"Flexitarian" & plant-rich diets - A Silver bullet for the environment?
It's been a long time since I last wrote about meat consumption. Meanwhile signs of a changing wind regarding animal product consumption are increasingly frequent, almost overwhelming:
On the one hand, a certain scientific consensus is emerging that decreasing meat consumption would be a major solution to solve issues related to nutrient cycling like eutophication. In Drawdown (2017), "plant-rich diets" rank among the top solutions to reverse climate change. "Eating lower on the food chain" is possibly the most effective solution in the hands of individuals, a solution which is independent of policy or technological advances. In a new study, Theurl et al. calculated how much the emissions (CO2 equivalents, i.e. also considering N2O and CH4) could be reduced or even negated by adopting different diets. All that seems to clearly show that the less animal products are consumed, the better. This would allow setting land aside to tackle climate change by restoring natural ecosystems.
The word Flexitarier has been added to the 2017 update of the German dictionary DUDEN: "A person who mostly eats vegetarian, but occasionally consumes high quality organic meat", and of the French dictionary Le Robert "Someone who limits his/her meat consumption without being strictly vegetarian", while it had already entered the Oxford dictionary in 2014: "A person who sometimes eats meat or fish although they do not usually do so"
Whether flexitarian, vegetarian or vegan, there seems to be a trend towards eating less meat in many countries. The term flexitarian contributes to further loosening the often polarized debate around consumption of mean and other animal products. It allows to consider meat-poor (or plant-rich) diets as a gradient rather than a binary option. As George Reynolds puts it, it "recasts daunting vegan ideology as a fun, healthy, casual thing to try".
In tune with the flexitarian trend, Harwatt et al. identified the potential of substituting beans for beef, without other changes in the diet to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Searchinger et al. provided an overview of the impact of different diets on the climate, according to which the ovo-lacto vegetarian diet may be worse for the climate than a beef- and dairy-free diet. Although vegans are considered to have the best climate karma, the beef- & dairy-free option is promising to give momentum to the huge potential that lies behind dietary changes. The EAT-Lancet commission published in 2019 "the first full scientific review of what constitutes a healthy diet from a sustainable food system, and which actions can support and speed up food system transformation". There too, is no forbidden item, although a strong shift towards plant-based diets is at the core of the results (see picture of a planetary health plate below). And as they stress, doing this shift, although primordial, will require an unprecedented, concerted efforts from policy, industry, agriculture, and individuals.
There is still one thing puzzling me, however. In the regenerative agriculture movement there is a focus on the right integration of animals in agricultural systems (see for example Allan Savory, or the movie "kiss the ground") rather than on their elimination. The argument is that grazing - or at least the re-population of the world's grasslands - is the only solution to regenerate these natural grassland environments which cannot support a forest.
So, is the environmental impact of animal husbandry only a matter of where and how it is done?
Is flexitarian just a new buzzword or a real step toward the planetary health diet?
On the one hand, a certain scientific consensus is emerging that decreasing meat consumption would be a major solution to solve issues related to nutrient cycling like eutophication. In Drawdown (2017), "plant-rich diets" rank among the top solutions to reverse climate change. "Eating lower on the food chain" is possibly the most effective solution in the hands of individuals, a solution which is independent of policy or technological advances. In a new study, Theurl et al. calculated how much the emissions (CO2 equivalents, i.e. also considering N2O and CH4) could be reduced or even negated by adopting different diets. All that seems to clearly show that the less animal products are consumed, the better. This would allow setting land aside to tackle climate change by restoring natural ecosystems.
The word Flexitarier has been added to the 2017 update of the German dictionary DUDEN: "A person who mostly eats vegetarian, but occasionally consumes high quality organic meat", and of the French dictionary Le Robert "Someone who limits his/her meat consumption without being strictly vegetarian", while it had already entered the Oxford dictionary in 2014: "A person who sometimes eats meat or fish although they do not usually do so"
Whether flexitarian, vegetarian or vegan, there seems to be a trend towards eating less meat in many countries. The term flexitarian contributes to further loosening the often polarized debate around consumption of mean and other animal products. It allows to consider meat-poor (or plant-rich) diets as a gradient rather than a binary option. As George Reynolds puts it, it "recasts daunting vegan ideology as a fun, healthy, casual thing to try".
In tune with the flexitarian trend, Harwatt et al. identified the potential of substituting beans for beef, without other changes in the diet to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Searchinger et al. provided an overview of the impact of different diets on the climate, according to which the ovo-lacto vegetarian diet may be worse for the climate than a beef- and dairy-free diet. Although vegans are considered to have the best climate karma, the beef- & dairy-free option is promising to give momentum to the huge potential that lies behind dietary changes. The EAT-Lancet commission published in 2019 "the first full scientific review of what constitutes a healthy diet from a sustainable food system, and which actions can support and speed up food system transformation". There too, is no forbidden item, although a strong shift towards plant-based diets is at the core of the results (see picture of a planetary health plate below). And as they stress, doing this shift, although primordial, will require an unprecedented, concerted efforts from policy, industry, agriculture, and individuals.
There is still one thing puzzling me, however. In the regenerative agriculture movement there is a focus on the right integration of animals in agricultural systems (see for example Allan Savory, or the movie "kiss the ground") rather than on their elimination. The argument is that grazing - or at least the re-population of the world's grasslands - is the only solution to regenerate these natural grassland environments which cannot support a forest.
So, is the environmental impact of animal husbandry only a matter of where and how it is done?
Is flexitarian just a new buzzword or a real step toward the planetary health diet?
(Last update: Feb. 2021)
