Global diet shifts: The hidden costs of what we eat

We think about the foods we consume daily and the impact of our diets on our health, but how often do we consider the broader implications of these choices on the health of our planet?

Can shifting to more sustainable diets simultaneously tackle climate change and global food insecurity? This is a delicate balance to strike, but the answer is a resounding “yes.”

Before diving into this, though, we ought to remember the words of Joe DeCesaro, a data analyst at UC Santa Barbara’s National Center for Ecological Analysis & Synthesis (NCEAS).

“Changes in food demand in one part of the world can have cascading environmental and human welfare implications for people around the world,” he cautioned.

DeCesaro and his team at the NCEAS have conducted a fascinating study that aimed to understand the environmental implications of a major shift towards four distinct types of diets, globally.

Environmental impact of global diet shifts

The food system is one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation worldwide, accounting for about a third of global greenhouse gas emissions and using more than 70% of freshwater resources.

Apart from this, agriculture causes significant land degradation and contributes to nutrient pollution in water bodies.

One way to alleviate environmental pressure is to move towards more sustainable diets that reduce the consumption of resource-intensive food items, such as red meat, and increase the intake of nutrient-dense foods like vegetables and legumes.

Yet, DeCesaro’s study reveals that diet change is only part of the solution.

“We wanted to know who would actually be feeling the change from the food production if these shifts occur,” explained Ben Halpern, NCEAS director and a coauthor on the study.

The team, therefore, focused on understanding where and how environmental pressures might shift if global diets changed significantly.

Strengths and weaknesses of different diets

The study analyzed the global impact of shifting to four types of diets: Indian, Mediterranean, EAT-Lancet (largely plant-based or “flexitarian”), and average government-recommended Food-Based Dietary Guidelines (FBDGs).

The Indian diet emerged as the most beneficial, potentially leading to a 20.9% reduction in food production-based environmental pressure. In contrast, following FBDGs could result in a 35.2% increase in global environmental pressure.

The researchers utilized extensive data, including each country’s average diets, trade flows, and the environmental pressures of food production worldwide.

“The research was motivated originally by the question: Who’s consumption is generating the pressures of food production that are being felt by people and places around the world?” explained DeCesaro.

“Are poorer countries paying the environmental price of producing higher pressure foods that are being eaten by richer countries, or vice versa?”

“Our methods allow us to track changes in the environmental pressures from the producer to the consumer, and vice versa, in a standardized format across four pressures. Our work is quite novel in this space.”

The study found that the Indian diet – primarily due to its recommendation of zero red meat – was the most effective in reducing global cumulative pressure on environments.

This sharply contrasted with FBDGs, which typically recommend more red meat than what many countries currently consume.

Learning from high-income countries

Interestingly, the study revealed that the majority of the reductions in global environmental pressure would come from high-income countries.

“Higher-income countries’ average current diets have higher consumption quantities of most food categories than the recommended quantities in our diet scenarios,” said DeCesaro.

This indicates that these countries are over-consuming, suggesting the potential for significant reductions in environmental pressure through dietary shifts.

Sharing sustainable practices

The research also revealed that a shift towards more sustainable, plant-forward diets could increase food-production-related environmental pressures in lower-income countries.

However, DeCesaro noted, this increase is primarily due to these diets meeting more of the people’s daily needs.

To ensure food security and equitable access to nutrition, he suggested that wealthier countries support by providing access to efficiently produced food imports and encouraging economic development to improve dietary health. This support could also include reducing environmental pressures from food production, promoting innovation and sharing sustainable food production practices.

In conclusion, the message, as summarized by Halpern, is clear: “The decisions we make about what we eat are important for reducing our environmental footprint, but other people may pay the price for those decisions.”

The study is published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–