Australia’s first dietary guidelines were announced by the Commonwealth Department of Health in 1979. They included a world first by recommending breast feeding, and advised the population to reduce total fat, refined sugar, alcohol and salt while increasing consumption of wholegrain cereals, vegetables and fruit. A 24-page detailed booklet was released in 1981.
The guidelines have been revised since with separate guidelines for older Australians, children and adolescents, and for infant feeding. The last revision released in 2013 was a weighty tome of over 200 pages with 1128 references.
The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) recently called on nations to promote healthy diets using a food system approach that includes environmental sustainability as well as socio-cultural and economic factors.
This was timely for Australia as our guidelines are currently being revised, and the first major public feedback highlighted the need to update information on sustainable food choices. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is therefore now setting up a specialised group to integrate messages about food sustainability into the Guidelines.
Environmental issues have been raised before. Those working on the 1999 revision mentioned it in an Appendix.
I was a member of the NHMRC Working Group assigned to the last revision of the guidelines. After four years of detailed discussion and argument, we managed to get some aspects of sustainability listed. These included practical recommendations: avoid overconsumption; minimise food waste; give more consideration to food purchase, storage, preparation and disposal; and minimise and recycle food packaging. Sadly, more detail was once again relegated to an Appendix – largely because of opposition from sections of the food industry and some of the scientists they employed. It’s worth noting that there is no section of the food industry that wants anyone to eat less of what they are selling – a major problem in a country where 75% of men, 61% of women and 25% of children are overweight or obese.
The new proposal from the FAO and our own NHMRC to look more deeply into all aspects of our food systems has already led to some predictable public outbursts – not dissimilar to what we endured in our last review. One popular television program ridiculed the proposal with comments that may have been designed to be funny, but were decidedly ill-informed. Efforts by the host to balance the discussion ended as the panellists decided it was all an anti-meat campaign. They laughingly demanded more red meat, not fake meat or ‘bugs’.
The question of ‘bugs’ also cropped up after I’d shared the FAO’s four-page document on Facebook. One person declared “So you want us to eat bugs”, adding some incorrect information about methane and telling me that “If you listened to science, you would realise meat is a great source of protein”. He followed this with a claim that “The World Economic Forum wants to replace meat protein with insect protein to save us from global boiling”.
Unfortunately, many people who object to the idea of encouraging sustainable food choices don’t appear to have read the reports they complain about. Neither the FAO document nor I have mentioned ‘bugs’. A paper from the World Economic Forum does discuss the use of insects, discussing them as valuable sources of protein as they emphasise the fact that with a coming world population of 10 billion, the demand for protein will exceed our ability to produce it. The paper then has some practical suggestions of ways to use insects “that don’t require you to eat crickets for breakfast”. Examples include:
- Possible use of insect protein in some protein powder supplements.
- Using insects to break down organic materials and divert materials from landfill (which produces 20% of global methane emissions arising from human activity). As an example, they note that using insects to break down spent grains from brewery operations would prevent waste going into landfills, add value for the brewery and provide feed for the insects.
- Insect protein could help reduce the 45% of the world greenhouse gas emissions in animal production that arise from producing animal fodder. Chickens and some household pets would be obvious targets for such feed.
Meat is a relevant issue in any discussion on sustainable food choices, although it’s not the only one. (Nor is meat essential to meet our needs for protein.) For sustainability, the type of meat and the production method are relevant.
Many sheep in Australia graze on grass, sometimes in terrains where it would be difficult to plant pastures or grow crops. Sheep can also happily cohabit with solar farms and, in Australia, at least, they may rate lower than beef cattle for greenhouse gas emissions. However, independent scientists note errors and reject a recent CSIRO paper claiming lamb is ‘carbon neutral’.
We like to think cattle just graze on grass in Australia. There’s some truth in that, although the grain-fed beef industry says a large percentage (around 40%) are transitioned to a grain-based diet in feedlots. Approximately 400 feedlots are now accredited in Australia.
To their credit, Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) is promoting research on supplements such as asparagopsis (made from a type of seaweed) to help reduce methane in cattle burps. This and possibly other supplements have great promise, although none are yet perfected. A recent MLA report for beef cattle showed a 28% reduction in methane but also a decrease in the amount the animals ate and thus lower weight gain. This valuable work is continuing and may be especially effective for feeding to dairy cattle.
Globally, meat production has involved huge amounts of land clearing – mostly for growing grain and legumes to feed animals. In the northern parts of Australia, massive clearing of trees has driven huge losses in biodiversity. Major problems for native flora and fauna have also occurred from seeding huge areas of the Northern Territory with buffel grass for cattle.
We can no longer ignore the problems that have arisen from the way we have used the earth’s resources to produce and distribute food. A third of all food produced in the world is wasted and millions of people starve while many others are overfed. And it doesn’t make sense to use resources of land, fertiliser and water to produce many thousands of unhealthy foods and drinks that cause major problems for health.
The Dietary Guidelines Sustainability Group’s task will be to provide advice about the strength and quality of evidence about sustainable healthy diets that are accessible, affordable and equitable with low environmental impacts.
It won’t be easy, and won’t be helped by exaggerated ideas that we’ll all have to eat ‘bugs’. The evidence is already in that most of us will need to increase plant foods and make more careful selections of animal foods. But less does not mean none. That applies to meat, for those who like to eat it. It also applies to products that aren’t particularly nutritious – just eat them only occasionally and in small quantities.
The good news is that a healthier diet can benefit the family budget since almost 60% of the typical Australian family’s food budget goes on unhealthy products.
It’s also heartening to know that about 8,000 farmers in Australia belong to Farmers for Climate Action (see https://farmersforclimateaction.org.au/). They also have approximately 45,000 supportive members, of which I am one.
