Small dietary changes lead to big reductions in emissions – nature's side

according to WWF Sweden Accounts for about a quarter of our climate impact comes from the food we eat. Consumption of meat and dairy products accounts for about three-quarters of these emissions. Therefore, the necessity of reducing meat intake so that we can reduce the impact of our food on the climate is not very surprising, as many studies have shown. Compared to how we ate in 1980, today we eat an average of 26 percent more meat per person per year.

A new study from Canada shows that if those who eat meat today replaced 50 percent of their meat with plant-based protein sources, it would reduce emissions by up to 25 percent. It would also reduce the risk of heart disease, diabetes and some types of cancer.

“We show that positive impacts on the health of people and the planet do not necessarily require major changes in diet, for example restrictive dietary patterns or excluding certain food groups completely, but can be achieved by changing portions of primarily red and processed meat,” explains Olivia Auclair. First author and recent PhD graduate in the Department of Animal Science at McGill University, Plant Foods.

Few meat alternatives get the green light for biodiversity

For those who want to eat meat while benefiting from biodiversity, there is something for you WWF Some different options that can support grazing animals and thus benefit, for example, meadow plants and insects. in Meat guide WWF explains that there are meat alternatives getting the green light (“occasionally eating”) in the biodiversity category, but they are few. Specifically, just five:

• Sheep marked KRAV
• Organic lamb in the European Union
• Natural pasture-marked Swedish lamb meat
• KRAV branded beef
• Natural pasture-raised beef Swedish Seal

Note that no pork or chicken is better than yellow (“be careful”) in terms of biodiversity.

sources: McGill University And Natural food