Currently browsing posts about: Diets

The EAT-Lancet Commission has released its updated report on “healthy, sustainable, and just food systems.”

Let me point out immediately that the report was written by a great many authors (I could not easily count them), is 76 pages long, and is pretty much impenetrable without a lot of hard work.

As it did in its first report in 2019, the Commission’s report defines a Planetary Health Diet (PHD), which

represents a dietary pattern that supports optimal health outcomes and can be applied globally for different populations and different contexts, while also supporting cultural and regional variation…The PHD is based entirely on the direct effects of different diets on human health, not on environmental criteria….[It] emphasises a balanced dietary pattern that is predominantly plant-based, with moderate inclusion of animal-sourced foods and minimal consumption of added sugars, saturated fats, and salt.

The report offers “eight solutions and 23 actions to enable food systems transformation, which can be organised into coherent bundles of interventions that simultaneously advance health, environmental, and justice goals.”

the exercise of corporate power in ways that undermine public interests. The high degree of corporate concentration across food systems remains an intractable governance issue, which is partly due to the vast influence of large transnational food and beverage companies with considerable power.

Vox was kind enough to produce this explanatory chart.CNN quotes author Walter Willett:

“A diet good for both people and the planet focuses on fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and whole grains — a moderate amount of meat and dairy — and very little added sugar, saturated fat and salt…When it comes to meat and dairy, think one plus one, Willett said — one daily serving of dairy, such as milk or yogurt, along with one daily serving of an animal protein such as fish, poultry, eggs or meat. Red meat (beef, lamb and pork) should be limited to a 4-ounce serving only once a week, however, due to its impact on overall health.

The Guardian: ‘Planetary health diet’ could save 40,000 deaths a day, landmark report finds

The diet – which allows moderate meat consumption – and related measures would also slash the food-related emissions driving global heating by half by 2050. Today, a third of greenhouse gas emissions come from the global food system and taming the climate crisis is impossible without changing how the world eats, the researchers said. Food production is also the biggest cause of the destruction of wildlife and forests and the pollution of water.

AP News:

About 15 million deaths could be avoided each year and agricultural emissions could drop by 15% if people worldwide shift to healthier, predominantly plant-based diets, according to the EAT-Lancet Commission, which brought together scientists worldwide to review the latest data on food’s role in human health, climate change, biodiversity and people’s working and living conditions.

Comment: The recommended diet for health—and also the planet and food justice—is extremely low in meat by U.S. standards.  It also directly opposes the MAHA movement’s emphasis on meat, beef tallow, and full-fat dairy, and its disapproval of seed oils and plant-based diets (these, according to the Secretaries of USDA and HHS, reflect “left-wing ideology”).

Julia Belluz and Kevin Hall.  Food Intelligence: The Science of how Food Both Nourishes and Harms Us.  Avery, 2025. ~340 pages

This is the long-awaited manifesto from the journalist Julia Belluz and scientist Kevin Hall.

As the press release puts it,  the book

digs deep into the fundamental, often overlooked, and always enthralling science of nutrition (the chemicals and energy we get from food) and metabolism (how our bodies use food)—covering what we know and the history of how we came to know it, up to the frontiers of research into the invisible forces that really shape our eating habits. The result is a sprawling tour of centuries of science into the wonders of food and the marvelous ways our bodies use it, for better and worse health.

As you can see, I wrote a blurb for the book (they edited it slightly).

If you want to understand how nutrition became so contentious and why we are still arguing about whether it’s better to eat more or less fat, carbohydrate, protein, or vitamins, you must read Food Intelligence. Well written, historically accurate, and scientifically rigorous, this book brings you up to the moment on contemporary dietary issues. 

Here are two excerpts, the first from a discussion of one of Kevin Hall’s studies comparing high fat to high carbohydrate diets:

[Kevin] predicted that the body would select fuels for metabolism in a way that caused body fat loss to vary only a little, regardless of the proportion of carbs or fat a person was eating.  Cutting carbs from a balanced diet caused the body to shift toward burning fewer carbs and more fat after several days.  But surprisingly, reducing dietary fat by the same number of calories didn’t seem to change the mixture of carbohydrate and fat the body burned.  The net result was that both diets led to similar body fat losses, but with a slight difference that contradicted the popular claims of low-carb acolytes like Atkins.  The reduced-fat diet, Kevin’s model predicted, led to a little more body fat loss compared to the reduced-carb diet.

Maybe a calorie wasn’t exactly a calorie, Kevin told his audience.  But the difference was in the opposite direction from the one claimed by the low-carb diet camp. P. 70

And here is one about why it’s useful to eat a variety of foods:

Food combinations matter—a complexity we’re only beginning to unravel.  Pairing foods rich in plant-based iron with foods rich in vitamin C increases the body’s ability to absorb the iron, while drinking alcohol with a meal hampers nutrient absorption.  Too many glasses of wine, and the ability to absorb vitamins and minerals, such as thiamine, vitamin B12, folate, and zinc, drops off.  pp 221-222

Michael Jacobson, founder of CSPI and now working on developing a National Food Museum in Washington, DC has issued press release and a graph-filled report analyzing changes in the U.S. diet since 1975.

He calls the report, “Opening the 1975 Food Time Capsule – Diet, Health, & Food Industry.”

From the press release:

And the food industry has gotten a lot more concentrated:

• In 1975, the top 20 grocers sold 40 percent of retail food. Now, just four companies (Walmart, Costco, Kroger, Ahold Delhaize) control 65 percent of the market.
• The market shares of the top four beef, pork, and poultry processors roughly doubled over the last 50 years.

Meanwhile, food prices (adjusted for inflation) have gone up, down, or sideways. For instance, milk costs half as much as 50 years ago, while ground beef has stayed the same. Overall, consumers are spending just 11 percent of their disposable income on food now compared to 13 percent in 1975.

From the report:

Lots of fun information here!

I particularly like it because I cover these changes and lots of others in my forthcoming book What to Eat Now.  to be published on November 11 this year.

Gidon Eshel.  Planetary Eating: The Hidden Links between Your Plate and Our Cosmic Neighborhood.  MIT Press, 2025.

I did a blurb for this book:

Planetary Eating gives us a geophysicist’s deep analysis of the environmental cost of beef production and the benefits of replacing meat with plants.  Salads, he argues, are a blueprint for rebellion against corporate-run agricultural systems.

This book is divided into two parts.

• The first is a deep dive into calculating the environmental cost of eating beef.
• The second is how climate affects agriculture.

Eshel has fun with this.  He notes that his comments on meat-eating typically get responses:

roughly evenly split between the blindingly enlightened, zero doubt vegan activists, and angry self-appointed beef and big ag defenders.  And when I publish papers that suggest that in some circumstances beef may have some productive roles to play (it does), the tenor of the comments remains unchanged, but the camps neatly reverse, like Prussian troops in formation.

His main argument: “you cannot understand food and agriculture without invoking basic physics, thermodynamics, biology, and other pertinent sciences.”

He’s not kidding.  There’s a lot of all of that in this book and math calculations and formulas as well.  But what he’s trying to say makes sense.

I loved his analysis of why dairy farms do better in Texas and Arizona, states that would seem to be

Inhospitable to moist- and cool-loving cattle.  To combat cattle’s exceptional heat burden due to their large size, high performance, and large metabolic health output, migrating to where sweat dries fast, thus dripping minimally, is essential.  This requires near-surface air characteristics that strongly favor rapid evaporation.  Because few processes promote these conditions more than subsidence, which outside of the tropics is maximized downstream of mountain ranges that vigorous prevailing winds pass over, modern dairy migrate to those areas…Far from perplexing, locating dairy operations just east of the Rockies or the Coast Range now makes perfect sense, because that is the location of maximum effect of planetary waves the interactions of the prevailing westerly winds with the mountains excite.  And in that most coherent downstream node, the main effect for our purposes is subsidence; more subsidence, more comfortable and productive dairy cows.

Two previous short-term studies demonstrated that if you eat a diet based largely on ultra-processed foods, you are likely to consume far more calories than you would eating less processed diets–and not notice that you are overeating.

The big question: why.

Study #1:  Hall K, et al.  Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake .  Cell Metabolism 2019; 30:67–77.

When study subjects ate the ultra-processed diet, they consumed 500 calories a day more than when they were eating the unprocessed diet.  This is a staggering difference.  They seemed to eat the ultra-processed diet faster.

Study #2: Hamano S, Sawada M, Aihara M, Sakurai Y, Sekine R, Usami S, Kubota N, Yamauchi T. Ultra-processed foods cause weight gain and increased energy intake associated with reduced chewing frequency: A randomized, open-label, crossover study. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2024 Nov;26(11):5431-5443. doi: 10.1111/dom.15922.

These investigators reported a difference of 813 calories.  They attributed it to less chewing.

Study #3 (as yet unpublished): Its results appeared as a Tweet (X) from Dr. Hall describing a presentation he gave at a meeting in London (Apparently, X is where science gets discussed these days).  The recording of the entire meeting is now available.  Dr Hall’s presentation begins at minute 38.

The latest result: a difference of 1000 calories a day!

Dr. Hall was kind enough to send me the slides from his presentation.

My translation:

• Blue bar: Minimally processed diet, low in energy density (calories per gram) and low in irresistably delicious (hyper-palatable) foods.
• Red bar: Ultra-processed diet high in energy density and high in hyper-palatable foods.

The big result: Difference between blue (unprocessed) and red (ultra-processed): 1000 calories a day.

• Purple bar: Ultra-processed high in energy density, low in hyper-palatable.
• Green bar: Ultra-processed low in energy density, low in hyper-palatable.

Difference between purple (high, low) and red: 200 calories a day.

Difference between green (low, low) and red: 630 calories a day.

Participants reported no differences in appetite or pleasantness of the meals on the various diets.  There also were no observable differences in eating rate.

Obviously, participants who ate more calories gained more weight.

Comment

My summary: We love and cannot stop eating yummy high-calorie foods.

All of this reminds me of the work of Barbara Rolls, who for years has argued for diets low in energy density, and whose low-energy-dense Volumetrics diet is consistently ranked at the top of diet plans.

It’s great to see all this research coming together.  Whatever the reasons—energy density, hyper-palatability, less chewing—the take-home-message seems utterly obvious: reduce intake of ultra-processed foods.

As Jerry Mande summarized the significance of this study, also in a Tweet (X) :

BREAKING..@KevinH_PhD  presents preliminary data from long awaited (6yrs!) follow-up study. Confirm initial findings. Energy dense, hyper-palatable UPF foods result in 1000 kcal/day greater intake than minimally processed food. Time to regulate UPF #MAHA

Indeed, yes.

Julian Baggini.  How the World Eats: A Global Food Philosophy. Granta, 2024.  443 pages.

I did a blurb for this one:

How the World Eats is an enormously wide overview of how people throughout the entire world–from hunter-gatherers to NASA astronauts–view, exist within, manage, and try to improve their food systems.  Baggini’s philosophy makes sense.  We need sustainable food systems to feed the world.

When I say “enormously wide,” I’m not kidding.  Baggini has interviewed an amazing number of people, including me.  I do not remember our interview (I don’t keep track of interviews), but he quotes me extensively—and my book Food Politics—especially in the chapter titled “The Big Business of Food.”

The book is long, not least because Baggini lets his interviews speak for themselves, regardless of their opinions on controversial food issues.  He does not use the book to argue with the people he interviewed.  If you want to know what everyone, everywhere thinks about food, from every side of an issue, this is a good starting place.

Eventually, Bagggini comes out in favor of food systems that are, in his words, “holistic, circular, pluralistic, foodcentric, resourceful, compassionate, and equitable.”

If we were to adopt the principles of Holism, Circularity, Pluralism, Foodcentrism, Resourcefulness, Compassion, and Equitability, many of the desiderata we have for the food world would come along for the ride. Everyone is in favour of sustainability, and that is what we would get if we followed these seven principles.  Similarly, a circular, plural and resourceful food system is also an efficient ne.  When the main things people want flow naturally from a set of principles, that is a good sign that those principles are the right ones.  p. 361

Two readers, Tara Kenny and Martin Caraher, sent this one:  Plant-based diets–impacts of consumption of little or no animal-source foods on human health.  by Alice V. Stanton  ^{Front. Nutr., 17 September 2024. Volume 11 – 2024 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2024.1423925}

The paper argues for the benefits of meat-based diets:

The protections provided by plant-based diets against NCDs [non-communicable diseases] appear to be more strongly associated with reduced intakes of calories and salt, and increased intakes of fruit, vegetables, nuts and whole grains, rather than with reduced intakes of ASFs [animal-source foods]. Any possible absolute adverse effects of red and processed meat consumption on NCDs are very small and uncertain…dietary guidelines should advise moderating excessive consumption, rather than substantially limiting or excluding ASFs from the human diet.

The author’s conflict-of-interest statement:

Alice Stanton was a part-time employee of Devenish Nutrition (2017–2023); and currently owns stock in Devenish Nutrition, an agri-technology company specializing in sustainable food solutions.

Comment

My readers point out that the author’s financial conflicts of interest are understated.  Devinish Nutrition is, in fact, a family business.  The company states it is “an innovator in animal nutrition by providing a wide range of products and services.”  It was acquired this year by EASY BIO a South Korean animal nutrition company.

Both readers also point out that Alice Stanton has pro-meat ideological conflicts of interest, but these concern me much less.  Everyone who does research has beliefs and hypotheses they want to test.  But not everyone stands to benefit financially from the outcome of their research or opinion, which is why full disclosure is so necessary.

Nina Guilbeault.  The Good Eater: A Vegan’s Search for the Future of Food.  Bloomsbury, 2024.

I did a back-cover blurb for this book:

The Good Eater is a vegan sociologist’s remarkably open-minded exploration of the historical, ethical, health, environmental, and social justice implications of not eating meat.  Guilbeault’s extensive research and interviews get right into the tough questions about this movement, leaving us free to choose for ourselves whether to eat this way.

Guilbeault has followed vegan dietary practices (no animal products) for a long time but was troubled by the self-righteousness and proselytizing of many vegans.  As a trained sociologist, she set out to investigate the origins, practices, and effects of vegan diets, through reading but also through interviews with what seems like everyone having anything to do with animal welfare and plant-forward diets.  The result is an exceptionally broad look at the who’s who of veganism, from historical figures to contemporary entrepreneurs and chefs.  The book is well written, rational, and not at all uncritical.

Here’s are a couple of excerpts:

Projections show that to avert environmental disaster by 2050 we need to reduce our meat consumption by at least a third, and by half in North America and Europe…But many people still eat eggs for breakfast and yogurt as a snack, put dairy milk in their coffee, add a slice of ham to their sandwich for lunch, and choose a piece of meat or fish for dinner, all in one day.  A reduction from that daily menu to a couple of eggs and a small piece of meat or fish once a week seems like a hefty drop, yet that is how humanity has eaten for most of our natural history.  (pp 284-285)

I can understand why, for many people, a vegan lifestyle seems unappealing, overwhelming, or even downright offensive.  As we know, meat has played a key part in our cultural and evolutionary history, and habits are notoriously difficult to break.  Veganism requires a shift in identity as well as the embrace of a social category still on the fringe….This is partly because being vegan in a non-vegan world is hard, but also because the vegan movement places an emphasis on moral perfection.  Yet…long-lasting, sustainable change doesn’t come from a place of shame, judgment, and guilt.  It comes from a place of joy and a sense of belonging.  (p 290)