Scientists and environmentalists are unanimous. Reducing our consumption of animal products is clearly one of the major levers for sustainable food and the fight against global warming.

But is there a single sustainable global diet? What will the food sources of tomorrow be able to properly feed 9 billion people in 2050 without destroying the planet? And above all, can sustainable food be accessible to all?

 

Why should we reduce our consumption of animal products?

 

A negative environmental impact

On the more than 13 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent emitted by the food chain in the world, livestock and fishing represent a third[1].

Without major mitigation measures, the impact of our consumption of animal products on the environment will be increasingly significant by 2050.[2].

In addition to contributing massively to greenhouse gas emissions, livestock farming, which is responsible for 63% of deforestation in the Amazon, also contributes to the depletion and pollution of water resources.

 

 

Health at risk

Beyond its negative impacts on the environment, the overconsumption of meat, especially red meat, tends to increase the risk of certain diseases: colon cancer, cardiovascular disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes. But these risks to human health also come from epizootics (BSE, avian flu, etc.), our modern livestock systems being real incubators for various pathogens.

 

A question of food safety

Another unsuspected impact of overconsumption of meat: hunger. As paradoxical as it may seem, meat production has a negative impact on the food security of the poorest humans on the planet. Indeed, 2/3 of agricultural land is devoted to livestock farming or the production of livestock feed. However, it takes much more agricultural land to produce meat than to directly produce cereals for human consumption in the West: for example, it takes 7 kg of vegetable protein to produce 1 kg of beef protein, 6 kg for pork and poultry protein, 3 kg for egg protein. Certainly, some of these vegetable proteins are unfit for human consumption (fodder and pasture), but Some cereals, such as soybeans, are very nutritious foods that can be directly consumed by humans..

 

Can sustainable food be global?

 

Hundreds of food crops, several sustainable diets

American researchers have compared the impact of 9 diets classified according to their degree of "vegetation" on the climate. This study made it possible to understand what the regime would be lower carbon impact in each country according to its nutritional and cultural specificities. The conclusion of the study is:

• on the one hand that we can have a low environmental footprint while having a healthy diet,
• on the other hand, that there is no universal diet, each country having to draw conclusions adapted to its needs and its food culture.

 

However, two menus seem to stand out from the crowd:

• The vegan diet, that is to say without meat, fish or dairy products, is inevitably the one that pollutes the least.
• The menu integrating animals from the bottom of the food chain, that is, insects, small fish and molluscs. It offers greater flexibility and protein intakes adapted to the needs of the most vulnerable populations, particularly in countries experiencing food security problems. malnutrition. With comparable environmental benefits.

 

The following diets follow in order:

• 2/3 vegan (1 meal out of 3)
• Lacto-ovo vegetarian (with eggs and dairy products)
• Pescetarian (fish as the only animal protein)
• No red meat
• Dairy-free
• Low in red meat
• With 1 meat-free day per week

 

Of the 9 diets studied, the 7 first would reduce the carbon and water footprint global, if the 140 countries adopted them. While the last two would increase them.

 

An elitist “ideal” regime?

At the scale of France, WWF had raised in its report "Towards low-carbon, healthy and affordable food" that the flexitarian plate, if it fits well into the agricultural and food transition, remains a proposal for a sustainable diet which cannot be adopted by everyoneIndeed, individual eating habits depend on various parameters: socio-economic, cultural, lifestyle, age, gender, etc.

However, the theoretical conclusion is very encouraging. The financial cost of sustainable food decreases with its carbon footprint, while nutritional quality increases. This may seem obvious when you consider the price of meat, but less so when you consider the price of an ultra-processed food (often inexpensive) compared to the sum of its ingredients...

 

WWF, however, rightly points out that the baskets flexitarians, vegetarians and vegans, due to their lower cost compared to a classic basket, allow to increase the share of labeled products respectively 49% for the flexitarian diet and 66% for the other two.

Because eating sustainably isn't just about eating less meat. It's also about privilege local, organic, seasonal, labeled products...

This also means cooking more. All of this requires not only time, but also a certain level of education in knowing where and how to choose your products, and willpower.

 

Despite these very accurate calculations and recommendations, the work of raising awareness among the population is still vast, because the sustainability of our plates is unfortunately not everyone's first concern. Indeed, when a low-income family cannot afford meat, culturally considered a nutritious food and an important pleasure, we understand why partially removing it from school canteen menus can be controversial. A question of priority, education, time... Something to think about!

 

 

[1] Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992.
[2] Springmann et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature. 2018

 

Content written by our partner Culture Nutrition