Healthy diets from sustainable food systems, but for whom?

Climate change and malnutrition — both under-nutrition and obesity with its links to non-communicable diseases (NCDs) — are two major challenges faced today by humans, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, and the poor and disadvantaged in all countries. Nutritional status is closely linked to the food system, which also has a significant impact on climate change.

A recent report, “ Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems ”, recommends five strategies to meet nutritional needs and slow down climate change: seeking international and national commitment to shift towards healthy diets; re-orienting agricultural priorities from producing high quantities of food to producing healthy food, sustainably intensifying food production to increase high-quality output, strong and coordinated governance of land and oceans, and finally, halving food losses and waste.

While these appear laudable, a more nuanced reading of the report highlights the conflict of interest that casts doubts on the validity of its strategies.

For instance, the report’s funding is by the Wellcome Trust, an organisation where some top representatives have held senior positions in the pharmaceutical industry. The Commission’s advisory committee includes Lawrence Haddad, Executive Director of Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), which has partnered with corporations like Pepsi. And the EAT Forum’s partners and allies include, among others, some of the world’s biggest pharmaceutical and food industry companies, agri-business and retail chains (Nestle, Novo Nordisk, Coop and Aviva, for example).

Thus, while the report makes weak references to the impact of industrial farming, particularly of cattle, on climate change, its solutions are not feasible. Firstly, there are no suggestions on how to implement the half-earth framework — not more than half the earth’s area will be put under agriculture; the leaders in food production and trade may not agree to reduce their acreage, while food-insecure countries would not be able to increase land under cultivation.

Secondly, the report does not recognise the role of cattle and poultry in providing food, fertiliser, and pest control in low external input agriculture. Thirdly, given the increasing evidence of the link between agri-chemicals and cancers as well as on climate change, rather than recommending their reduced use, the report suggests redistribution of the use of nitrogen and phosphorus from intensive-use areas to low-use areas.

Silent on junk food

The Commission proposes a reference diet that recommends drastic reductions in the consumption of flesh foods, sodium and sugar, and an over 100 per cent increase in the consumption of grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds.

The decrease in meat consumption, while contributing to reducing the impact of climate change, would necessitate a huge shift in several food cultures. Several nutritionists have pointed out that the “reference diet” is deficient in many micro nutrients.

The report’s solution is that the shortfall be made up by supplements, paving the way for the food and pharma industry to make money from malnutrition. Further, the report recommends “soft” interventions to change people’s diets, including eliminating dietary choices, but is silent on the role of advertising by the food industry or on junk food, which are rich in sugars and transfats, both of which are linked to NCDs.

The authors of the report conclude: “Dietary policies focusing on promoting healthy eating can have a more beneficial effect than policies advocating against unhealthy foods.” The report makes healthy eating subservient to trade, recommending that various stakeholders, including trade bodies, “work together and explore policy objectives that support trade to achieve healthy diets ” (emphasis added). Similarly, with regard to food price, they recommend nutrition-sensitive measures be taken to protect the vulnerable “ while keeping trade open ” (emphasis added).

Italy has rejected the report and media reports suggest that the World Health Organization too distanced itself from open support, possibly because of the disruption it could cause to national economies and the huge loss of livelihoods.

India, with its high levels of both under-nutrition and obesity, its unacceptable levels of joblessness, and its extremely ancient food cultures, needs to consider the impact of the strategies before any concrete measures are taken to alter people’s diets.

Radha Holla Bhar

Dr Arun Gupta

Holla Bhar is Member of Alliance Against Conflict of Interest and Gupta is Central Coordinator, Breastfeeding Promotion Network of India and Convenor, Alliance Against Conflict of Interest. Views are personal