumption” (Mehta et al., 2019). The authors noted that, “This is particularly salient because the two MH [Magic Harvest] programs are located in areas of relative socio-economic disadvantage where residents are considered to be at greater risk of poor nutrition and associated chronic diseases. Low socio-economic communities are often assessed as hard-to-reach by primary health care services and requiring programs of high relevance and trust in order to elicit community engagement” (Mehta et al., 2019).

“Apart from enhancing fruit and vegetable consumption, the MH [Magic Harvest] program also influenced participants to be more aware about the food system and sustainability. In this way, they became more conscious food citizens, making active and thoughtful food choices rather than passively consuming what was available in the stores. Through the sharing of food with each other and their wider community, participants engaged in food democracy whereby a more sustainable and community-centered food system is created” (Mehta et al., 2019).

Finally, the Magic Harvest program afforded participants some empowerment to shape their food environment through engaging in an alternative, local food production system, albeit at a micro-level. The authors stated that, “As a community gardening initiative, the MH [Magic Harvest] program offers a holistic approach to health and creates opportunities for health promotion as outlined in the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion such as a) creating supportive environments, b) strengthening community action and c) developing personal skills” (Mehta et al., 2019).

More recently, Lampert and colleagues (2021) conducted a systematic review on the physical and mental health benefits of community gardens. These authors reported that, “Community gardeners had significantly better health outcomes than their neighbors not engaged in gardening activities in terms of life satisfaction, happiness, general health, mental health, and social cohesion.” They concluded: “Community gardens are associated to health gains for their users, irrespective of age, being an affordable and efficient way of promoting physical and mental health and well-being” (Lampert et al., 2021).

Another advantage of urban gardening is that it makes more sustainable farming methods possible because fewer pesticides are used, and crops can be grown organically (Nicholls et al., 2020). The environmental and biodiversity benefits of organic farming are widely recognized (Rempelos et al., 2021). In an extensive 3-year study, researchers found that organic farming methods can contribute to halting the pollinator decline, due to both the absence of insecticides and a higher provision of flower resources (Carrié et al., 2018).

In addition to being harmful to pollinators (Eng et al., 2017), a recent study published in the journal Environment International found that neonicotinoid insecticides can promote breast cancer progression (Li et al., 2022).

Finally, in a review published in the journal Agronomy (Rempelos et al., 2021), scientists reported that, “the evidence now available suggests that there are nutritionally relevant composition differences between organic and conventional crops and that, overall, organic plant-foods contain higher concentrations of nutritionally desirable (phenolics, other antioxidants and/or mineral micronutrients) and lower concentrations of nutritionally undesirable chemicals (pesticide residues, cadmium, and/or Fusarium mycotoxins) (Rempelos et al., 2021).

However, the authors also stated that, “Although organic food consumption was linked to positive health impacts in observational studies, one important limitation in the currently available evidence is that controlled clinical trials to confirm and provide a mechanistic understanding of the positive health impacts of organic food consumption reported in observational studies, have not yet been carried out.” (Rempelos et al., 2021; Vigar et al., 2020).

Even so, the authors observed, “mounting evidence that (i) conventional fruit, vegetable and whole-grain consumption substantially increases pesticide exposure and (ii) consumption of fruit and vegetables with high pesticide loads may have negative effects on reproductive health.” (Rempelos et al, 2021) Based on the above observations, additional research is needed. Until then, use of organic production practices in urban gardening and agriculture, as a precautionary measure, is advisable.

References:

Smith,MR, Mueller ND, Springmann M, et al. Pollinator deficits, food consumption and consequences for human health: A modeling study. Environmental Health Perspectives 2022;130:12 CID: 127003 https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10947

Crippa M, Solazzo E, Guizzardi D, et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food 2021;2:198-209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The power of pollinators: why more bees means better food. FAO: Rome, Italy. August 24, 2016. Available at: https://www.fao.org/zhc/detail-events/en/c/428504/

Tew NE, Memmott J, Vaughan IP, et al. Quantifying nectar production by flowering plants in urban and rural landscapes. Journal of Ecology 2021;109(4):https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13598

McCoy B. Trailblazing research uncovers urban gardens as a hidden powerhouse for pollinators. Anthropocene Magazine, March 31, 2021. Available at: https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2021/03/urban-gardeners-have-a-big-role-to-play-in-protecting-pollinators/

American Community Gardening Association (ACGA). The Cultivator. Community Gardening Association Newsletter. December 2022. ACGA: Atlanta, GA; 2022.

Tew N, Memmott J, Buldock K. Urban gardens are critical food sources for pollinators: here’s what to plant every season. The Conversation. January 24, 2022. Available at: https://theconversation.com/urban-gardens-are-crucial-food-sources-for-pollinators-heres-what-to-plant-for-every-season-174552

Nicholls E, Ely A, Birkin L, et al. The contribution of small-scale food production in urban areas to the sustainable development goals: A review and case study. Sustainability Science 2020;15(6):1585-1599.

Modibedi, T.P., Masekoameng, M.R. & Maake, M.M.S. The contribution of urban community gardens to food availability in Emfuleni Local Municipality, Gauteng Province. Urban Ecosyst 2021;24:301–309.

Payen FT, Evans DL, Falagan N, et al. How much food can we grow in urban areas? Food production and crop yields of urban agriculture: A meta-analysis. Earth’s Future 2022;10(8): e2022EF002748.

Bryce E. A crop-by-crop comparison of urban vs conventional farms yields turns up some surprising results. Anthropocene Magazine. August 26, 2022. Available at: https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2022/08/can-cities-grow-more-food-than-conventional-farms/?

Rahimi, E, Barghjelveh, S, Dong P. A review of diversity of bees, the attractiveness of host plants and the effects of landscape variables on bees in urban gardens. Agric & Food Security 2022;11:6 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-021-00353-2

Mehta, K., Lopresti, S., & Thomas, J. Addressing nutrition and social connection through community gardening: A South Australian study. Health Promotion Journal of Australia. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.235

Lampert T, Costa J, Santos O, et al. Evidence on the contribution of community gardens to promote physical and mental health and well-being of non-institutionalized individuals: A systematic review. PLoS One 2021; 16(8):e0255621. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34358279/

Carrié R, Johan Ekroos J, Smith HG. Organic farming supports spatiotemporal stability in species richness of bumblebees and butterflies. Biological Conservation 2018; 227:48 DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.08.022

Eng, ML, Stutchbury BJM, Morrissey CA. Imidacloprid and chlorpyrifos insecticides impair migratory ability in a seed-eating songbird. Scientific Reports 2017; 7:15176.

Li X, He S, Xiao H, et al. Neonicotinoid insecticides promote breast cancer progression via G protein-coupled estrogen receptor: In vivo, in vitro and in silico studies. EnvironmentInternational 2022;170:107568, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107568.

Rempelos, L.; Baranski, M.; Wang, J, et al. Integrated soil and crop management in organic agriculture: A logical framework to ensure food quality and human health? Agronomy 2021;11: 2494. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11122494

Vigar V, Myers S, Oliver, C, et al. A systematic review of organic versus conventional food consumption: Is there a measurable benefit on human health? Nutrients 2020;12:7.

Healthy plant-based diets are better for health and the environment than unhealthy plant-based diets: New research

In a new study published in the journal Lancet Planetary Health, researchers characterized the health and environmental impacts associated with high versus low scores on various plant-rich dietary indices in a U.S. cohort study. These researchers found that participants in the highest alternative healthy eating index-2010 (AHEI) and healthy plant-based diet index (PDI) score quintiles had a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease; reduced greenhouse gas emissions; and reduced use of cropland, irrigation water, and nitrogenous fertilizer. In contrast, participants in the highest unhealthy PDI score quintile had an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, and their diets required more cropland and fertilizer, compared with those in the lowest unhealthy PDI score quintile (Musicus et al., 2022).

“The unhealthy PDI emphasizes consumption of plant-based foods that are rich in refined grains and added sugars; diets with higher unhealthy PDI scores are associated with a higher risk of coronary heart disease compared with plant-based diets that are rich in whole grains, legumes, nuts, fruits, and vegetables, which have higher scores on the healthy PDI.” The alternative healthy eating index (AHEI) emphasizes plant-based foods and provides higher scores for healthy plant-based foods, and for some animal-sourced foods such as fish. Diets with higher AHEI scores are associated with a lower risk of major chronic disease (Musicus et al., 2022).

“Using data from the Nurses’ Health Study II, the researchers analyzed the food intakes of more than 65,000 qualifying participants, and examined their diets’ associations with health outcomes, including relative risks of cardiovascular disease, and with environmental impacts” (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 2022). “Participants who consumed healthy plant-based diets had lower cardiovascular disease risk, and those diets had lower greenhouse gas emissions and use of cropland, irrigation water, and nitrogenous fertilizer than diets that were higher in unhealthy plant-based and animal-based foods. Participants who ate unhealthy plant-based diets experienced a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, and their diets required more cropland and fertilizer than diets that were higher in healthy plant-based and animal foods. The findings also reinforced earlier studies showing that diets higher in animal-based foods, especially red and processed meat, have greater adverse environmental impacts than plant-based diets” (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 2022). Participants with diets in the highest quintiles of greenhouse gas emissions, land use, fertilizer inputs, and water use generally had higher body mass indices (BMIs) and lower levels of physical activity (Musicus et al., 2022).

The food groups that contributed the most to greenhouse gas emissions associated with participants’ dietary intake were all animal-based and included red and processed meat (31.0% of all participants’ dietary greenhouse gas emissions), dairy (13.2%), poultry (9.3%), and fish (5.6%). Plant-based food groups with the highest greenhouse gas emissions based on participant intakes included fruit juice (4.9%), vegetables (4.6%), and fruit (3.2%). Red and processed meat also contributed the most to use of cropland (59.4% of all cropland use for participants’ diets), irrigation water (26·3%), and fertilizer (25.0%). Dairy was responsible for 8.6% of use of cropland, 6·6% of irrigation water, and 8.5% of fertilizer. Aside from meat (26.3%) and dairy (6.6%), vegetable intake was responsible for 24.6% of irrigation water use (with fruit contributing 6·5% and nuts 5·1% of total irrigation water use). Plant-based foods that were responsible for the highest fertilizer use were vegetables (11.4%), whole grains (6.6%), refined grains (5.1%), and fruit (4.0%) (Musicus et al., 2022).

As noted in a recent article published in Anthropocene Magazine, in the current study, there were “variable impacts across food types – such as farmed vegetables which promote human health but which have a large water footprint, in fact four times that of fruit. Fruit juices, meanwhile, had a surprisingly large greenhouse gas footprint—almost as large as fish—when compared to other foods. Sugar-sweetened beverages were linked to significant amounts of fertilizer use, more than potatoes, legumes and nuts. Similarly, whole grains needed large amounts of fertilizer, sitting just a couple of notches below the fertilizer footprint of dairy farming.” (Bryce, 2022). View Figure 1 below to see different foods’ contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, cropland needs, irrigation water needs, and fertilizer (Musicus et al., 2022).

Figure 1: Different foods’ contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, cropland needs, irrigation water needs, and fertilizer.

Based on these results, the authors concluded that, “Plant-based dietary patterns that are associated with better human health are also associated with better environmental health. Future US dietary guidelines should include consideration of environmental sustainability and recognize that the human and environmental health co-benefits or more sustainable diets, but also that not all plant-based diets confer the same health and environmental benefits” (Musicus et al., 2022).

Although sustainability was omitted from the 2020–25 DGA [Dietary Guidelines for Americans], the current findings suggest “that future DGAs could benefit from the incorporation of dietary sustainability; such a change could both educate consumers and influence tens of millions of Americans’ diets through updated standards in federal feeding programs. This recommendation is supported by the EAT-Lancet Commission’s 2019 report findings, which highlighted the need for a global food-system transformation to ensure that the world’s rapidly growing population can be fed healthy diets from sustainable food systems (Musicus et al., 2022).

In the large prospective cohort of EPIC (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition), with a follow-up of 14 years and more than 400, 000 participants, Laine et al. (2021) reported that, “Greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced up to 50% and land use levels reduced up to 62%, by eating foods that span a higher EAT–Lancet diet score compared to eating foods that comprise a lower EAT–Lancet diet score.” These authors also found that, “up to 63% of deaths and 39% of incident cancers could be prevented in a 20-year risk period by fully adopting the EAT–Lancet reference diet (ie, perfect adherence), compared to not adopting the diet.” EPIC consists of 23 study centers in ten European countries: Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK (Laine et al., 2021).

Certain countries such as Denmark have already incorporated sustainability into their dietary guidelines. See below for a poster of Denmark’s climate-friendly dietary guidelines released in 2021.

The Official Danish Dietary Guidelines – good for health and climate. 2021. Available at: https://altomkost.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/altomkost.dk/Publikationsdatabase/De_officielle_Kostraad_2021/Danish_Official_Dietary_Guidelines_Good_for_Health_and_climate_2021_SCREEN_ENG.pdf

References:

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University. Healthy plant-based diets better for environment than less healthy plant-based diets. Press Release. November 10, 2022. Available at: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/healthy-plant-based-diets-better-for-the-environment-than-less-healthy-plant-based-diets/

Musicus AA, Wang DD, Janiszewski M, et al. Health and environmental impacts of plant-rich dietary patterns: a US prospective cohort study. Lancet Planet Health. 2022;6(11):e892-e900. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00243-1. 

Bryce M. Not all plant-based diets are equal… for health and the environment. Anthropocene Magazine. November 18, 2022. Available at: https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2022/11/not-all-plant-based-diets-are-equal-for-health-or-the-environment/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=not-all-plant-based-diets-are-equal-for-health-or-the-environment&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=not-all-plant-based-diets-are-equal-for-health-or-the-environment

Laine JE, Huybrechts I, Gunter MJ, et al. Co-benefits from sustainable dietary shifts for population and environmental health: an assessment from a large European cohort study. Lancet Planet Health. 2021;5(11):e786-e796. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00250-3.

Strategically located algae farms could increase global food production by 56% using just one-tenth of cropland: New research

According to research published in the journal Oceanography, there’s an opportunity to feed the world by farming fast-growing, low-resource, photosynthesizing algae on marginal coastal lands globally.

Nutrient-rich algae, farmed along coastlines in pounds of seawater pumped up from the ocean, could produce enough food to feed 10 billion people in the next 25 years — “while simultaneously reducing our demands for arable land and freshwater,” says Charles Greene, lead author on the new Oceanography study and Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University.

“He and his research team relied on GIS models to identify locations across the planet that are close to the sea, and have the right levels of sunlight to propel the growth of single-celled algae, which can grow 10 times faster than regular crops. 

The researchers identified the most suitable locations in southern parts of the planet—which may help shift centers of global food production from the north to the south, the researchers believe. If produced across the identified area, algae alone could generate more than the total planetary protein demand projected for 2050—an amount of roughly 286.5 Mt per year. That’s in addition to providing a rich source of minerals and omega-3 fatty acids, among other things. 

Algae could do this using one-tenth of the area required by conventional food sources to produce the same amount of food. Meanwhile, much of that land would be in places, like coastal desert environments, where it doesn’t compete with other uses.

The algae’s highly efficient growth could make it an attractive prospect for a food system that faces increasing constraints on land and on marine resources, the researchers argue. Farmed algae would also require less resources—no soil, no freshwater, and less fertilizer —than conventional crops, they show. 

To illustrate this, they compared algae with the protein generated through global soybean cultivation. Producing the equivalent amount of protein from algae would save 160 billion cubic meters of freshwater—roughly the amount currently used to irrigate all crops across the US.

Figure 1. The land and freshwater footprints for the production of essential amino acids from various nutritional sources.

Meanwhile, because fertilizer applied to grow algae is contained within the seawater-fueled ponds, there’d be no excess runoff and the algae would instead use it all. Compared to global soybean farms, therefore, algae production would save around 164,000 tons of phosphate, or about 3.2% of current US fertilizer demand. All that is in addition to the emissions savings that would come with algae’s more efficient fertilizer and land use. 

Some estimates predict we’ll need a 56% increase in food supply to feed the planet by 2050—requiring potentially vast amounts more land, water and fertilizers. But algae farming could provide a unique pressure-release valve for the environment, the authors say.

As for how to make algae palatable to consumers, Greene explains that when dried and powdered, the algae could be “added to the supply chain for meat substitutes, cheese substitutes, dairy substitutes, and baked-good substitutes. The marketed products will have the taste, look, smell, and texture of the foods that people have traditionally consumed.” He added that plenty of countries, especially in Asia, already consume algae as part of a regular diet. Algae additives are already part of several widely-eaten foods.

There are a few caveats the researchers recognize in their projections, such as algae’s huge nutrient demand, which would eat into global phosphorus reserves and may require alternatives. Rapidly-growing algae also absorb CO2 faster than it can diffuse from air into water, meaning additional CO2 would have to be pumped into algae ponds to aid growth — which could be costly in both energy and financial terms. These may prove to be big hurdles to overcome.

But whatever the case, we need to make some shifts away from our conventional food systems if we’re going to meet future challenges. Algae farming is one vision of how to do that—and it could contribute “significantly to reducing the carbon footprint of our food production system and the detrimental environmental impacts of agriculture,” Greene says.”

Source: Bryce E. New research champions algae farms as the future breadbasket of the Global South. Anthropocene Magazine. October 28, 2022. Available at: https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2022/10/new-research-champions-algae-farms-as-the-future-breadbasket-of-the-global-south/

Reference: Greene CH, Scott-Buechler CM, Hausner ALP, et al. Transforming the future of marine aquaculture: A circular economy approach. Oceanography 2022;35(2):26-34. Available at: https://tos.org/oceanography/article/transforming-the-future-of-marine-aquaculture-a-circular-economy-approach

Plant-based animal product alternatives are healthier and more environmentally sustainable than animal products: Review

A new paper published in the journal Future Foods concludes that plant-based meat and dairy alternatives offer a healthier and more environmentally sustainable solution when compared with the animal products they are designed to replace (University of Bath, 2022).

The review analyzed the results of 43 studies. In completing the review, the author evaluated the environmental and health impact of plant-based foods. The researcher also looked at consumer attitudes, including how people felt about eating meat substitutes. For example, “One study found that almost 90% of consumers who ate plant-based meat and dairy were in fact meat-eaters or flexitarians; another found that plant-based products with a similar taste, texture, and price to processed meat had the best chance of replacing meat” (Bryant, 2022).

In this review, Bryant (2022) observed that plant-based animal product alternatives are generally preferable to animal products from an environmental perspective in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, water use, land use, and noted that they do not contribute to the growing global health threats of antibiotic resistance or pandemic risk. In terms of energy use, swapping out meat for plant-based alternatives uses a similar or lesser amount of energy.

From a nutritional perspective, the author reported that, “Overall, the literature supports the view that plant-based animal product alternatives, compared to animal products, have lower levels of fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and calories, but may have less or less bioavailable protein, iron, and B12″ (Bryant, 2022). He further noted that some plant-based animal product alternatives contain high levels of salt, but they also tend to be higher in fiber and a range of micronutrients than animal products.

“In summary, PBAPAs [plant-based animal product alternatives] tend to have favorable nutritional profiles compared to animal products, tend to perform relatively well for weight loss and muscle synthesis, and can be formulated to cater to specific health conditions. They can also provide cholesterol-lowering benefits and have benefits for gut health. Research to improve the healthiness of PBAPAs [plant-based animal product alternatives] has identified ingredients and processes to optimize protein and fiber content, improve vitamin content, and reduce antinutrient content. Further such research should address ways to increase protein, iron, and Vitamin B12 content while reducing salt content.”

Based on these results, the author concluded that plant-based animal product alternatives offer a healthier and more environmentally sustainable solution compared to animal products, which considers consumer preferences and behavior. He also stated that, “with further developments in processing and formulation, plant-based animal product alternatives have the potential to improve their nutritional profile even further, as well as improving across other metrics such as taste, texture, price, cooking properties, and sustainability. Additional research funding is of paramount importance to making these potential improvements a reality, and also to test early indications that these products offer health benefits when compared to their traditional counterparts.” (Bryant, 2022).

In another recent review published by Bunge et al. (2022), it is noted that, “the literature on PBAs [plant-based alternatives] sustainability is widespread, but there is a need to study the performance and implications of the growing market of seafood analogues. More analyses should should also be conducted comparing PBAs against other alternatives such as tofu or insects to determine the most sustainable protein and fat alternatives.”

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has put together a guide to assist consumers in choosing plant-based meat alternatives based on their nutritional value. You can download a detailed chart with their “Best Bites” and “Honorable Mentions” plant-based meats at: https://www.cspinet.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/november21_plantBasedMeatsChart.pdf

CSPI’s “11 Step-Guide” in choosing plant-based meats includes the following:

1. Pay attention to protein.

Typically, your plant meat is replacing beef, pork, chicken, turkey, or seafood. Look for our Best Bites. They have at least 10 grams of protein per serving (5 grams for breakfast sausages and bacon, which have smaller servings). Getting your protein elsewhere? Honorable Mentions have no protein minimum.

2. Think of your heart.

Most vegetable oils like sunflower and canola are high in healthy unsaturated fats. Too bad many newer plant meats are drenched in coconut or palm oil. Both are richer in saturated fats. We capped Best Bites and Honorable Mentions at 2½ grams of sat fat per serving (1 gram for breakfast meats).

3. Spare the sodium.

It’s tough to make tasty plant meat without a little help from salt. So Best Bites and Honorable Mentions aren’t exactly low in sodium. But our limits—no more than 400 milligrams (250 mg for breakfast meats)—weed out the worst offenders. That’s one more reason to load the rest of your plate with vegetables. Their potassium helps lower blood pressure.

4. Heads up for allergens.

If you need to avoid gluten, skip wheat meats like Field Roast and No Evil. Got peanut allergies? Mind your peas. “Peas are legumes,” notes Beyond Meat. “People with severe allergies to legumes like peanuts should be cautious when introducing pea protein into their diet because of the possibility of a pea allergy.” (Beyond contains pea protein.)

5. Check for “vegan.”

If you want to skip not just meat but dairy and eggs, look for “vegan” on the label. “Veggie” isn’t enough, since some contain egg whites or cheese.

6. Watch Quorn.

Some people report reactions—nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and occasionally hives or difficulty breathing—after eating Quorn. Products made from Quorn’s “mycoprotein” (a processed fungi) have been sold in the U.S. since 2002. With so many other options, we didn’t consider the brand for Best Bites or Honorable Mentions.

7. Shop around.

We found plant-based meats sold alongside ground beef, chicken tenders, fresh vegetables, tofu, frozen foods, you name it. Most stores don’t stock them all in one place.

Tip: Check the label to see if you can thaw that frozen package in the fridge (so it cooks faster) or toss uncooked leftovers in the freezer.

8. Hold on to your wallet.

Pound for pound, Beyond and Impossible can cost roughly twice as much as beef. Buying them “ground” instead of in 4 oz. patties saves a couple of bucks. And with ground, you can make smaller patties, which lowers the sat fat per serving.

Or mix 4 oz. of minced raw mushrooms into a 16 oz. pack of ground Beyond Meat. That stretches it to five or six burgers. (To keep the delicate patties intact, freeze them for 10 to 15 minutes before cooking them on the stovetop, not the grill.)

9. Keep in mind that Impossible & Beyond aren’t beans.

Alas, the most meat-like plant meats also come closest to beef healthwise. You’re better off eating largely unprocessed beans, nuts, tofu, or tempeh.

10. Hack the menu.

At many restaurants, hefty white-flour buns, sauces, and (sometimes) cheese or fries push Beyond and Impossible burgers into 1,000-calorie territory.

The Cheesecake Factory’s Impossible Burger, for example, hits 930 calories and nearly a full day’s worth of sodium (2,090 mg)…before you tack on a side of salad, fries (530 calories), etc. The chain’s SkinnyLicious version with a side salad has 560 calories and less sodium (1,520 mg).

No light menu? Go cheeseless. To cut refined carbs, get a lettuce wrap instead of a bun and a salad instead of fries.

11. Try, try, try again.

Impossible or Beyond? Gardein or Morningstar? Whether you’re shopping for burgers, meatballs, chick’n, or veggie bacon, here’s what to look for…plus some of our tasters’ favorite Best Bites, Honorable Mentions, and near misses.

Veggie burgers 2.0: Impossible, Beyond, and beyond…

Who makes a better-for-you burger: Beyond Meat or Impossible?

The short answer: Beyond.

Beyond vs. Impossible: Both have too much saturated fat (from coconut oil) for Best Bites, though the Beyond Burger has been slowly dialing it down. A 4 oz. patty has 5 grams of sat fat—less than the 7 grams in a McDonald’s Quarter Pounder beef patty and the 8 grams in Impossible.

Like beef, the Impossible Burger contains heme (but from a non-meat source). Heme may help form carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds in the gut, which could help explain why red-meat eaters have a higher risk of colorectal cancer. In contrast, Beyond Burgers are heme-free.

Which burgers are better than Beyond? Some Beyond copycats have replaced Beyond’s coconut oil with healthier fats.

Try Dr. Praeger’s Perfect Burger or Whole Foods 365 Plant-Based Patties. Both Best Bites are made with pea protein (like Beyond), but they use sunflower oil (Dr. Praeger) or canola oil (Whole Foods).

Source: Moyer L. Our guide to plant-based meats. Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Nutrition Action, October 21, 2021. Available at:https://www.cspinet.org/article/our-guide-plant-based-meats?utm_source=engagingnetworks&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=HealthyTips.080322

Finally, to listen to a recent podcast about the ‘foodprint’ of the milks you may be putting in your coffee, go to: https://foodprint.org/blog/the-foodprint-of-milks/

Source: Podcast: The Foodprint of Cow’s Milk, Oat Milk and Almond Milk. October 18, 2022. Available at: https://foodprint.org/blog/the-foodprint-of-milks/

References:

Bryant CJ, Plant-based animal product alternatives are healthier and more environmentally sustainable than animal products. Future Foods 2022; 6:100174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2022.100174.

University of Bath, United Kingdom (UK). Plant-based meat ‘healthier and more sustainable than animal products’ – new study. July 29, 2022. Available at: https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/plant-based-meat-healthier-and-more-sustainable-than-animal-products-new-study/

Bunge CA, Wood A, Halloran A, et al. A systematic scoping review of the sustainability of vertical farming, plant-based alternatives, food delivery services and blockchain in food systems. Nature Food 2022; http://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00622-8

International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste (September 29, 2022): Small steps make a difference

September 29th is designated as the International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste. It is estimated that approximately 14% of food produced in the world is lost between harvest and retail, while an estimated 17% of total global food production is wasted. Saving just one-fourth of the food currently lost or wasted around the world could help feed more than 800 million people who are living in hunger as well as fight climate change (International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste, 2022) as food loss and waste are responsible for ~ 8 -10% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contributing to climate change (UNEP, 2021).

“Food loss and waste greatly undermine the sustainability of our food systems as when food is lost or wasted, all resources used to produce it — including water, land, energy, labor, and capital go to waste. It also negatively impacts food security and food availability and contributes to increasing the cost of food (International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste, 2022).”

In 1945, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) was established to defeat hunger in the world and they have made strides towards achieving this, including meeting up in December 2019 to collectively establish a day for the International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste, of which September 29 was chosen. The FAO and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) drive the observance of the International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste. With an estimated 91.6 million tons of food thrown away every year, China is the country that wastes the most food, followed by India with 68.8 million tons (International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste, 2022).

“In the wake of how Covid-19 disrupted food systems, President Xi Jinping launched the “Clean Plate Campaign” to tackle consumer food waste in China. Apart from signifying the importance of food waste as a national issue, it reflected the growing recognition that a significant amount of food waste comes from consumers’ leftovers (Makov et al., 2020) (Wang et al., 2022).” “The UNEP food index estimates around 931 million tonnes of food waste was generated in 2019, 61% of which came from households, 26% from food service, and 13% from retail. This suggests that 17 percent of total global food production may be wasted (11 percent in households, 5 percent in food service, and 2 percent in retail) (UNEP, 2021). “

To investigate whether macro-level interventions implemented in staff cafeterias can help reduce food waste in the workplace and further facilitate pro-environmental behaviors in the household, researchers in Macau, China collaborated with a business specializing in measuring food waste through smart technologies, and a large hotel-casino chain in the hospitality sector in Macau.

“To measure the effects of environmental framing and anthropomorphism in the workplace, the researchers employed a difference-in-differences (DID) design where, in all the cafeterias, they gave fortnightly feedback on the reduction of food waste, and introduced environmental framing and anthropomorphic cues into the feedback in some of the sites. Anthropomorphism is defined as attributing human-like characteristics to non-human objects (Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007)… Indeed, previous research shows that anthropomorphic cues boost pro-environmental behaviors like waste-sorting (Ahn, Kim, & Aggarwal, 2014) and that anthropomorphism increases consumers’ intentions to buy misshapen [i.e., imperfect] food products (Cooremans & Geuens, 2019; Shao, Jeong, Jang, & Xu, 2020). (Wang et al., 2022).”

The study design is summarized in Fig. 1 (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Detailed Study Design

In control site A, researchers planned to provide food waste feedback in rounds 1-5, but only managed to do so in rounds 3-5, as there was a one-month delay in installing the Winnow Sense system (smart bins) in site A due to logistical difficulties. In treatment site B, food waste feedback was given for all 5 rounds, while additional posters about the environmental benefits of reducing food waste were added in rounds 3-5. The same food waste feedback and environmental messages were given to treatment site C with the only difference that images (e.g., food, trees, and the globe) were anthropomorphized (see Figure 2 for exemplar posters) (Wang et al., 2022).

Figure 2: Exemplar Posters – Round 3

During the study, three staff cafeterias in different hotels received smart bins and fortnightly informational feedback on the amount of food they wasted. The researchers varied the type of feedback each site received to investigate if it can be communicated more effectively in some ways: feedback in site A solely illustrated how much food was wasted, whereas they framed feedback with environmental information without and with anthropomorphic cues (e.g., where the food icons had faces) in sites B and C respectively.

In addition to actual food waste data, the researchers collected an online survey of staff after the interventions were trialed. This combination of metrics enabled researchers to examine if actual food waste data corresponded with self-reported levels of effort to save food at work, and if there were any unintended impacts on efforts to reduce waste at home. The survey, importantly, also allowed them to identify micro-level psychological determinants (e.g., environmental identity, motivations, and beliefs) for saving food at work and home to analyze how they might interact with the macro-level contextual spillover effects (Wang et al., 2022).

The authors found that there were significantly greater reductions in food waste in the treatment sites than in the control site. More specifically, they reported that “a combination of multiple interventions achieved the best results in food waste reduction, such that the treatment site C which received the environmental feedback with anthropomorphism saw the most salient reduction in food waste during and after the campaign. Theoretically, this work takes forward past research on anthropomorphism and food consumption (Cooremans & Geuens, 2019; Shao, et al., 2020), and shows that anthropomorphism can reinforce the effects of environmental feedback in eliciting waste-reducing behaviors (Wang et al., 2022).”

Based on these results, the researchers concluded that, “food waste feedback provided together with environmental footprint information and anthropomorphic cues jointly contribute to reducing food waste at work and can have positive spillover effects on food saving behaviors as well as other waste-reduction actions at home.” The authors also concluded that these results help advance the emerging field of multi-level interventions in managing consumer food waste behaviors (Wang et al., 2022).

Below are some simple action steps from Today’s Dietitian to reduce food waste at the household level (share these tips with your family members and friends):

Ask for smaller food portions. Serve smaller portions of food at home or share large dishes with friends and family at restaurants.
• Love your leftovers. Instead of throwing leftovers away, use them as ingredients for the next day’s meal. In addition, store leftovers in the refrigerator or freezer within two hours of preparing a meal.
• Create a shopping list and stick to it. Plan ahead for food purchases to prevent from buying too much food during a shopping trip.
• Become a meal planner. Track and plan what you will eat each week before heading to the store. That way, you’ll know exactly what ingredients to buy to create meals and avoid buying food you don’t need.
• Buy ‘ugly’ (imperfect) fruits and vegetables. Some food retailers and farmers’ markets sell irregularly shaped fruits and vegetables and those with small bruises or discoloration. If this produce goes unpurchased, some of it will be discarded as waste. Also, Misfits Market and Imperfect Foods offer sustainable food delivery services using misfit or imperfect produce. Learn more at: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/misfits-market-vs-imperfect-foods
• Check your refrigerator. Set your refrigerator temperatures between 34˚ and 41˚ F (1˚ to 5˚ C) for maximum freshness and shelf life.
• Don’t overfill the refrigerator with food. The refrigerator will use less energy, and you will be less likely to waste food they don’t eat.
• Practice the “first in, first out” rule. Rotate the older food items in their fridge and cupboards from the back to the front, so the most recently purchased items go to the back.
• Understand dates on food packages. Know the difference between “use by,” the date by which a food should be eaten, and “best before,” the date indicating that the food’s quality is best before that date.
• Turn waste into compost. Compost is organic material you can add to the soil in your outdoor and indoor gardens to help plants grow. It helps soil retain moisture, decreases the need for chemical fertilizers, lowers methane gas emissions from landfills, and provides other benefits. You can begin by setting up a bin for food waste that can include fruit and vegetable peelings, but they’ll need additional components to complete the process. Visit www.epa.gov/recycle/composting-home for more information.
• Donate surpluses. Give surplus food to those in need. Contact food banks/food pantries and faith-based organizations in your communities and donate food (McCullum-Gomez, 2020).

References:

International Day of Food Loss and Waste, September 29, 2022. National Today. Available at:

International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). UNEP Food Waste Index Report 2021. March 2, 2021. Available at:  https://www.unep.org/resources/report/unep-food-waste-index-report-2021


Wang F, Shreedhar G, Galizzi MM, et al. A take-home message: workplace food waste interventions influence household pro-environmental behaviors. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances, 2022;15, 200106,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2022.200106. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667378922000438

McCullum-Gomez C. Food waste, climate change, and hunger. Today’s Dietitian. June/July 2020. Available at:  https://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/JJ20p36.shtml

Lorencz, K. Misfits Market vs. Imperfect Foods: Which Sustainable Produce Delivery Service Is Best? Healthline. May 17, 2022. Available at: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/misfits-market-vs-imperfect-foods

Do carbon footprint labels promote climatarian diets? Evidence from a large-scale field experiment

In a recent study published in the Journal of Environmental Economics & Management, researchers from the United Kingdom (UK) assessed the causal effect of carbon footprint labelling on individual meal choices in a university cafeteria setting using a large-scale field experiment. The study allowed the scientists explicitly explore whether carbon footprint labels can induce more climatarian food choices and simultaneously quantify potential emissions reductions that can be attained from such changes in food consumption patterns.

The experiment was conducted in partnership with five college cafeterias catering to students and staff at the University of Cambridge between October 2019 and March 2020. Carbon footprint labels were introduced at three of the five cafeterias on all cafeteria main meals served during an intervention period, while two cafeterias served as our control. The researchers collected baseline (pre-treatment) meal choice data as well as a post-intervention follow-up exit survey data. The final dataset consisted of over 80,000 individual dining decisions made by 2228 individuals.

Results from this large-scale field experiment indicate that carbon footprint labels led to a decrease in the probability of selecting a high-carbon footprint meal by approximately 2.7 percentage points with consumers substituting to mid-carbon impact meals. The researchers found no change in the market share of low-carbon meals, on average. The reduction in high-carbon footprint meals was driven by decreases in sales of meat meals while sales of mid-ranged vegan, vegetarian and fish meals all increased. The authors estimated that the introduction of carbon footprint labels was associated with a 4.3% reduction in average carbon emissions per meal.

Carbon Label: University Cafeteria

Based on these results, Lohmann et al. 2022 conclude that labels are an effective tool to leverage pro-environmental preferences in a cafeteria setting and promise considerable greenhouse (GHG) emission reductions at the individual level. And while this study is limited to the cafeteria setting, the authors assert that carbon labels will have a much larger role to play in a broader set of food consumer choices, in particular supermarket purchase decisions (because the volume is much larger than cafeteria choices). These authors point out that additional experiments in these food choice settings with non-student samples will be important to solidify our understanding of how carbon footprint labels affect consumer choices.

Moreover, the authors noted that, “labels allow for product differentiation on sustainability grounds and hence provide clear signals to consumers who hold environmental preferences. Product differentiation aids consumer choices and in turn may bring about significant changes on the producer side if market dynamics continue their current trend in favor of low-carbon alternatives and increasing climatarian dietary preferences. “

“For instance, labels may incentivize suppliers to substitute high-carbon alternatives in favor of lower-carbon alternatives, which could result in substantial decreases in food production emissions. If future carbon footprint labels are based on full life-cycle assessments capturing emissions from ‘farm to fork’, this could further encourage innovations along the entire supply chain.” The researchers observed that the “results are particularly relevant under the current policy climate in the UK, the EU and elsewhere where pilot voluntary carbon food labelling schemes are emerging (e.g. the UK’s Carbon Trust label) and advanced discussions are underway for introducing carbon food labels as part of many countries’  decarbonisation agendas.

This momentum is partly a reaction to an increasing consumer shift towards climatarian diets (i.e. diets aimed at reducing the carbon footprint). Yet, the reality remains that rolling out carbon food labels across the entire food industry is an immensely challenging and complex endeavour, while at the same time, causal hard evidence-based studies on the impact of these labels on actual behavior are lacking (Rondoni and Grasso, 2021).”

The paper by Lohmann et al. (2022) provides one of the first large-scale field experiments that specifically assessed impacts of carbon labeling on behavioral change within a university cafeteria setting in a causal manner. The authors found that carbon footprint labels on food could induce carbon reducing behavioral changes. However, as stated by these authors, “The challenges that remain are how to scale up the use of such labels in a manner that is unambiguous to consumers and also cost-effective.” Furthermore, Faccioli et al. (2022) noted that while information on the carbon characteristics of a food is relevant for consumers in making food choices, use of a combined carbon and health tax policy may be necessary to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

References:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069622000596#b15

Lohmann PM, Gsottbauer E, Doherty A, et al. Do carbon footprint labels promote climatarian diets? Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 114,102693 (2022). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069622000596?via%3Dihub

Faccioli, M., Law, C., Caine, C.A. et al. Combined carbon and health taxes outperform single-purpose information or fiscal measures in designing sustainable food policies. Nat Food 3, 331–340 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00482-2

Eat more fish: new research identifies several marine species that are more nutritious and better for the planet than beef, pork, or chicken

Replacing meat with certain types of sustainably sourced seafood could help people to reduce their carbon footprints without compromising on nutrition, finds an analysis of dozens of marine species that are consumed worldwide. The study, published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment  (Bianchi et al., 2022), “suggests that farmed bivalves — shellfish such as mussels, clams and oysters — and wild-caught, small, surface-dwelling (pelagic) fish, which include anchovies, mackerel and herring, generate fewer greenhouse-gas emissions and are more nutrient dense than beef, pork or chicken.”

The research aimed to “do a better job of understanding the climate impacts of seafood through the lens of very diverse nutritional qualities”, says co-author Peter Tyedmers, an ecological economist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada.

“The findings echo those of previous studies, including work by members of Tyedmers’ group that focused on seafood consumed in Sweden (Hallström et al., 2019). This time, the researchers wanted to include a more diverse, global range of seafood, says Tyedmers.”

‘Blue’ diet benefits

“Food production accounts for roughly one-third of global greenhouse-gas emissions, mostly of methane and carbon dioxide (Crippa et al., 2021). More than half of those emissions are driven by livestock farming (Xu et al., 2021). Plant-based diets offer one lower-impact alternative to eating meat, but solutions tend to overlook the benefits of seafood-based, or ‘blue’, diets, the study (Bianchi et al., 2022), says.

Using 41 seafood species, the researchers established a nutrient-density score that accounted for essential nutrients, such as certain fats and vitamins. The species surveyed included farmed and wild-caught fish, crustaceans, bivalves and cephalopods (the group that includes octopus and squid). The team then used available emissions data for 34 of those species to compare their nutrient density with the emissions associated with their production or capture.

Half of the seafood species offered more nutritional bang for their buck in terms of emissions (See Figure 1 below). Wild-caught pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), along with wild-caught, small pelagic fish and farmed bivalves, were the best choices for nutrient-dense, low-emissions protein sources. Whitefish such as cod (Gadus sp.) also had a low climate impact, but were among the least nutrient-dense food. Wild-caught crustaceans had the highest emissions, with a carbon footprint rivalled only by that of beef. The authors note that their emissions data do not include ‘post-production’ emissions, such as those generated by refrigeration or transport.”

Figure 1: Seafood by relative greenhouse gas emissions (%) & relative nutritional score (%)

“The analysis adds more perspective to the role of seafood in food systems, says Zach Koehn, a marine scientist at the Stanford Center for Ocean Solutions in California. He adds that one hurdle in applying this research will be the need to make seafood more widely available in an affordable way, because those who could benefit the most from nutrient-dense foods might not have access to it.”

Tyedmers agrees that access to diverse diets is a privilege. “Every opportunity there is to substitute seafood for beef is a small climate win,” he says. “It doesn’t have to be every meal.”

Source: Coleman J. Eat more fish: when switching to seafood helps – and when it doesn’t. Nature News, September 13, 2022. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-02928-w

Citations:

1. Bianchi, M., Hallström, E., Parker, R.W.R. et al. Assessing seafood nutritional diversity together with climate impacts informs more comprehensive dietary advice. Commun Earth Environ 3, 188 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00516-4

2. Hallström E, Bergman K, Mifflin K, et al. Combined climate and nutritional performance of seafoods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 230, 402-411 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.229.

3. Crippa, M, Solazzo, E, Guizzardi, D. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat Food 2, 198–209 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9

4. Xu X, Sharma P, Shu S. et al. Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nat Food 2, 724–732 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00358-x

Ultra-processed foods should be central to global food systems dialogue and action on biodiversity

A recent commentary article published BMJ Global Health (2022) points out that, “The global industrial food system and consequent rapid rise of ultra-processed foods is severely impairing biodiversity. Yet although the impacts of existing land use and food production practices on biodiversity have received much attention, the role of ultra-processed foods has been largely ignored. An increasingly prominent ‘globalized diet’, characterized by an abundance of branded ultra-processed food products made and distributed on an industrial scale, comes at the expense of the cultivation, manufacture and consumption of traditional foods, cuisines, and diets, comprising mostly fresh and minimally processed foods. Ultra-processed foods are typically manufactured using ingredients extracted from a handful of high-yielding plant species, including maize, wheat, soy and oil seed crops. Animal-sourced ingredients used in many ultra-processed foods are often derived from confined animals fed on the same crops. The contribution of ultra-processed foods to agrobiodiversity loss is significant, but so far has been overlooked in global food systems summits, biodiversity conventions and climate change conferences. Ultra-processed foods need to be given urgent and high priority in the agendas of such meetings, and policies and action agreed.”

Read the full commentary at:

Click to access bmjgh-2021-008269.pdf

Increased consumption of ultra-processed foods has been linked to higher greenhouse gas emissions as well as negative impacts on the nation’s water footprint and ecological footprint, such as deforestation, by a study that charted 30 years of dietary change in Brazil (da Silva et al, 2021; Askew, 2021). The authors of this study concluded that, “The environmental effects of the Brazilian diet have increased over the past three decades along with increased effects from ultra-processed foods. This means that dietary patterns in Brazil are becoming potentially more harmful to human and planetary health. Therefore, a shift in the current trend would be needed to enhance sustainable healthy food systems.” (da Silva et al., 2021).

Discussions related to the food system and biodiversity are important and timely as the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15) will meet in Montreal, Canada from December 7-19, 2022. To learn more about the upcoming COP15 go to:

https://www.unep.org/events/conference/un-biodiversity-conference-cop-15

Source: BBC UK

The food system and biodiversity: what can consumers do to make a difference?

In a recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), researchers simulated the potential effects of dietary shifts and food waste reduction on the biodiversity impacts of food consumption in the United States. The authors found that, “Adopting the [EAT-Lancet] Planetary Health diet or the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)–recommended vegetarian diet nationwide would reduce the biodiversity footprint of food consumption. However, increases in the consumption of foods grown in global biodiversity hotspots both inside and outside the United States, especially fruits and vegetables, would partially offset the reduction…. Simply halving food waste would benefit global biodiversity more than half as much as all Americans simultaneously shifting to a sustainable diet.”

“Combining food waste reduction with the adoption of a sustainable diet [EAT-Lancet planetary health diet or USDA-recommended vegetarian diet] could reduce the biodiversity footprint of US food consumption by roughly half. Species facing extinction because of unsustainable food consumption practices could be rescued by reducing agriculture’s footprint; diet shifts and food waste reduction can help us get there (Read et al., 2022).”

To read the study in its entirety, go to: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2113884119

For more information on the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet, see: https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/

and

Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)31788-4/fulltext

References:

Askew K. Study charts impact of ultra-processed foods: Diet-related disease and climate change ‘share an underlying driver.’ Food Navigator. November 11, 2021. Available at: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2021/11/11/Study-charts-impact-of-ultra-processed-foods-Diet-related-disease-and-climate-change-share-an-underlying-driver

da Silva, JT, Garzillo JFG, Rauber F, et al. Greenhouse gas emissions, water footprint, and ecological footprint of food purchases according to their degree of processing in Brazilian metropolitan areas: a time-series study from 1987 to 2018. Lancet Planet Health 2021; 5: e775–85.

Leite FHM, Khandpur N, Andrade GC, et al. Ultraprocessed foods should be central to global food systems dialogue and action on biodiversity. BMJ Global Health 2022;7:e008269. doi:10.1136/ bmjgh-2021-008269

Read QD, Hondula KL, Muth MK, et al. Biodiversity effects of food system sustainability actions from farm to fork. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2022;119(5):e2113884119.

Healthier foods are better for the planet: new study

An analysis of 57,000 foods published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) “reveals which [foods] have the best and worst environmental impacts. A team of researchers used an algorithm to estimate how much of each ingredient was in thousands of products sold in major UK supermarket chains. The scientists then gave food items an environmental-impact score out of 100 — with 100 being the worst — by combining the impacts of the ingredients in 100 grams of each product. They considered several factors, including greenhouse-gas emissions and land use.

Healthier foods tended to have low environmental impacts, the team found. Products containing lamb and beef — such as ready-made meat pies — had the most serious environmental impact. The lowest-impact foods tended to be made with plants and included bread products, fruits, vegetables, grains and sugar-rich drinks.” See ‘Food For Thought’ (Figure 1) below. “There were some notable exceptions: both nuts and seafood had a good nutrition score but relatively high environmental impacts.”

Figure 1. Food for Thought


Keep in mind that previously published analyses have shown there are varying environmental impacts of nuts and seafood, depending on the type of nut and seafood. In an article published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2022), Rose and colleagues found that substituting peanuts for almonds in self-selected diets in the U.S. reduced the water scarcity footprint by 30 percent. In the same study, replacing a serving of shrimp with cod reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 34 percent. However, while whitefish – such as cod – have a low climate impact, they are among the least nutrient-dense seafood. In contrast, wild-caught pink salmon and sockeye salmon, along with wild-caught, small pelagic fish (e.g., anchovies, mackerel, herring) and farmed bivalves (e.g., mussels, clams, oysters), are the best choices for nutrient-dense, low-emissions protein sources (Bianchi et al., 2022). Furthermore, a study by Dr. Jessica Gephart and colleagues published in Nature (2021) reported substantial differences in the amount (pounds) of CO2 equivalents by type of seafood (per serving) (See Figure 2 below). To learn more, see: https://www.cspinet.org/article/which-seafood-causes-least-damage-planet-its-complicated

Figure 2. Fishing for greener seafood

Aim for seafood with low greenhouse gas emissions. Farmed fish have other costs such as nitrogen and phosphorus runoff, but they’re typically lower than that of chicken.

Photo: Source: Nature 597: 360, 2021.

References:

Clark M, Springmann M, Rayner M, et al. Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 119, e2120584119 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120584119

Kreir F. Healthier foods are better for the planet, mammoth study finds. Nature. August 10, 2022. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02160-6#:~:text=Comparing%20the%20environmental%2Dimpact%20score,but%20relatively%20high%20environmental%20impacts.

Bianchi, M., Hallström, E., Parker, R.W.R. et al. Assessing seafood nutritional diversity together with climate impacts informs more comprehensive dietary advice. Commun Earth Environ 3, 188 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00516-4

Gephart JA., Henriksson PJG, Parker RWR. et al. Environmental performance of blue foods. Nature 597,360–365 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03889-2.

Liebman B. Which seafood causes the least damage to the planet? It’s complicated. Center For Science in The Public Interest. March 28, 2022. Available at: https://www.cspinet.org/article/which-seafood-causes-least-damage-planet-its-complicated

Rose D, Willits-Smith AM, Heller MC. Single-item substitutions can substantially reduce the carbon and water scarcity footprints of US diets. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 115(2), 378-387 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqab338

Scientists offer blueprint for sustainable redesign of food systems

A new perspective article published in the journal Nature Sustainability describes food systems designed not by the logic of growth such as efficiency and extraction, but by principles of sufficiency, regeneration, distribution, commons, and care. It argues that food systems can instead be the foundation of healthy communities, ecologies, and economies. “For this agenda-setting article, we’ve reviewed the vast experience of diverse farmers, food cooperatives, home gardeners, alternative retailers, and other endeavors to re-claim what sustainability for food systems means in high and low-income nations,” the authors state.

The authors call for policymakers, researchers and community groups worldwide to rethink their approach to developing new solutions beyond the current “growth paradigm.” They compare the current growth paradigm, which they argue is exploitative of humans and animals, ecologically harmful, dependent on fossil fuels, and controlled by a small number of multi-national corporations, with an alternative paradigm that is based on a post-growth agrifood system.

“We have seen what food systems designed to achieve relentless economic growth and profit maximization do to the environment, farming communities, and our health, and it’s not good,” says Dr. Steven McGreevy, an assistant professor of institutional urban sustainability studies at the University of Twente.

Post-growth food system

“Fortunately, there are countless examples from around the world of post-growth agrifood system elements in action. We need to support these models where they exist, and rediscover, transfer, or further develop them where appropriate,” says McGreevy.

The authors identify post-growth agrifood system endeavors already in action around the world including:

  • Food production: How the adoption of agroecological farming and gardening into the current food systems can enhance biodiversity, maintain fertile soils, and improve system resilience to social and ecological shocks. For more information on the benefits of agroecology, view the new book by Dr. Stephen Gliessman and colleagues titled, Agroecology: Leading The Transformation To a Just and Sustainable Food System, 4th ed. (CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2022) (see book cover below).
  • Food business and trade: Community-based business models such as cooperatives and benefit corporations can anchor sustainability in businesses and prioritize the health and well-being of the environment and the public.
  • Food culture: Closer relationships with food and the processes which it goes through to reach people can create a culture of appreciation in which we value food as a “commons” and the people working in the agrifood system.
  • Food system governance: Food is connected to multiple siloes/sectors of governance—agriculture, public health, land-use planning, education, tourism, etc.—that are often working independently, rather than working together in an integrative way. “Food policy councils (FPCs) are one example of new governance structures that are inclusive and representative of diverse public and private stakeholders and cut across multiple sectors of policy expertise related to food.”

New research agenda

According to the authors of this study, “the conventional wisdom of mainstream sustainability science–including its underlying logic of economic growth—is fixated on narrow solution space: increasing production efficiency, high-tech innovation and individual behavior change.”

To break free of these intellectual constraints, thee authors argue that “the redesign of the global agrifood system should be supported by a coordinated education and a new research agenda that challenges conventional wisdom and focuses on understanding and developing diverse solutions outside of the growth paradigm.”

Similarly, an article by McCullum and colleagues (2005) published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association provides dietetics professionals with a three-stage continuum of evidence-based strategies and activities that applies a food systems approach to building food security within communities.

“Stage 1 creates small but significant changes to existing food systems through such strategies as identifying food quality and pricing inequities in low-income neighborhoods and educating consumers regarding both the need and the possibilities for alternative food systems. Stage 2 stabilizes and augments change for food systems in transition by developing social infrastructure through multisector partnerships and networks and fostering participatory decision-making and initial policy development [e.g., serving on food policy councils]. Based on these changes, stage 3 involves advocacy and integrated policy instruments to redesign food systems for sustainability. Data collection, monitoring, and evaluation are key components of all stages of the community food security continuum.”

Source: University of Twente. Scientists offer blueprint for sustainable redesign of food systems. Phys.org. August 9th, 2022. Available at: https://phys.org/news/2022-08-scientists-blueprint-sustainable-redesign-food.html

McGreevy, S.R., Rupprecht, C.D.D., Niles, D. et al. Sustainable agrifood systems for a post-growth world. Nat Sustain (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00933-5

McCullum C, Desjardins E, Kraak V, et al. Evidence-based strategies to build community food security. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105(2):278-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2004.12.015 https://www.jandonline.org/article/S0002-8223(04)01973-X/fulltext