Red Meat’s Burning Question: Can We Go Without?

Dairy and red meat have become pariahs among carbon-conscious consumers, since the animals from which we source them are responsible for around 12 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, when it comes to food security, animal protein holds the key, and much of the world’s population needs to increase their intake if they are to prosper.

Prof Alice Stanton, director of human health at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, states that the correct portions of meat and dairy alongside fruit and vegetables is the best diet to ensure optimal nutrition. “Too much animal protein is not good, but so is too little.”

She acknowledges the hype surrounding shunning animal protein, stating that solid research should be used as the deciding factor. “Much of this hype originates from groups concerned about animal welfare or the environment. But a lot also comes from the plant-based, ultra-processed food industry.”

For reference purposes

Much of the hype has also been the result of the EAT-Lancet Commission Reference Diet that was published in 2019, touted as a diet for planetary health. It calls for a 50 per cent reduction in global consumption of red meat and sugar, and a more than 100 per cent increase in nuts, fruits, vegetables and legumes, by 2050. The suggested intakes equate to 14g of red meat, or 28g of poultry or fish per day. 

The study has been criticised for focusing on diet’s role on the environment, rather than the body. Prof Stanton notes the complexity of food security: “We face a triple burden of malnutrition. Out of 7.5 billion people, 1.9 billion are obese, 850 million are chronically undernourished, and 2 billion suffer from hidden hunger. The latter is where dietary quality is inefficient, protein consumption is low, and diets lack essential amino acids that come from animal protein.”

Looking at the role of red meat consumption in health, Prof Stanton states that in 2017, dietary risks were responsible for 22 million deaths and for 955 million disability adjusted life years (DALYS). The latter doesn’t cause death, but increases healthcare costs. Of the deaths and DALYS, less than 0.1 per cent and 1 per cent respectively were attributed to excessive red meat and processed meat intakes. Instead, the biggest culprits are high calorie and sodium diets, and diets low in whole grains.

While the EAT-Lancet report shows that their diet results in 11 million fewer deaths associated with this style of eating, Prof Stanton clarifies that the longevity does not come from a reduction in red meat, but rather an improvement in the diet quality, which drastically reduces the intake of calories, sodium and highly processed foods. “If we only point at red meat, we are going after the wrong target.”

A glass of milk a day…

The ongoing Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology study, conducted to ascertain the factors that lead to obesity, found that a lack of dairy actually causes deaths and DALYS. Two full-fat servings of dairy per day are associated with 32 per cent fewer cardiovascular events and 25 per cent lower mortality. 

Global meat consumption stands at 50g per day for high-income countries, and less than 10g per day for low-income countries. “Vegetarian and vegan diets adversely impact bone, brain and blood health, resulting in anaemia, osteoporosis, hip fractures and elderly sarcopenia,” says Prof Stanton. “In children we see stunting and brains that are not properly developed.” She says that while leading a healthy life on a vegan diet is possible, it requires a careful balance of additional mineral and vitamin supplements – something that poor populations can hardly afford. 

To solve the environmental and animal welfare dilemma that animal protein consumption presents, Prof Stanton points to the plethora of research and new farming systems that are emerging to solve these issues, hopefully resulting in greater food security for all.