Which diet is better:Reduce meat consumption moderately and eat more fruits, vegetables and whole grains, as recommended by the German Nutrition Association? Follow Germany's example and eat more fish and seafood? Or even switch to a vegan diet altogether? A new study from the University of Bonn (Germany) shows that the answer to these questions is not as clear-cut as one might think – depending on the effects one looks closely at.
Every year, every citizen in the EU consumes 950 kg of food and drink – a significant amount, the weight of a small car. Globally, food is responsible for a quarter of human greenhouse gas emissions. A large part of this is due to livestock farming:animals convert only a small part of the calories fed into meat. Ruminants also produce methane, which further accelerates global warming.
What's more, what we eat also affects our health and animal welfare. When comparing diets, these aspects should also be taken into account. Experts refer to the optimal health of humans, animals and the environment as the “One Health” perspective. “However, studies applying this perspective to nutritional issues are still rare,” explains Juliana Paris from the Center for Development Research (ZEF) at the University of Bonn (Germany).
Paris, together with colleagues, conducted an analysis that aims to fill this research gap to some extent.” To do this, we looked at examples of products that are on the food baskets of people in North Rhine-Westphalia," she explains." We then compared this reference diet with three different scenarios:a shift according to the recommendations of the German Nutrition Association (DGE), a shift towards a Mediterranean diet with more fish and seafood, and a shift towards a vegan diet.”
In each of these three scenarios, the foods were chosen to deviate as little as possible from the reference diet.” This means, for example, that in the Mediterranean version we have increased the share of fish and seafood, vegetables and grain products," says Paris. In addition, the overall product selection should contain the same nutrients in comparable amounts as before. For example, the researchers were given a food basket for each scenario, which they then analyzed further.
“To do this, we relied on several databases,” says Dr. Neus Escobar from the Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, who oversaw the work.” For example, they allowed us to estimate the impact of each diet on certain environmental aspects, such as the amount of greenhouse gases produced during production or water consumption. We took a similar approach to assess the impact of each diet on health.” For example, red meat is known to increase the risk of certain cancers and cardiovascular diseases.
The researchers estimate the consequences for animal welfare on the basis of various indicators. These include how many animals lose their lives due to food consumption and under what conditions they are kept. “But we also used the number of neurons or the size of the brain in relation to the body to estimate the extent to which the respective animals actually suffer when they are used,” explains Juliana Paris.
Each of the three diets would be sustainably beneficial from a One Health perspective. However, this also comes at the expense of other aspects. The vegan diet scored the best in many areas. However, the production of vegan food involves increased water consumption. “In addition, vegans should take certain nutrients separately, such as vitamin B12, vitamin D and even calcium,” says Paris.
The Mediterranean diet (although healthy) also results in an increased need for water due to its high nut and vegetable content. Moreover, if – as assumed in the study – the consumed meat is completely replaced by fish, the effects on animal welfare are surprisingly negative:since fish and seafood are much smaller than, say, cows or pigs, significantly more animals suffer as a result of this diet. . The increased consumption of honey, which requires intensive management of bee colonies, is also having a negative effect.” It would therefore be beneficial to get less of your total protein needs from animal sources," emphasizes Neus Escobar. “In addition, many people today have diets that are significantly too rich. If they reduced the amount of food they ate to what they really need, it could have even more positive effects.”
According to the survey, the recommendations of the DGE are moving in the right direction. However, in terms of human health, the other two options are better. Nevertheless, the data here also shows:if you go without meat more often and instead eat whole grains, vegetables and fruit on your plate, you are not only doing something good for yourself, but also for the animals and the environment.
