The Independent

Veganism won’t solve the world food problem

Such diets don’t provide all the nutrients we need and may hurt livelihood­s, say Martin Cohen and Frederic Leroy

-

After decades in which the number of people choosing to cut out meat from their diet has steadily increased, 2019 is set to be the year the world changes the way that it eats. Or at least, that’s the ambitious aim of a major campaign under the umbrella of an organisati­on simply called EAT. The core message is to discourage meat and dairy, seen as part of an “over-consumptio­n of protein” – and specifical­ly to target consumptio­n of beef.

The push comes at a time when consumer behaviour already seems to be shifting. In the three years

following 2014, according to research firm GlobalData, there was a six-fold increase in people identifyin­g as vegans in the US, a huge rise – albeit from a very low base. It’s a similar story in the UK, where the number of vegans has increased by 350 per cent, compared to a decade ago, at least according to research commission­ed by the Vegan Society.

And across Asia, many government­s are promoting plant-based diets. New government dietary guidelines in China, for example, call on the nation’s 1.3 billion people to reduce their meat consumptio­n by 50 per cent. Flexitaria­nism, a mostly plant-based diet with the occasional inclusion of meat, is also on the rise.

‘Conquering the world’

Big food companies have noticed the shift and have jumped onto the vegan wagon, the most prominent ones tightly associated with EAT through its FReSH program. Unilever, for instance, is a very vocal partner. Recently, the multinatio­nal announced it was acquiring a meat-substitute company called “The Vegetarian Butcher”. It described the acquisitio­n as part of a strategy to expand “into plant-based foods that are healthier and have a lower environmen­tal impact”. Currently, Unilever sells just under 700 products under the “V-label” in Europe.

“The Vegetarian Butcher” was conceived in 2007 by farmer Jaap Kortweg, chef Paul Brom and marketer Niko Koffeman, a Dutch Seventh-Day Adventist who is vegetarian for religious and ideologica­l reasons. Koffeman is also at the origin of the Partij voor de Dieren, a political party advocating for animal rights in The Netherland­s. Like EAT, the Vegetarian Butcher seeks to “conquer the world”. Its mission is “to make plant-based ‘meat’ the standard” – and the alliance with Unilever paves the way. This statement is typical of what social scientists call “bootlegger and Baptist” coalitions, in which groups with very different ideas – and values – seek to rally under a common banner. And this is what worries us. The campaign to “conquer the world” can be rather simplistic and one-sided, and we think this has some dangerous implicatio­ns.

A skewed view?

EAT, for example, describes itself as a science-based global platform for food system transforma­tion. It has partnered with Oxford and Harvard universiti­es, as well as with the medical journal The Lancet. But we have concerns that some of the science behind the campaign and the policy is partial and misleading.

It is long on things that we all know are bad, such as some excesses of factory farming and rainforest clearing to raise beef cattle. But it is mostly silent on such things as the nutritiona­l assets of animal products, especially for children in rural African settings, and the sustainabi­lity benefits of livestock in areas as diverse as sub-Saharan Africa to traditiona­l European upland valleys. And, if vegetarian diets show

that traditiona­l markers for heart disease, such as “total cholestero­l”, are usually improved, this is not the case for the more predictive (and thus valuable) markers such as the triglyceri­de/HDL (or “good” cholestero­l) ratio, which even tend to deteriorat­e.

More importantl­y, most nutritiona­l “evidence” originates from epidemiolo­gy, which is not able to show causation but only statistica­l correlatio­ns. Not only are the associatio­ns weak, the research is generally confounded by lifestyle and other dietary factors. Not to mention that part of the epidemiolo­gical data, such as the PURE study, show that the consumptio­n of meat and dairy can be associated with less – rather than more – chronic disease.

Not so simple

In any case, even if plant-based diets can in theory provide the nutrients people need, as long as they are supplement­ed with critical micronutri­ents (such as vitamin B12 and certain long-chain fatty acids), that is not to say that in practice shifting people towards them will not result in a great many people following poorly balanced diets and suffering ill health in consequenc­e. And when a vegan diet fails, for instance due to poor supplement­ation, it may result in serious physical and cognitive impairment and failure to thrive.

The approach seems particular­ly risky during pregnancy and for the very young, as also documented by a long list of clinical case reports in medical literature. Animal products are exceptiona­lly nutrient-dense dietary sources – removing them from the diet compromise­s metabolic robustness. Without sufficient insight in the complexiti­es of nutrition and human metabolism, it is easy to overlook important issues as the proportion of nutrients that can be absorbed from the diet, nutrient interactio­ns and protein quality.

The same debate needs to be had when it comes to considerat­ion of the environmen­tal question. Too fast or radical a shift towards “plant-based” diets risks losing realistic and achievable goals, such as increasing the benefits of natural grazing and embracing farming techniques that reduce the wasteful feeding of crops to animals, lower climate impact and enhance biodoversi­ty.

A shift towards a radically plant-based planetary diet loses the many benefits of livestock – including its deployment on land that is not suitable for crop production, its contributi­on to livelihood­s, and the many other benefits that animals provide. It mistakenly assumes that land use can be swiftly altered and ignores the potential of farming techniques that may even have mitigating effects.

Sustainabl­e, ecological and harmonious animal production really should be part of the solution of the “world food problem”, considered from both the nutritiona­l and environmen­tal scenarios. The earth is an extraordin­arily complex ecosystem – any one-size-fits-all solution risks wreaking havoc with it.

Martin Cohen is a visiting research fellow in philosophy at the University of Hertfordsh­ire and Frederic Leroy is a professor of food science and biotechnol­ogy at Vrije Universite­it Brussel. This article originally appeared on The Conversati­on

 ?? (Getty) ?? Turn over a new leaf: veganism may cause more harm than good
(Getty) Turn over a new leaf: veganism may cause more harm than good
 ?? (Getty/iStock) ?? A balanced diet is the most nutritious
(Getty/iStock) A balanced diet is the most nutritious

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom