Nutrition
Study Dismantles Ideology
New research challenges the rigid Planetary Health Diet, demonstrating that regional, nutrient-dense eating with adequate animal products is the superior approach.
Nutrition
New research challenges the rigid Planetary Health Diet, demonstrating that regional, nutrient-dense eating with adequate animal products is the superior approach.
Line items
There is a subtle but important distinction between idealism and ideology: idealism strives for the best possible, ideal outcome. Ideology, however, achieves its ends at any cost – naturally always for "noble reasons," of course.
Regarding global food systems and how they would need to look in 2050 to sustain approximately 10 billion people, a so-called Planetary Health Diet was published a few years ago. Specifically, it came from an "expert commission" under the auspices of the prestigious journal The Lancet and Norwegian physician Gunhild Stordalen, who is simultaneously an environmental activist and founded the EAT Initiative in 2013. This is why it's now called the EAT-Lancet Commission.
The Planetary Health Diet is supposed to be a dietary approach that aligns with the unified field theory of nutrition: prevent animal suffering, protect the climate, save human lives. An admirable goal, and we agree. In practical terms, however, the diet proposes that we should meet our energy needs primarily from grains, plant oils, nuts, and legumes. Adults are allowed just 14 g of meat per day (excluding poultry).
Is this still idealism or already ideology? Recent research reveals the massive flaws in this dietary approach through concrete examples. Here are a few:
Who would calculate a new global food system so carelessly and without regard to consequences?
The new study demonstrated how it should be done: For each food group, representative nutritional composition data were gathered globally, then evaluated against those critical nutrients that are commonly insufficient worldwide – specifically folate, vitamin A, vitamin B12, calcium, iron, and zinc.
Consider this carefully: Anyone who thinks a bit will realize that these nutrients are critically deficient precisely because many people still eat largely without animal products! So in a sense, this represents circular reasoning! Because logically, a grain-based diet with a low proportion of animal products will inevitably lead to inadequate supply of these nutrients!
In any case, the authors of this new study used their findings to design a Planetary Health Diet that is appropriate for all adults – including women of reproductive age, and so on. The result:
More still, the study offers another brilliant suggestion: rather than recommending an "ideal diet for everyone," it would be better to emphasize that adapted, regional nutrition – taking into account diverse cultural contexts and environmental conditions – is more advantageous.
For anyone not in a deep sleep, it should be obvious that we're essentially talking 1:1 about edubily nutrition here. As regional as possible, diverse offerings of high-quality, nutrient-dense animal products, avoiding grain-fed approaches, a good balance of fruits, vegetables, and starchy root vegetables, rounded out with nuts, seeds, and so on, combined with smart supplementation – it's not that difficult, is it?
Ultimately, it's presumptuous to believe that a human who became human in the first place three million years ago because animal products were increasingly on the menu could also be healthy and vital while eating largely without animal products. This may apply to some people, but certainly not to most. Animal products simply provide a substantially higher, more bioavailable density of nutrients on a per-calorie and per-gram basis. This finding is well-documented – and notably, it comes from the same researcher.
And this isn't even about something as mundane as iron, zinc, or vitamin A, but also about choline, taurine, carnitine, creatine, and many other substances that occur only in animal products and are extremely valuable for human health.
The bottom line remains: of course, no one needs the cheapest street food meat in bulk quantities or XXL fried-schnitzel feasts for 10 euros. On the other hand, nutrition should focus on regional eating traditions that advocate consuming animal products consciously, favoring high-quality animal products – good husbandry practices, nose to tail – instead. That's idealism.
