Diet debate – for personal and planet health

Much less meat, much less dairy – I’m hearing this a bit now. It is supposed to be better for personal health as well as being better for the planet, but it also has serious implications for a country reliant a lot on it’s meat and dairy production.

There has long been debate about diets for personal health, ranging from money-making fads to common sense. There is now growing debate about changing personal diets for the good of the planet.

Newstalk ZB:  New diet hailed as ‘life-saving’ but comes with a catch

That’s a stupid headline.  There have been so many diet variations promoted over the years ‘new diet’ needs to be taken with a grain of wheat. Or rice, as long as it is not processed.

‘Life-saving’ is a meaningless claim – any diet could enhance your chances iof continuing to live, or not. Supposedly life enhancing and life saving diets have been dished up and debunked for decades.

A new diet is being hailed as “life-saving” by experts, but there’s a catch…you can only eat red meat once a week.

There’s another catch – ‘experts’ have a wide variety of opinions on diets.

That’s as much red meat people should eat to do what’s best for their health and the planet, according to a report seeking to overhaul the world’s diet.

The report from a panel of nutrition, agriculture and environmental experts recommends a plant-based diet, based on previously published studies that have linked red meat to increased risk of health problems. It also comes amid recent studies of how eating habits affect the environment. Producing red meat takes up land and feed to raise cattle, which also emit the greenhouse gas methane.

Associate professor at Massey Universty, Carol Wham, told Tim Dower this will be a real reality check for people.

“What it is doing is saying globally this is what we might need to reach by the year 2050.”

“For us in New Zealand, it’s about moderating our meat, it’s about primarily reducing excessive consumption and what it says instead, is that we need to double our consumption of fruit, vegetables [and] things like legumes and nuts which we really eat insufficient amounts of.”

“Our dietary fibre intakes are woefully low so eating a more plant-based diet has huge benefits for us.”

She said it’s all about “moderation over time” and getting creative with how you cook.

Moderation is generally good advice with diets – whatever diet you follow. But you don’t need to be creative – often simple food is as good as anything.

Wham said while New Zealand isn’t the focus of the study, it’s still important we do our bit.

“This is just looking globally at what it has to look like if we are going to have a sustainable system in the future and health of people and the planet.”

“We can’t keep going the way we are, we have got such an epidemic of obesity. In the US for example, they produced twice the amount of food than they need to eat.”

But there are a lot of variabilities with diets with personal preferences, seasonal and in different parts of the world. And diet advice is an evolving thing.

John Ioannidis, chair of disease prevention at Stanford University, said he welcomed the growing attention to how diets affect the environment, but that the report’s recommendations do not reflect the level of scientific uncertainties around nutrition and health.

“The evidence is not as strong as it seems to be,” Ioannidis said.

There is a lot of variable and conflicting evidence. Diet is a very complex thing.

The report was organized by EAT, a Stockholm-based nonprofit seeking to improve the food system, and published Wednesday by the medical journal Lancet. The panel of experts who wrote it says a “Great Food Transformation” is urgently needed by 2050, and that the optimal diet they outline is flexible enough to accommodate food cultures around the world.

Overall, the diet encourages whole grains, beans, fruits and most vegetables, and says to limit added sugars, refined grains such as white rice and starches like potatoes and cassava. It says red meat consumption on average needs to be slashed by half globally, though the necessary changes vary by region and reductions would need to be more dramatic in richer countries like the United States.

And New Zealand.

Convincing people to limit meat, cheese and eggs won’t be easy, however, particularly in places where those foods are a notable part of culture.

Also because diet advice keeps changing. Who to believe?

My diet has changed considerably over the past couple of decades, bot what I eat and the quantity I eat. I already eat considerably less meat than I used to. Will I eat even less? I don’t see a pressing need.

Diets are for other people. Eating a variety of things in moderation just seems like common sense, without getting too swayed by the latest diets and campaigns.

 

Should Key treat office of PM with more respect?

A Herald editorial says that Prime Minister John key should treat his office with more respect. They say that things like candid admissions in a recent radio interview robs the office of dignity.

Editorial: Too much information robs office of dignity

How does John Key get away with these things? To expose himself on radio to personal questions to which he can answer only yes or no is bound to endanger the dignity of his office. Thanks to an appearance on Hauraki’s breakfast programme, we now know our Prime Minister has, among other things, stolen something and peed in a shower.

Though that is more than we want to know, it is less than we might learn.

Certainly Key’s answers were more than we need to know, and more than some want to know.

Should Key be candid about personal things? Or should he shut himself off on a Prime Ministerial pedestal? Would that gibe the media more chance of knocking him off it?

To me some of what Key has said and done is not a good look for anyone let alone Prime Minister, especially the pony tail pulling.

But should be have to hide away his personal; character while he’s Prime Minister?

He did not seem at all embarrassed this week when the radio segment was screened on American television’s popular satirical programme Last Week Tonight.

So what’s the problem? Does it diminish his ability to be a respectable Prime Minister?

Those who like him and vote for him will like him all the more for the enjoyment he clearly derives from the lighter side of his job.

It’s a key part of his image, cultivated for political purposes but also obviously revealing a bit of how he is as a person.

Those with no time for him will be disgusted at what he has admitted and think it no part of his job to be answering questions such as these.

But I’ve seen those who have no time for him disgusted at things he does as Prime Minister as a part of his job, like promote policies that he believes in. Like flag referendums.

He is candid to a fault. He holds our highest elected office and he should treat it with more respect.

Or should media respect his right to be himself sometimes, even in front of the media?