Halving red meat consumption would slash heart disease and bowel cancer… and cut our carbon footprint Reducing red and processed meat consumption would prompt a fall in chronic disease incidence of between 3 per cent and 12 per cent in Britain
10:13 GMT, 11 September 2012
Cutting back on the amount of red meat people eat would reduce the risk of chronic disease and also slash Britain’s carbon footprint, according to a study.
Reducing red and processed meat consumption would not only prompt a fall in chronic disease incidence of between three per cent and 12 per cent in the UK, but our carbon footprint would shrink by 28 million tonnes a year, researchers said.
Food and drink account for a third of all greenhouse gas emissions attributable to British consumers, with livestock farming accounting for around half of the proportion, owing to the large quantity of cereals and soy imported for animal feed.
Benefits: Reducing red and processed meat consumption would prompt a fall in chronic disease incidence of between 3 per cent and 12 per cent in Britain
Even when imported foods are taken out of the equation, the Government’s 2050 target for an 80 per cent cut in the UK’s carbon footprint will be 'unattainable' without a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from livestock farming, say the researchers, citing the Committee on Climate Change.
Previously published evidence shows that the risks of coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and bowel cancer rise by 42 per cent, 19 per cent, and 18 per cent respectively, with every additional 50 grams of red and processed meat eaten daily.
The researchers used responses to the 2000-2001 British National Diet and Nutrition Survey to estimate red and processed meat intake across the UK population and published data from life cycle analyses to quantify average greenhouse gas emissions for 45 different food categories.
They then devised a feasible 'counter-factual' alternative, based on a doubling of the proportion of survey respondents who said they were vegetarian – to 4.7 per cent of men and 12.3 per cent of women – and the remainder adopting the same diet as those in the bottom fifth of red and processed meat consumption.
Those in the top fifth of consumption ate 2.5 times as much as those in the bottom fifth, the survey responses showed.
Therefore, adopting the diet of those
eating the least red and processed meat would mean cutting average
consumption from 91g to 53g a day for men, and from 54g to 30g for
The calculations showed that this
would significantly cut the risk of coronary artery disease, diabetes,
and bowel cancer by between three per cent and 12 per cent across the
population as a whole.
High cost: Livestock farming accounting for around half of the greenhouse gases attributed to food production, owing to the large quantity of cereals and soy imported for animal feed
And this reduction in risk would be more than twice as much as the population averages for those at the top end of consumption who moved to the bottom end.
The expected reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would amount to 0.45 tonnes per person per year, or just short of 28million tonnes of the equivalent of CO2 a year.
The researchers acknowledge that their data, published in the online journal BMJ Open, is a decade old, but the most recent nutrition survey (2008/9) indicates broadly similar and even slightly higher figures for red and processed meat consumption.
Dr Louise Aston, of the Institute of Public Health at the University of Cambridge, said: 'This indicates that our estimates remain relevant and may even be conservative, highlighting the need for action to prevent further increases in intake in the UK population.'
She said while it may be harder for people to understand the direct impact that climate change has on them, it is much easier to understand the impact on their health.
Dr Aston added: 'Health benefits provide near term rewards to individuals for climate friendly changes and may thus “nudge” humanity towards a sustainable future.
'Dietary recommendations should no longer be based on direct health effects alone.'