Nutrition panel calls for eco-friendly diet

Meat companies object to findings

Before eating steak, the nation's top nutrition panel is asking consumers to consider the environment.

A Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee report was slammed by meat companies but praised by environmental groups after recommending Americans eat less red meat and more plants -- in part because of concerns over greenhouse gas emissions and energy, land and water use.

"Promoting healthy diets that also are more environmentally sustainable now will conserve resources for present and future generations, ensuring that the U.S. population has access to a diet that is healthy as well as sustainable and secure in the future," the report said.

The Thursday report is important to both sides because it becomes the basis by which the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services develops the government's recommended diet. That affects school lunches, food assistance and MyPlate, the food pyramid replacement.

Nutritionists said limiting red meat is sound advice -- regardless of environmental concerns -- though eating it in moderation provides some health benefits.

"There are an increasing number of studies that show that a diet based on plant foods and less red meats is a healthier diet," said Rosemary Rodibaugh, a professor of nutrition at the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. "That said, red meat has health benefits as well. It's the best source of dietary iron and a great source of protein."

Nutritionists also said the environment is important to consider, although perhaps unrelated to nutrition.

"I think it's confusing enough," said David Rath, former nutrition chief for the Arkansas Department of Health and current owner of a nutrition practice in Little Rock. "Sustainability is an important issue, but I think it should be a separate issue from nutrition."

The U.S. meat industry took a more active stance over the inclusion. The North American Meat Institute, National Cattleman's Beef Association and National Pork Board released statements slamming the advisory committee's report.

"The committee's foray into the murky waters of sustainability is well beyond its scope and expertise," the Meat Institute said in a news release. "It's akin to having a dermatologist provide recommendations about cardiac care."

But environmental groups said consumers should be aware of how certain foods, especially beef, affect the environment.

"It's important that the federal government's dietary guidelines help make this connection," said Emily Cassidy, research analyst for the Environmental Working Group, in a blog post. "I hope that the Obama administration adopts the recommendations of its advisers on the matter of sustainability."

Beef has about double the impact of pork, four times the impact of chicken and 10 times the impact of rice, the group said.

The Meat Institute said that sort of comparison isn't apples to apples. Ten pounds of beef or pork provides more complete nutrition than 10 pounds of rice or broccoli, the lobby said.

And the National Pork Board said pork accounts for just 0.35 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Compared to 50 years ago, farmers are using 78 percent less land and 41 percent less water per pound of pork produced, the lobby said.

Despite advances in environmental stewardship, other countries do include environmental recommendations in dietary advice, Rodibaugh said.

"It's definitely something we need to think about because the food system does have an impact on the environment," she said. "Whether or not that needs to be in the dietary guidelines, I'm not sure."

Business on 02/21/2015

Upcoming Events