The political fight over fusing nutrition advice with environmental concerns

Greenhouse gas emissions are an ingredient in the debate over updating the United States government's Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Traditionally the guidelines are based on what nutrition experts think are healthiest. For this year's version the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee has not only looked at what promotes good health, but also at what foods are more environmentally sustainable. 

Identified as the villain on both counts is red meat and the meat industry is not happy about it.

The Meat Institute registered strong concerns about the committee’s contradictory recommendations to eat lower amounts of red and processed meat while at the same time saying in a footnote that lean meat can be part of a healthy, balanced diet. The Institute also objected to the Advisory Committee’s focus on sustainability, which is outside the committee’s charter. "Lean meat's relegation to a footnote ignores the countless studies and data that the Committee reviewed for the last two years that showed unequivocally that meat and poultry are among the most nutrient dense foods available," said NAMI President and CEO Barry Carpenter in a statement last week. "Lean meat is a headline, not a footnote," he added.

Health, environmental and animal welfare interests are lobbying in the opposite direction. Typical of their arguments are those of Jillian Fry from the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future who has a petition on Change.org that's calling for support of the lower-meat and sustainability recommendations.

Globally, agriculture accounts for 70% of freshwater use and is the largest human use of land. Current agricultural methods lead to water pollution from nutrient and pesticide runoff, high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, poor animal welfare, increasing antibiotic resistance, and areas of high animal density that produce more manure than can be safely used on local cropland. Many of these negative ecological outcomes present serious health risks to consumers, workers, and communities. In addition, we are overfishing our oceans, and sustainable forms of fishing and aquaculture (fish farming) must be taken into account when higher seafood intake is recommended.
In the U.S., we eat high amounts of meat, dairy, and eggs, and the production of these products uses an outsized proportion of resources used in agriculture. Of the crops produced globally, 35% is devoted to animal feed; if more of our crops directly fed humans we could feed more people and improve present and future food security. The typical American diet is also making us ill: rates of diabetes, obesity, heart disease, cancer, and other health conditions are high in the U.S., in part due to high intake of animal products.
The recommendations are a great start, and the next sustainability priorities should be reducing food waste and supporting sustainable production methods. In the U.S., over a third of food produced is never eaten, which represents a massive waste of resources with no benefit. Nutrition policies should also support production methods that promote soil quality, conserve freshwater and other natural resources, promote agricultural biodiversity (which can conserve variation in micronutrient availability), protect pollinators and other beneficial organisms, ensure adequate animal welfare, and provide good working conditions for farmers and other workers throughout the food system. I, along with my colleagues at CLF, will work to ensure these issues are included in future Dietary Guidelines for Americans.