,
11 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
I'm late to the party on the EATLancet Report on how to feed a growing population. They prescribe a diet optimal for both people and planet, and I largely agree. I've got a few thoughts, though. 1/ eatforum.org/content/upload…
Their diet: double fruit, veg, nuts, & legumes while cutting meat consumption in half. It's totally reasonable, but of course it's the MEAT part that causes the brouhaha. It's the same debate playing out about the US Dietary Guidelines: CARBS vs. MEAT. 
Cutting meat in half WORLDWIDE means cutting by 75% in the US. EATLancet says 1.5 oz/day of red meat + poultry. Current USDA estimate is that we eat 4x that. (Report recommends 92 cals/day, USDA says availability adjusted for loss is 387 cals/day.) ers.usda.gov/data-products/…
Report says eating less meat confers health benefits. MEAT advocates say that's idiotic, meat is nutritious and healthful. My take: we don't know, and we can't know, because we don't have TOOLS to suss out small (and they will be small) benefits or harms. washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food…
I'm with the meat contingent when they point to the flaws of population research. Meat-eating goes with all kinds of other lifestyle & diet habits, and is HOPELESSLY CONFOUNDED. Sure, meat-eaters get more cancer. They're also more likely to die in an accident.
But live by the sword, die by the sword. We can't figure out whether eating 1.5 ounces of meat is BETTER than eating, say, 5. But neither can we figure out if it's WORSE. Go to PubMed and you can find a study to support whatever position you happen to hold.
The environmental picture is clearer. Plant foods require fewer resources, and eating less meat, especially beef whose lives don't involve improving grasslands by grazing, is a good idea. So I'm with EAT-Lancet on that. BUT ...
Why lump pork with beef? The pig can
Sorry for that accidental send. The pig can eat many byproducts, and is a much more efficient feed converter than the cow.
My other problem with the report is the super-specificity of the recommendations. There's a VERY high level of UNCERTAINTY in all of this, yet they boil things down to grams. That gives the impression of super SCIENCY certainty, which is misplaced.
All in all, though, I think the EAT-Lance recommendations are pretty good. Eat more plants. Eat less meat. THE END.
