Credit: CC0
Public Domain
That eating plenty of vegetables, wholegrains and legumes is beneficial for
health is well known. More surprising, however, is that people who eat in an
environmentally-friendly way also display nutritional values that are better
than researchers had expected. This is shown in a new study from Lund
University.
The EAT–Lancet diet is a global dietary guideline developed to promote both
human health and a sustainable planet. It is based on plant-based foods rich in
wholegrains, legumes, fruit and vegetables, with small amounts of animal
products—above all, considerably lower meat consumption than what the Swedish
Food Agency recommends.
"There have been concerns that a diet with less meat and other animal
products would increase the risk of nutrient deficiencies. But we did not see
that. On the contrary, most of those who ate in line with the planetary dietary
guidelines had good nutritional status," says Anna Stubbendorff, who was a
doctoral student at the Faculty of Medicine at Lund University and part of the
Agenda 2030 Graduate School.
The study has just been published in The
Lancet Planetary Health and forms part of the doctoral thesis on the
health effects of the planetary dietary recommendations, which she defended on
16 January this year.
The results of the current study show that the nutrient intake among those
who ate a climate‑friendly diet was fully comparable to those who ate the same
amount of a "typical" diet with a larger share of animal products.
Put differently: the majority of those who ate in a way similar to the new
recommendations obtained sufficient amounts of key vitamins and minerals,
despite the EAT–Lancet diet containing less meat.
Blood-based measures of nutritional status were also comparable. The
researchers are not entirely certain about the reasons, but one explanation may
be that the human body adapts its uptake of nutrients to the levels present in
the body and therefore absorbs more when needed, she explains.
A couple of deviations were noted among those who ate more climate‑friendly
diets. First, levels of the B vitamin folate (folic acid) were higher among
them than among the other participants—something that was unexpected and
positive. Second, there was an increased risk of anemia (iron deficiency) among
female participants. The difference was small—4.6% instead of 3.3%—but
Stubbendorff nonetheless suggests that foods could be fortified, or that at‑risk
groups receive supplements to achieve good blood values.
Her findings are based on analyses of the extensive Malmö Diet and Cancer
Study, in which 26,000 people reported their eating habits and were followed
for several decades.
Stubbendorff's answer to the question of whether the EAT–Lancet diet is
sustainable for both humans and the environment is therefore a clear yes.
"It is possible to combine an environmentally sustainable diet with
good health. The studies show that such dietary patterns can reduce the risk of
disease and premature death without compromising nutrient intake among the
majority of the population. There are positive synergies between health and
sustainability," says Stubbendorff.
More wholegrains—substantially less meat
Stubbendorff, a trained dietitian, began her doctoral position at the
Faculty of Medicine and the Agenda 2030 Graduate School at Lund University in
2019. That same year, the first version of the EAT–Lancet diet was published,
and she decided to examine how sustainable the new diet was from a health
perspective.
"With the EAT–Lancet dietary advice, two strands were tied together—a
diet intended to be sustainable for both humans and the planet. It opened up a
completely new field of research. Would what was sustainable for the planet
increase or decrease the risk of disease and nutrient deficiencies for those
who followed the diet?"
Since then, she has published five scientific articles included in the
doctoral thesis Environmentally sustainable diets and human health—Nutritional
adequacy, disease risk, and mortality. In addition, during her doctoral
studies, she has authored and co-authored a further 23 articles related to food
and health.
Swedish dietary habits far from sustainable
So how do Swedish eating habits fare from a climate and sustainability
perspective? In a global comparison of climate impact, not well. In a ranking
of 156 countries, Sweden is 13th from the bottom—just after traditional high‑meat
nations such as the U.S. and New Zealand. The explanation is clear: Swedish
consumers eat a lot of meat and dairy products, which drives emissions upward.
Today, meat consumption is about 680 grams per person per week.
For Sweden to approach the EAT–Lancet recommended diet, a sharp reduction
in both meat and dairy consumption is required. The Nordic Nutrition
Recommendations, on which the Swedish Food Agency bases its advice, now take
some climate considerations into account.
But the differences are notable. According to the Nordic advice, 350–400 grams of red meat per
week is acceptable—several times higher than the EAT–Lancet ceiling of 90
grams. At the same time, Sweden lacks guidelines for dairy and poultry
consumption, areas where EAT–Lancet specifies a maximum of 250 grams of dairy
and 30 grams of chicken per day.
"There is a lot of focus on meat, but other things we can also
influence in our part of the world are not eating more than we need and
stopping food waste—overproduction of food also depletes the planet's
resources. We can also talk more about what we ought to eat more of, such as
wholegrains and legumes. There is great potential for public health
there," says Stubbendorff.
Links between health and environmental impact
Her doctoral thesis also comprises earlier studies, and one of the most
important findings was that the people who ate most in line with the EAT–Lancet diet had approximately a 33% lower
relative risk of dying from cardiovascular disease compared with those who
adhered least to the diet. This does not mean that one third fewer people died,
but rather that the probability of dying from cardiovascular disease was about
one third lower in the group that followed the dietary pattern most closely.
At the same time, the overall relative risk of premature death was around
25% lower, and cancer-related mortality decreased by nearly as much. The
results are based on observational data and show associations between dietary
patterns and mortality, but they cannot establish direct causal relationships.
Are there uncertainties in the results? Yes—measuring what people eat is
generally difficult. "But the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study that we analyzed
used an unusually advanced method with a food diary, questionnaire and
interviews. The study also followed a large group over a long time. So even
though there is uncertainty in the material, I consider the results
robust," she says.
She now hopes that experts and decision‑makers will dare to address the
issue of our dietary habits, even though it is sensitive. Today, food production globally
accounts for about one third of total greenhouse‑gas emissions, uses around 70%
of the world's freshwater and is the single largest driver of biodiversity
loss, with agriculture identified as a threat to the majority of species at
risk of extinction.
"It is important that this issue is allowed to rest on a scientific
foundation. We have a fantastic opportunity if we succeed with these important
changes," she says.
Provided
by Lund University
by Sara Håkansson, Lund University
edited by Gaby
Clark, reviewed by Robert Egan
Source: Climate-friendly
diet yields unexpectedly strong nutritional outcomes
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
