Shutterstock

Official dietary advice in Australia is set to warn of the climate impact of certain foods. The move has raised the ire of farmers, meat producers and others who branded it “green ideology” and a “war on meat”.

Critics say the The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which is behind the change, is overreaching and should not expand its remit beyond providing nutritional advice. We strongly disagree.

Having explored the scientific evidence about the harm food can cause to both the planet and human health, we firmly believe environmental information about food choices should be prominent in dietary guidelines.

Human health depends on having a safe, liveable planet and the state of our planet is inextricably linked to food systems. It’s entirely sensible that consumers are informed about whether their food choices are sustainable.

The meat industry has slammed upcoming changes to Australia’s dietary guidelines. Lukas Coach/AAP​

‘A thorough review of the evidence’​

Australia’s dietary guidelines were released in 2013. The document provides general information about the environmental sustainability of food, but it’s buried in an appendix and the recommendations are fairly inconclusive.

The guidelines are currently under review and will be updated in 2026. The NHMRC says feedback from the public suggested sustainability information should be more accessible and explicit in the new guidelines. In fact, it said one in three people surveyed nominated the change as a priority.

The NHMRC says developing or updating its guidelines involves:

a thorough review of the evidence, methodological advice on the quality of these reviews, drafting of the guidelines, public consultation and independent expert review of the final guidelines.​

It said the dietary recommendations would first consider Australia-specific health impacts, followed by sustainability and other factors – an approach in line with guidelines overseas.

Australia’s dietary guidelines are under review. Shutterstock​

Critics come out swinging​

Australians are among the world’s biggest meat eaters. However, recent trends indicate Australians’ beef consumption is in decline.

Meat creates almost 60% of greenhouse gas emissions from food production, and red meat has the highest environmental footprint out of all food choices.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the change to dietary guidelines has prompted opposition from some quarters. In a report in The Australian, for example, Red Meat Advisory Council chair John McKillop said the moves:

go well beyond the policy intent of the Australian Dietary Guidelines to provide recommendations on healthy foods and dietary patterns [...] [the] review process must not be allowed to be used as a vehicle to drive ideological agendas at the expense of the latest nutritional science.​

He said the industry’s concerns were not related to its progress on sustainability, about which it had “a strong story” to tell.

The newspaper also quoted a Central Queensland cattle farmer, who said perceived misinformation about the health impacts and sustainability of red meat production were rife in the media, public policy and nutritional advice.

Conservative media outlets also weighed in on the changes. Sydney radio station 2GB declared the move a “war on meat” and host Ben Fordham claimed farmers were being “screwed over again”.

Australians are among the world’s biggest meat eaters. Shutterstock​

The global picture​

The upcoming changes are not unprecedented globally. Environmental sustainability is highlighted in the official dietary guidelines of at least ten other countries. They include Sweden which introduced climate-friendly food advice in 2015.

The title of the Swedish guidelines translates to “Find your way to eat greener, not too much and be active!” Among the recommendations are to:

Eat less red and processed meat, no more than 500 grams a week. Only a small amount of this should be processed meat.​

But other nations have struggled to include sustainability advice in official dietary guidelines. In the United States, for example, lobby groups prevented the change, despite the recommendations of government-appointed nutritionists.

Dietary officials have not overreached​

The Australian dietary guidelines already suggest limiting red meat consumption on health grounds.

Research has shown regular consumption of red meat, especially if it’s processed, contributes substantially to the risk of premature death. A high intake of red meat has been associated with cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, cancers and type 2 diabetes.

Adding information about the environmental effects of red meat health simply reinforces the benefits of eating less of it.

The link between food, the natural environment and health is well-established. Even before food is produced, vegetation is cleared to create space for crops and livestock. This leads to both the release of carbon dioxide and biodiversity loss, among other harms.

When it comes to meat, the digestive systems of sheep and cattle produce a lot of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gas emissions are also created when food is processed, transported, stored and disposed of. Food packaging contributes to pressure on landfill and creates pollution.

All these processes threaten human health. Researchers have called for a global transformation of food systems, to ensure they operate within Earth’s limits.

The role of NHMRC is to protect public health in Australia. It makes sense, then, that it provides consumers with information about which foods cause the least environmental damage – and by extension, are also good for their personal health.

Clearing land for food production is a major source of biodiversity and vegetation loss. Shutterstock​

A rightful part of the public health agenda​

Dietary guidelines are a government tool to influence food consumption towards good choices. They are based on the best available evidence, and evolve along with our understanding of food and its impacts.

Of course, even if Australia’s guidelines are changed to incorporate environmental advice, this does not guarantee everyone will make healthy and sustainable food choices. Such a shift requires major behaviour changes, of which dietary guidelines are only one component.

Arming consumers with the right information about food sustainability however should be part of the federal government’s public health agenda.

This article was first published on The Conversation, and was written by , Dora Marinova, Professor of Sustainability, Curtin University, Diana Bogueva, Research Fellow, Curtin University

 

[gbaerken]

Unfortunately, I agree farmers are being screwed, I for one will not believe any scientist that accepts a paycheck from the Government, not many will bite the hand that feeds them. I have yet to see a peer reviewed article (from non-govt. sources) that definately links man to climate directly. Oh, I know Govts around the world are interfering with climate with cloud seeding and the like, but I mean what everyday people are doing that affects the climate. I understand the climate is changing and has been since the earth formed. But Carbon is not the evil element some portray it as, we need it for our trees and plants to grow. Even the Bureau of Meteorology (Govt. Funded) has been caught manipulating historical data to give the impression temperatures are getting higher.

 

[Veggiepatch]

When was the last time Al Gore sat down to chomp on a huge Texas tomahawk steak?

Most probably yesterday....

 

[mylittletibbies]

Maybe, when there's nothing left that we are allowed to eat our "city centric no idea do-gooders" will stop screwing over our farmers. But I doubt it, asI said they have no idea.

 

[Bridgit]

Do you notice that a lot of this rubbish comes out of postage stamp countries in the EU? OZ is a big country by their standards - so why do they push this "global" agenda? - do they wish to feel important and knowledgeable?
We have "red meat" at least 3 times a week with salads and vege - 4 nights we have lighter meals which can involve meat of some description - bacon, ham, chicken, eggs etc. It is a diet that suits us both and I am not going to change because someone wants us to eat lab grown "meat".

 

[Ronloby]

Just stick with the dietary guidelines and don't include what is happening to our Earth. The greenhouse gases have nothing to do with having a good diet for your health. Most governments of the world are responsible for greenhouse gases because they still allow Manufacturing Industries to push out the gases and have done so for years. We must eat to survive so red meat will continue to be consumed worldwide as part of our diet.

 

[trakn]

Science is looking to create an answer because they know they can't control the problem.
Genetics is where most health problems start.
It's as if scientists are trying to justify their job .
Take Diabetes as an example science looks to control not cure. Why because there is no money in a cure.
What happens to all these animals????

 

[Mrtnst]

Don't you just love the way these interfering busybodies always justify their actions with comments like:

"one in three people surveyed nominated the change as a priority."

Never mind that the majority 2/3 didn't agree, who were these people who agreed? University Students would be my guess.

I certainly haven't ever been 'surveyed' about this or any other of the numerous climate related Virtue Signalling Australian's are being pushed into.

Even the government's chief scientist has admitted that "nothing we do in this country will have any measurable effect on the climate".

 

[Robbo3006]

Don't fall for Bill Microsoft cock Gates and his carcinogenic meat free crap. Eat more meat, especially women. Gates makes money from his rubbish.

 

[Jest]

after 100's of years eating meat we are now told stop. Piss off I will eat what I want and also while I am at it I will believe in religion my way. NOT THE BLOODY GOVERNMENTS. We are being taken over by a natzi government.

 

[Lladnyl]

In that case, how on earth are all the millions of us carnivores still alive and active? Growing up on a farm, we were brought up on 3 meat meals a day. None of my family passed before reaching their mid 90's. Unfortunately, due to finances, I am now "lucky" enough if I can have a meat 3 times a week. And there is no way that I will reach a similar age of my passed family members.

 

[katdragon2010]

I eat red meat two or three times a week, with chicken etc the other days. I am not going to change because some twit says I should. Bugger off I say.

 

[Bullwinkle]

Red meat will “Always” be on my menu, at the very least twice a week…