spinofflive
Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

ScienceJuly 17, 2021

The high price of a diet that’s healthy for you – and for the planet

Image: Tina Tiller
Image: Tina Tiller

Moving away from unsustainable and unhealthy diets is a key tool in the fight against climate change, but new University of Auckland research shows that in New Zealand, it’ll cost you.

“What are the big-ticket items for protecting our environment?” It’s a question we often come across, and one answer is to focus on food. Transforming our food system to help people transition to sustainable and healthy diets is a no-brainer for the climate and our health.

We already know that cost is a barrier to eating more healthily. So we recently published a study asking whether this is the same for diets that are sustainable as well as healthy, and how does the cost compare to how we are currently eating and the present dietary guidelines? 

Food, climate change and health

To start off, why the focus on food in Aotearoa? 

The latest figures from the Ministry for the Environment show our food system accounting for nearly half of our emissions and most of this (43%) coming from the farming of ruminant animals (cows, sheep etc).

Alongside this impact on our climate, poor diets were the second-highest risk factor contributing to health loss in 2017. We also know that these health and environment impacts of our food system are disproportionately felt by different groups such as tangata whenua, Pacific peoples, and people with disabilities.

So we know that a transition to more sustainable and healthy diets is needed – especially given our commitments under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Paris Agreement and the Zero Carbon Bill.

What is a sustainable and healthy diet?

For our study we referred to a sustainable and healthy diet based on the “planetary diet” as developed by the EAT-Lancet Commission

It consists of plant-based foods with some meat and dairy, and compared to how we are currently eating it has more vegetables, wholegrains and plant-based protein sources such as beans. It was designed as a guide for how populations around the world can protect and sustain the environment and promote health. In our study we included the planetary diet in two of the four diets that were modelled (flexitarian and vegan).

What did we find?

In our modelling study we looked at the cost and greenhouse gas emissions for a family of four over a fortnight across four diet scenarios: current, healthy, flexitarian and vegan. 

This is the first study to model the cost and greenhouse gas emissions of the planetary diet in Aotearoa, and to do this iteratively – meaning we were able to produce a range of diets that meet our constraints rather than just one.

The current scenario was modelled based on our most recent national nutrition survey, and the healthy scenario on the present eating and activity guidelines. We found that transitioning from unsustainable and unhealthy diets (current) to more sustainable and healthy diets (flexitarian and vegan) was associated with increasing cost.

Data rounded to whole numbers (Icons: flaticon.com)

This increased cost came predominantly from the increasing cost of dairy alternatives, larger servings of fruits and vegetables, and some plant-based protein alternatives (such as falafel).

It is important to note that alcohol and takeaways were not included in any of the scenarios – if included, the current diet would have been more expensive than our original calculations. However within a diet type (eg flexitarian), we found that households are generally able to reduce diet costs by increasing the proportion of plant-based foods in their diet.

The farming and processing of animal-based products was by far the largest contributor to emissions in the scenarios, and far outweighed the transport-related emissions associated with their plant-based replacements.

What can we do?

More New Zealanders are looking to eat more sustainably.

However, we don’t know whether this shift is happening mostly among groups who are not disproportionately facing the health and climate impacts of our food system, such as Pākehā people. 

This study reveals that this transition may be inequitable with cost as a barrier. We need a broad food systems strategy led by our government – as guided by the articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

There is currently work in this space, including by The Aotearoa Circle, which is a collective of public and private sector leaders.

We should invest in promoting low-cost, climate-friendly and healthy food choices, increase incomes to allow families to have more money to spend on their food bill, and diversify from dairy and meat to put more resources into growing plant-based protein sources in Aotearoa such as beans, hemp, and peas. 

Alongside the system-level changes needed, people can add more plant-based meals, like trying meat-free Mondays, and build up resilience of local food systems by buying locally.

When looking to provide an equitable and resilient future for the health of our planet and people, let’s include our food system in the conversation and act now.

Bruce Kidd is a research assistant in the School of Population Health at the University of Auckland

Keep going!
Shoppers on Oxford Street in London on July 3 (Photo: Mike Kemp/In Pictures via Getty Images)
Shoppers on Oxford Street in London on July 3 (Photo: Mike Kemp/In Pictures via Getty Images)

ScienceJuly 15, 2021

Siouxsie Wiles: Boris Johnson’s dangerous experiment puts everyone at risk

Shoppers on Oxford Street in London on July 3 (Photo: Mike Kemp/In Pictures via Getty Images)
Shoppers on Oxford Street in London on July 3 (Photo: Mike Kemp/In Pictures via Getty Images)

On Monday, despite case numbers soaring, all Covid-19 restrictions in England will be lifted. Siouxsie Wiles explains why for many, ‘Freedom Day’ will be anything but.

Monday, July 19. That’s the day that prime minister Boris Johnson and his government say they will enact “Step 4” of their plan to return England to “normal”. By normal they mean ending all legal, social and economic Covid-19 restrictions. You know, as though the pandemic wasn’t still actually raging. If all goes according to plan, come Monday there will be no restrictions on gathering sizes, people will be expected back at work, and pubs, restaurants and night clubs will be operating as though SARS-CoV-2 wasn’t a disabling and deadly airborne virus.

It doesn’t seem to matter that the previous steps of the plan, along with the emergence of the delta variant, have left the UK experiencing its third wave of Covid-19 infections. As of July 12, the number of daily new confirmed cases was over 32,000. It’s up from 19,000 just two weeks ago. The government itself predicts they could get up to 100,000 cases a day. That’ll be nearly twice as many as they had at the peak of their second wave in January.

The logic (if you can call it that) behind getting back to normal on Monday, at least according to Boris Johnson, is that it is better to remove restrictions during the summer months when people are spending more time outdoors, than in winter. With just over half the population fully vaccinated, and most of those being the elderly and people with underlying health conditions who are most at risk of dying from Covid-19, Johnson is hoping that by letting the virus loose on the unvaccinated young, the UK will achieve herd immunity by winter. That means millions of people are going to be infected. Many people will die. And many, many more will be left with chronic health problems and disability that will have personal and economic impacts for decades. The WHO’s Dr Mike Ryan described the plan as “moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”. 

Because the irony is, there’s no guarantee that Boris’s gamble will pay off. In fact, it’s highly unlikely the UK will achieve herd immunity by winter following this strategy. And we know very well why. Because uncontrolled transmission provides the perfect conditions for the virus to continue mutating. The delta variant is now dominant in the UK. The reality is, we don’t know how much worse delta could get. But with 100,000 new cases a day, it probably won’t take us too long to find out. The worst-case scenario is that delta evolves to become even more infectious and to get around any protection people have from being vaccinated or infected. Those are very real possibilities. And they put everyone at risk.

Do you know what the UK could do instead? Continue vaccinating people. Do everything in their power to limit human-to-human transmission of the virus. That means keeping restrictions on indoor activities and gathering sizes. That means making masks mandatory, especially indoors. That means focusing on ventilation to make workplaces, schools and public transport safer. That means using the test-trace-isolate strategy to get people into isolation when they’ve been exposed and paying them to stay there. Instead, the government has reduced the number of people their app notifies when they’ve been exposed to the virus. 

Boris Johnson and his government are embarking on a dangerous and unethical experiment all while spouting the narrative that it’s time people started taking personal responsibility for their health. From Monday, if people get infected, it’ll be their fault for not being cautious or vigilant enough. It’s a narrative that is grossly offensive given it will disproportionately impact those whose jobs and income put them in harm’s way versus those privileged enough to be cautious.

To be fair, the morally empty and epidemiologically stupid pandemic strategy isn’t limited to Boris Johnson and his government. The Netherlands recently lifted their restrictions and have seen an 800% increase in cases in a week. But for me, what Boris Johnson is doing is personal. People are calling Monday July 19 Freedom Day. But it means the exact opposite for millions of people. And my mum is one of them. She’s had her two doses of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine so in theory she should be able to get back to “normal” on Monday. But she has a form of blood cancer that means she’s unlikely to have mounted a good immune response to the virus. Taking personal responsibility for her health means she and my dad need to keep isolating, just like they’ve been doing for nearly a year and a half. They’re retired so they can stay isolated. I think that’s the only reason I’ve been able to function during this pandemic. Knowing that they are safe. That they can get their groceries delivered. But I do worry how they will stay mentally well being confined for so long, especially with no end in sight at the moment. And I try not to think about how long it might be before we see them again.