We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
HUMAN DIETS AND food production must “change dramatically” by 2050 to avoid potentially catastrophic damage to the planet, scientists have warned.
The EAT-Lancet Commission has claimed that current diet trends across the globe are unsustainable, and must change over the next three decades to avoid environmental catastrophe.
Consumption is expected to increase as the global population grows to 10 billion by 2050 while it will also become wealthier, with an expectation that more animal-based foods will be consumed as a result.
But without change, current trends will lead to climate change, biodiversity loss, increased pollution, and unsustainable changes in water and land use.
“The food we eat and how we produce it determines the health of people and the planet, and we are currently getting this seriously wrong,” says one of the study’s authors, Professor Tim Lang of the City, University of London.
“We need a significant overhaul, changing the global food system on a scale not seen before in ways appropriate to each country’s circumstances.”
Modelled scenarios
To solve this, the study recommends that the consumption of red meat and sugar should halve by 2050, and that the consumption of nuts, fruits, vegetables, and legumes should double.
Meanwhile, it also says that fossil fuels should be eliminated in agricultural production, which should prevent further losses to biodiversity, and bring about improvements in fertiliser and water use efficiency.
The findings represent the first scientific targets for healthy diets via sustainable food production systems, which operate within the planet’s ability to produce food.
Using these targets, the report’s authors modelled various scenarios to develop a sustainable food system and deliver healthy diets by 2050.
They found that major dietary changes, improved food production processes and reduced food waste are needed for planet to continue to be sustainable, and added that no single measure on its own would be enough to stay within the limits.
They added that global collaboration would also be required, such as changes to the agriculture industry to focus on more varied nutrient-rich crops and increased governance of land and ocean use.
“Humanity now poses a threat to the stability of the planet. Sustainability of the food system must therefore be defined from a planetary perspective,” said the study’s co-lead, Commissioner Professor Johan Rockström.
“There is no silver bullet for combatting harmful food production practices, but by defining and quantifying a safe operating space for food systems, diets can be identified that will nurture human health and support environmental sustainability.”
The entire study and its dietary recommendations can be read here.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The elephant in the room,too many humans on the planet.
@Paul Freeman: that’s perpetuates the myth that we are helpless to solve this problem. Scientists have provided the solution, it’s just us to the human population to heed their recommendations
@Paul Freeman: Check out the Lidl add 2 stories down – €3 steaks for sale this week!!
@Paul Freeman: agreed Paul. We can’t keep going without taking steps to curtail population. No one wants to talk about hindering reproductive rights, China style. But if we all have a right to live then surely this needs to be looked at in some way.
Also, if we all became vegan/vegetarian in the morning, soil erosion would then be well beyond the critical level it’s already at within a very short space of time.
@Paul Freeman: Not really Paul – they’ve stayed that fact loud and clear in the article. Christ.
@Paul Freeman: It’s ok Paul. No need to panic just yet.
We could house the population of the world, with about a quarter of an acre for each person, in Australia.
The world can handle way more people, it’s the corporate system that is destructive
@Paul Freeman: Cut down on meat and sugar? Not possible. Monday is lasagne day, Tuesday is roast beef, Wednesday is spaghetti Bolognese, Thursday is hamburgers and Friday I have me fish and chips and that’s just the way it is! We need to start sterilizing those over populous poor countries is what we need to do!
@Bán: Aren’t you gas?
@EDun: if we all went vegan in the morning we would reduce agricultural lands by 2/3rds. We could then leave that land to regenerate…
@Bernie Roche: What can you do with an half acre of sun beaten desert though?
@Paul Freeman: over populstion is a myth !
https://overpopulationisamyth.com/
@Stiofan De Barra: actually its been proven that herds of grazing animals do far more to regenerate the land than leaving it fallow. Theres a TED talk on it.
I agree though that raising cows for beef and factory farming is very destructive. …eating less meat will do do us all good!
IRISH FARMERS NEED TO GROW THE CASH CROP : HEMP!
@Paraic: Look at Israel to see what can be done.
I’m not suggesting we all move to Oz by the way, it’s just to demonstrate the earth is by no means overcrowded with humans
@Stiofan De Barra: And where would you redeploy those who depend on agriculture as a living? Do tell.
@Bernie Roche: you mean engage in genocide and ethnic cleansing ? Hardly a good model for populating a land ?
@Ibhar Mac Suibhne: Is hemp edible!
@Ibhar Mac Suibhne:
??? I’ll probably have to walk away from this one soon.
The example of Oz is to show there is absolutely no shortage of space for humans currently.
The Israel example is how to farm in a desert.
I have no interest in ethnic cleansing/genocide.
@Paul Freeman: If the world wanted to live like average Americans (high resource depletion and high pollution) and do noting positive for the environment, then we would need to reduced our population to 2 billion people. Not even Thanos can help us.
The only thing we can do is to reduce our ecological foot print i.e. reduce consumption, reuse and recycle.
Refs.:
https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/how-many-people-can-earth-actually-support
Alcott, B., 2010. Impact caps: why population, affluence and technology strategies should be abandoned. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), pp.552-560.
@David Jordan: those pesky avengers, always meddling
@Paul Freeman: very uneducated statement. if you take the world population and average it into families and collecting all the world wealth, you can fit everyone in Australia and provide irrigation and land for crops for each home in a self sustaining manner. so is the world over populated nope, we just focus on cities rather than investing infrastructure in rural areas. The world since its beginning has gone through multiple climate changes, its normal, this is just a money racket. only a few years ago it was global warming, then climate change, now they are saying the world is getting colder and the ice caps are actually growing. i’m fed up of being a sheep, do your own research through the independent researchers and those not funded by governments or private corporations seeking financial investments and benefits.
8 billion people living in Australia,is that feasible.
Did you read a different article?
You do know there are 8 billion people on the planet and only a small percentage of Australia is good land.
It’s the myth that’s a myth.
Yes disposess a population and use their land.
The land of Narnia,if if if.
@Paul Freeman: You do know you’re allowed to post more than one statement in a comment don’t you ?
@Paul Freeman: The elephant wouldn’t be in the room if the meat and dairy industry hadn’t destroyed his habitat via climate change !!
@Paul Freeman: The elephant wouldn’t be in the room if the meat and dairy industry hadn’t destroyed his habitat !!
@Paul Freeman: ok, I’ll sketch a quick drawing of Australia and the other continents if someone else can make the finger puppets. Let’s give it one last go to get this remarkably simple concept across to Paul in a language he can understand.
@Ibhar Mac Suibhne: I think you need to look at the whole picture of agriculture. If you convert land to fallow you create habit, water storage preventing flooding and reduce water pollution while improving the nutrients of soil naturally. Agricultural lands in general create many problems. For instance, Teagasc have shown that E.Coli from cow manure can stay in soil for up to 10years. EPA show grasslands in Ireland are a a source of greenhouse gas emissions. EPA also show largest source of phosphates in water is from agriculture. Lastly, 40% of ammonia emissions to air is from agriculture. We need to drastically reduce the cow herd and our agricultural practices in general.
@Michael Lynch: The impacts of climate change are going to be hugely detrimental to agriculture. In its current form its day are numbered. The only question we need to answer is do we prepare for these impacts or react to them. I’d suggest Irish farmers be the ones leading the charge within the environmental movement given how they will be affected by it. Instead they deny it.
Hit the farmers with the carbon tax, as they produce the most. They can add the costs onto the price of your steak etc, making you buy less. Then it wont be as attractive to be in the livestock trade, less cows, less eating of red meats, less carbon monoxide. No carbon tax. Everyones a winner.
@Tony Murphy: the Healey Raes will have a hairy conniption!
@Tony Murphy: factuality you are incorrect, the burning of fossil fuels is the single biggest source of air pollution, so maybe if those €10 flights to London were cut etc would be a smarter easier option. Also putting carbon tax on efficient farming here will result in farmers who are a lot less environmentally friendly producing your food. Finally China is building coal burning power stations at a ferocious rate, they should be sanctioned.
@Adrian™: aer lingus ads to the right of me, lidl down below… stuck in the middle of carbon fever.
the best thing that could happen to the planet is that all human life die off and allow the planet to heal itself but we know this won’t happen we’ll continue to keep doing what we are doing and the end result will be a loss of some species because humans are the most destructive species of all.
@John Naghten: great but can we talk about eating less meat?
@John Naghten: What would be the point of the earth without humans?
You would rather lose all the human race instead of some animal species?
@Bernie Roche: the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Humans are around for a tiny tiny fraction of that. We are an irrelevant species that will be gone within 1000 years. How’s that?
@Jack: “How’s that?” I’d say poor enough.
It’d be better if you addressed either question.
Can you name a species more relevant than humans?
@Bernie Roche: vegans
@Bernie Roche:
‘What would be the point of the earth without humans?’
That’s a pretty audacious gambit, my man. Is the implication that nature isn’t worth protecting if we are not there to enjoy it? It seems you are placing our relevance above all other things. A concept of relevance we ourselves have invented. Pretty convenient.
I’m a science guy, but it’s becoming more and more apparent that we’re still very much in the stone age with regard to the inter-connectivity of all things, the potentiality of what is beyond our understanding and the understanding of consciousness. Human or otherwise. Yes, other creatures have their own, too.
I’m a humanist, and an optimist to boot. I think the solution lies with us, so I’m not advocating an influx of plagues or anything. But good lord, man. For the sake of my kids, don’t pass that odious philosophy down to yours.
@Stu Kent: Thanks.
I don’t think that’s the implication.
Who is protecting nature if we’re not there?
I think it’s along the lines of a tree falling and noone is around.
If humans are not around what does it matter what exists.
Who cares what happens on other planets?
I don’t understand what is odious about these questions
@John Naghten: You are promoting the extinction of one species to save other species. How does that make sense?
@John Naghten: alright, you first.
One of the foundational tenants of environmentalism – and the only real way out of this mess – is sort of the whole novel idea that Earth is worth preserving for its own sake, and should be treated as more than a conqerable resource for us and only us. You do get this, don’t you?
I wouldn’t be so brash as to ask you to adopt the same views that I do. That this world has a beauty and significance to it that is outside of ourselves. I am fully aware that such a outlook is in the remit of belief and not fact. That it is not innate. That it needs – unfortunately- to be taught and sold to people.
But good grief man.
“If humans are around what does it matter what exists?”
The sort of solipsist, wilted philosophy that got us into this mess in the first place.
Me, me, me. G’luck!
@Stu Kent: I agree with your first paragraph Stu, although I don’t consider myself an environmentalist.
I see the beauty and enjoy spending time outside all year round.
I’m speaking to people who think our population should be reduced or even wiped out!
This philosophy, wilted or not, I find actually horrific and it normally goes unchallenged as if the average person is some cancer on the earth.
As I said above the issue is corporatism and not people
@Stu Kent: I don’t think Bernie is being solipsistic – eventually humans won’t be around. In fact, every form of life on earth will be extinguished completely at some point in the future – there won’t be even the most basic consciousness left to “care” at even the simplest level. Conscious life will be bookended by stretches of time of a length that will dwarf it’s own span by many magnitudes. Does this mean I don’t value life, as a question of scale? Unless you value things from the perspective of the being who cares, there is no objective reason to value anything in the universe.
This bullshite again
@niall: explain maybe why you think it’s bullshite
@James Wallace: it’s too do with the bell-curve of intelligence.
@James Wallace: I think it was a little bit of sarcasm, you know BULL shite
You’ll have a hard time trying to convince me not to eat meat.
It’s just not a proper dinner without it
@mike: they’re saying cut down on meat, not give it up. we could all do that and it would be cheaper and healthier too.
@mike: While I don’t agree with veganism I do think you can have meals without meat. Yes you need meat in your diet, Especially fish, But you can have a few meat free days a week. If everyone done that we would be better off both health wise and environmental.
@Rob Cahill: I’m glad your of the opinion that you can have meals without meat but you don’t “need” meat in your diet either.
@Rob Cahill: I don’t agree with highly destructive Carnism!
@mike: The only thing I’d try to convince you to do is build a time machine to take you back to the 1800s when things were much simpler and easier to understand.
Ooooooo the farmers wont be happy with this study……down with this study…steaks washed down by milk is our Birth right….I wonder did our friends in Auckland pay for dinner last night
@Paul: Plant more trees.
@Paul: What would be the point of the earth without humans?
You would rather lose all the human race instead of some animal species?
@Paul: Sorry Paul. That last comment was for John above
@Bernie Roche: Earth done perfectly well without humans for billions of years, get over yourself.
@Rob Cahill: Do you think the earth is conscious?
If not I don’t understand your point
@Bernie Roche: there are philosophers who think so:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_philosophy
scare mongering boll1x , meat for those who go to Davos, veganism for everyone else….
@Dave Dublin: It’s perfect comment. Orwell world where animals are equal but some are more equal than others
@Dave Dublin: It’s not that bad Dave. I think you will be allowed eat insects too
Nah. I won’t be cutting down on anything.
@Toby Fish: you don’t have to declare that…I’d say people can tell just by looking at you hahahaha
I can see farmer organisations such as IFA paying off government to pretend the study doesn’t exist like They always do
@Nikas Peckeliunas: Its all smoke and mirrors https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-un-admits-that-the-paris-climate-deal-was-a-fraud/
@Nikas Peckeliunas: really I wish we had that kind of power, sure maybe then we’d get a fair price!
@George O Neill: I think you’re missing the point a little with that article. Even the guy that wrote it is missing the point. We all knew Paris wasn’t going to be enough to make all the changes. That’s no surprise. But it wasn’t a fraud. What it was meant to be was a stepping stone to get everyone in a room talking about the problems and looking for some way to mitigate for them. If they came out today and said ‘everyone has to stop burning fossil fuels RIGHT NOW!’ (which in reality we probably do) they’d be totally ignored because that’s completely impossible. But bit by bit we can reduce the damage we’re causing with the hope that enough people get on board to actually make a real change. The writer of the article says that computer models have been inaccurate, and they have. They haven’t predicted just how fast and severe the changes would be – not that they’re not happening! Anyone who looks out their windows can see the changes. This isn’t proof of anything except more ignorance.
I’m reading this from McDonalds
@Finto: where your burger contains sinew, ligaments, fat, popped eye balls, scrapings from the cows head. And f*** knows what other delights.
@Finto: oh yeab, they have that Veggie wrap now don’t they
Red meat and sugar consumption must halve by 2050 to save *humans, scientists warn. FTFY the planet will be just fine
Ireland makes up 0.13 of the worlds greenhouse gas emissions….. The carbon tax and potential decline in meat eating should bring it to 0.11… I want to see the bigger ones lead by example first and it aint happening…
No way I’ll be eating that revolting jack fruit instead of juicy steak
Maybe over consumption, overpurchasing and waste are the real issues. In general, we eat too much – processed foods in particular have a high carbon footprint, and loads of sugar. We buy too much which, in turn, leads to food waste. In Ireland alone we waste i million tonnes of food each year. That’s one million tonnes of unnecessarily produced and bought food
@Anne Marie Devlin: more people in our world die from over eating, than starving.
Healy rays wont be happy with this news.
No way I’ll be eating that revolting jackfruit instead of juicy steak
@Maciej Zadorozny: wtf is Jack fruit
Actually.. I probably don’t want to know.
Steak cooked with blood pouring across the plate will do me just fine.
@mike: you know that’s red juice that comes from a steak when cooked isn’t blood right??
@Rob Cahill: You mean @mike is ignorant/uneducated on this topic? I’m shocked…
It’s just another way of trying to control people now they are telling us what we can and cannot eat. I have not eating red meat for 17 years but I defend everybody’s right to eat it.
Soylent green.
Article – The only way to save our environment is to stop eating meat
Journal commenters – Nah, that’s not it, steak is great and plants are bad for the soil anyway….There are too may humans, half of them just need to die!
@Sarah: There are practical steps you can take in that regard Sarah
To save the Human race – The planet will recover once we are gone. Its done so mulitple times already
This is just a stakeout to see what’s going on
stop taking your kids to Macdonalds then. They’ll have to close and basically it’s problem solved.
@Green Lentils: because meat is only available in McDonald’s?
@James Wallace: because tackling large corporations who shovel red meat and sugar into the masses as their two main ingredients will do a lot.
New non meat burgers coming out, hopefully coming to Ireland soon, that even hardened meat eaters cannot tell the difference.
@GO GREEN: in tescos at the moment…
@GO GREEN: when they figure out how to make a ribeye steak that I can’t tell the difference, give me a call
@Colm O’Leary: You should try the Impossible burger, because up to now it has been impossible to make a non meat burger that tasted like meat. Probably not available here yet though.
@Colm O’Leary: You can find millions of alternatives… Go to Tesco or Iceland or any store you’ll find millions of alternatives
Reduce the amount of humans and the food demand will sort itself out. Until this is addressed humans will need more and more food as population explodes. It’s hardly rocket science. Stop making big families.
I don’t think vegans are bricklayers farmers or heavy workload employees,you need meat to fuel a strong body,if you want to do yoga,sit around an office all day and fart a lot,than by all means give up meat.
@Paul Freeman:
I’m not vegan, but that’s absolute tosh based on a limited stereotype understanding of vegans.
I know a good few who shoulder market stalls in the winter, and would toss around many a man not a bother.
@Paul Freeman: Heavy workload? Tell that to Patrik Baboumian. Broke 3x world records for strength as a Vegan. Studies are proving you can increase both strength and stamina by cutting down on meat and dairy. It’s a macho stereotype that we’ve been fed for years and I bought into it myself until a few years ago. Glad I’ve changed my mind on it. Meat and dairy are some of the biggest contributors to heart disease which is one of the top 3x killers in the western world. Some of the toughest athletes in the world are switching to plant based diets. The idea is gradually becoming more main stream the more it’s talked about. Also, I grew up on a farm raising both cattle and sheep, so I know what work is and still changed my mind.
Just as we are doing with vehicle emissions, perhaps we should turn to electric cattle to reduce our carbon footprint, powered by field solar cells. If you think this is a daft idea the alternative don’t look much better.
Well that rabid vegan campaigner with her “animals have souls too” ranting has convinced me to totally embrace veganisim Not! When will people like this stop trying to shove vegetables down our throats? If I wanted to live on beans and pulses the world would be a very smelly place. This sort of scaremongering isn’t helping anyone.
Leave MrGoodman alone….
Now they’re coming after the spud as well. You can take my life but you will never take my potatoes. :)
Judging by the headline, ‘red meat and sugar consumption must halve by 2050 to save planet, scientists warn’, there is truth in the phrase ‘mad scientist’.
Judging from all the comments it’s time to go back to our cannibal roots , eat all the meat you want and reduce the problem as you munch a hand burger or a leg of man.
have your say