Got milk? From a cow or a plant?

Got milk? From a cow or a plant?

Our milk doesn't just come from animals anymore. (June 2011 file photo by James Buck/The Washington Post) Just a few years ago, the term “milk” was synonymous with the stuff that came from cows. Milk alternatives control just eight percent of overall milk sales in the United States, but for the past few years, they've represented the fastest-growing part of the dairy market, according to Mintel, Inc., a Chicago-based research firm. Sales of milk alternatives rose to nearly $2 billion in 2013, up 30 percent since 2011, driven in large part by the popularity of almond milk. In that same time period, the entire milk category grew by just 1.8 percent, to $24.5 billion, according to Mintel. Non-dairy milk's growth is expected to continue outpacing dairy milk's at least through 2018. Probably the more powerful factor driving the popularity of milk substitutes is a consumer group that Sandy Krueger, executive and practice leader at IRI Worldwide, a Chicago-based market research firm, calls the “healthy chic” -- people who look at labels and are drawn to new products with attributes that promise to improve health and wellness. “There’s a sort of health halo” to plant-based milks, says Krueger. “There’s a general perception that they’re healthier than cow’s milk, and taste better.” (By Nate Parsons/The Washington Post) With the proliferation of new flavors and varieties – some 52 new milk-substitute products have been rolled out so far in 2014 -- the growth is sure to continue, she says. But just because a milk is plant-based, doesn’t mean it’s healthful. While many of the plant-based milks are fortified, some don’t contain as much calcium or vitamin D as cow's milk, which is important in preventing osteoporosis. Crandall says you can supplement with foods like cottage cheese, kale, chia seeds, edamame and sardines, which are packed with calcium and Vitamin D. Stick with pasteurized, unsweetened varieties of milk alternatives, says Crandall. Almond Breeze Chocolate milk, for instance, has 20 grams of sugar, as much as there is in a Cadbury Crème Egg. The Center for Science in the Public Interest cautions consumers to read labels closely and beware of milk substitutes that ride the health benefits of the plant they’re derived from, even if the milk isn’t as nutritious as the whole food. For instance, while an ounce of almonds has about 6 grams of protein, the actual milk product has only 1 gram

Our milk doesn't just come from animals anymore. (June 2011 file photo by James Buck/The Washington Post)
Just a few years ago, the term “milk” was synonymous with the stuff that came from cows.
But now, the dairy market is awash in plant-based alternatives, made from soy, rice, almonds, coconut and hemp, driven largely by consumers’ hunger for low-calorie, low-sugar, lactose-free companions for their morning cereal and coffee.
Milk alternatives control just  eight percent of overall milk sales in the United States, but for the past few years, they've represented the fastest-growing part of the dairy market, according to Mintel, Inc., a Chicago-based research firm. Sales of milk alternatives rose to nearly $2 billion in 2013, up 30 percent since 2011, driven in large part by the popularity of almond milk. In that same time period, the entire milk category grew by just 1.8 percent, to $24.5 billion, according to Mintel. Non-dairy milk's growth is expected to continue outpacing dairy milk's at least through 2018.
Plant-based alternatives can be a saving grace for anyone with food allergies or lactose intolerance, or those who follow vegan diets.  (While the true prevalence of lactose intolerance is unknown, an estimated 12 percent of Americans suffer from the condition, according to the National Institutes of Health.)
Probably the more powerful factor driving the popularity of milk substitutes is a consumer group that Sandy Krueger, executive and practice leader at IRI Worldwide, a Chicago-based market research firm, calls the “healthy chic” -- people who look at labels and are drawn to new products with attributes that promise to improve health and wellness.
“There’s a sort of health halo” to plant-based milks, says Krueger. “There’s a general perception that they’re healthier than cow’s milk, and taste better.”
(By Nate Parsons/The Washington Post)
With the proliferation of new flavors and varieties – some 52 new milk-substitute products have been rolled out so far in 2014 -- the growth is sure to continue, she says.
The nutrition profile of each milk substitute varies widely, so different products appeal to people with different health priorities, says Jessica Crandall, a registered dietitian and spokeswoman for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
People counting calories might reach for almond milk, which has less than half the calories of a glass of skim milk, and no sugar. Those who want to boost protein intake may choose soy milk, which has 8 grams of protein per serving, as much as a glass of cow’s milk.  Some drink kefir -- a fermented, fortified dairy drink -- because it contains probiotics, which help digestion and  defend against GI distress. Hemp milk, made from the hemp seed, can be a good option for kids with food allergies who need a source of calcium or protein, says Crandall.  It also has essential fatty acids like Omega 3 and Omega 6, which help build healthy cells and reduce risk of heart disease.
But just because a milk is plant-based, doesn’t mean it’s healthful.
While many of the plant-based milks are fortified, some don’t contain as much calcium or vitamin D as cow's milk, which is important in preventing osteoporosis. Crandall says you can supplement with foods like cottage cheese, kale, chia seeds, edamame and sardines, which are packed with calcium and Vitamin D.
Stick with pasteurized, unsweetened varieties of milk alternatives, says Crandall. Almond Breeze Chocolate milk, for instance, has 20 grams of sugar, as much as there is in a Cadbury Crème Egg.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest cautions consumers to read labels closely and beware of milk substitutes that ride the health benefits of the plant they’re derived from, even if the milk isn’t as nutritious as the whole food. For instance, while an ounce of almonds has about  6 grams of protein, the actual milk product has only 1 gram per one-cup serving.
And in the kitchen, each milk substitute is suited for different uses. Hemp milk, for instance, is a good choice for cappuccinos and lattes, because it froths better than other plant-based varieties, says Megan Roosevelt, a Portland, Ore.,-based registered dietitian who runs Healthy Grocery Girl. Because of its thick, creamy consistency, soy milk is ideal in smoothies and for cooking and baking. Almond milk, milder in flavor and thinner in texture, tastes good in coffee, tea, smoothies or on its own. Rice milk has the thinnest consistency of all non-dairy milks and can be a good accompaniment for cereal or smoothies.
The proliferation of milk substitutes hasn’t gone unnoticed by the marketers of cow’s milk. A variety of dairy-milk products with added protein and probiotics have recently hit store shelves. In February, the dairy-milk processors rolled out a $50 million ad campaign that promotes milk’s high protein content.
Calcium has been milk's traditional nutritional advantage over other beverages. But by focusing on protein and all of its implicit benefits -- protein increases satiety, assists in weight management and builds muscle mass -- dairy-milk producers have seized on a way to stay culturally relevant for parents, aging boomers and seniors.
The so-called Milk Life campaign replaces the “Got Milk?” campaign, which began in 1995.  New commercials feature kids, teens and adults drinking milk to power everything from breakdancing to dogwalking, and the promise, “This is what eight grams of protein can do.”
In consumer research, the message about milk’s high-protein content was the one most likely to win over consumers now drinking juice, water, or soda, says Victor Zaborsky, marketing director for the Milk Processor Education Association, which represents 200 dairy milk companies. “It really emphasized the benefits that dairy milk had over alternative beverages,” he says.
“Traditionally milk been an unconscious choice – just something you put in your coffee or cereal,” Zaborsky said. “Now we’re trying to shift it so that dairy milk is a conscious choice consumers routinely make to improve their quality of life for the long term.”


How have plant-based foods been re-branded and positioned for mainstream grocery stores?

Several factors have contributed to the current plant-based trend, formerly vegan. Among them are the rise in wellness culture, scientific findings of increased cancers from eating too much red and processed meats, environmental concerns, and marketing tools used by the vegan community. Concern for the future of world's food supply and the impact of climate change are other factors which have contributed to the plant-based trend. Only documents related to plant-based products are relevant.

Research the reasons behind a specific dietary trend for this question.

Why cattle ranchers and tech start-ups are beefing over the meaning of ‘meat’

It may be years before consumers can buy burgers grown in labs or tenderloins cultured in test tubes. But as investors pour funds into the “clean meat” industry, beef producers are petitioning regulators to ensure the new products can't bear “meat” or “beef” labels.
Beef producers say such labels risk obscuring the origins of these new products — meats that are grown from cell cultures in a lab, not on animals. And while producers claim they aren't concerned about future competition, the names that these products carry could ultimately determine their success.
“Clean meat” has a certain ring to it, after all. “Lab-grown cultured meat product” sounds like a cousin of pink slime. It's the reason beef producers and clean meat advocates are committed to a long-term battle over the terms used to describe cultured meat, and how those terms are defined.
“We are very concerned about truthful labeling,” said Lia Biondo, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association. “Our members want to give consumers all of the information they need to make decisions.”
Biondo's group is not alone in this, though it did fire the first shots in the clean meat wars. Last month, the Cattlemen's Association filed a petition asking the Agriculture Department to prevent cultured and plant-based meat companies from using the terms “beef” and “meat.” While USDA has acknowledged the petition, it could be years before the agency responds formally, if it responds at all.
Separately, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, a larger industry group, has begun meeting with the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration to discuss the regulation of cultured meat and future product labels.
The organization is concerned not only about use of the term “clean meat” but also about the potential use of USDA quality seals and the disclosure of the fact that cultured meat products don’t come from conventional animals, said Danielle Beck, NCBA's director of governmental affairs. Beef producers don't want consumers to get the impression that cultured meat undergoes the same food safety and quality inspections as conventional beef, Beck added.
Both organizations are reacting to the rapid growth of a handful of buzzy, well-funded start-ups seeking to clone meat from animal tissue samples. While the field is still small, recent investments by the big-meat firms Tyson and Cargill have solidified the impression that it could become a major force, propelled by growing concerns about the environmental costs of animal agriculture.
Beef producers say they are worried that consumers will not fully understand the difference between their products and those of their new competitors.
The leading meat alternatives currently on the market, such as Beyond Meat’s Beyond Burger and Impossible Foods’ Impossible Burger, typically use terms such as “plant-based.” Those products, which use isolated plant proteins to mimic beef, are essentially the second generation of the soy- and bean-based veggie burgers that became popular in the 1980s and '90s.
Cultured meat will go one step further still, and it's unclear how those products will brand and differentiate themselves. Ranchers have already begun bristling at the aggressive branding of  “clean meat” over “cultured” or “lab-grown” meat that more clearly declare its products’ origins.
“We have a big problem with that,” said Beck, of the NCBA. “It implies something negative about our own product, and we don’t believe that has a basis in science or fact.”
But “clean meat” has no intention of giving up its name, said Jessica Almy, policy director at the Good Food Institute, which advocates for alternatives to conventional animal meat. Almy argues that regulators don't have the power to selectively regulate the use of common food names. And even if they did, she added, there's no compelling reason to do so here, since there's not yet any evidence that consumers feel deceived by the use of words like “meat” and “beef” to describe lab-grown proteins.
The term clean meat, in particular, is intended to communicate the environmental benefits of cultured meat products, Almy said.
“I think the Cattlemen’s Association should face the competition head on,” Almy said. “If they really believe in their product, they should let consumers decide in the marketplace for themselves.”
Of course, the name that's eventually given to “clean meat” could have a dramatic effect on its performance in the market — a fact that is not lost on cattle ranchers. Food label disclosures always carry a cost for someone, said Glynn Tonsor, a Kansas State agricultural economist.
Right now, Tonsor added, clean meat is a niche market that does not threaten beef sales. To become a threat, clean meat will have to win over mainstream meat-eaters — and the label it sells under will affect that.
“There are already a lot of alternative proteins out there,” Tonsor said — from chicken to Boca Burgers. “But this is the first one that's using the term 'meat' in its marketing and on its labels.”
Read more:
The Silicon Valley food start-up best known for its vegan mayo thinks it can cure malnutrition in Africa
Most meat producers use antibiotics. Now consumers can see how much.
Is a vegetarian diet really better for the environment? Science takes aim at the conventional wisdom.


Is a paleo vegetarian diet possible?

Trail Mix. (Bigstock Photo)
Question: Is it possible to follow a paleo vegetarian eating plan?
Answer:
Let’s unpack each part of the plan and look at the research and the nutritional pluses and minuses.
Paleo diet defined
This diet, also called the caveman or Stone Age diet, has recently become popular, mainly through books, the Internet and social media buzz. The premise: It’s our highly processed, grain-focused food choices that are causing our rampant rate of chronic diseases. Eating like our hunter-gatherer ancestors in the Paleolithic time will help us lose weight, minimize heart disease and Type 2 diabetes and live longer.
In: Meat, fish, poultry, eggs, nuts, seeds, vegetables and fruits.
Out: Grains, dairy foods, legumes (beans and peas), processed foods and foods containing refined sugars.
Research rundown:
In U.S. News and World Report’s 2014 ranking of Best Diets Overall (compiled with the help of top health and nutrition experts), paleo tied for last in a group of 32 diets, with this comment: “Experts took issue with the diet on every measure. Regardless of the goal — weight loss, heart health, or finding a diet that’s easy to follow — most experts concluded that it would be better for dieters to look elsewhere.” No. 1? The government-developed DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) diet.
Paleo advocates recommend eating meat and avoiding all grains, saying the grains we eat today have been dramatically changed with modern agricultural techniques. One problem they cite is greater gluten content. “The notion that our ancestors ate more meat than grains is not based in fact. Our ancestors were constantly gathering grain-based foods,” says Julie Miller Jones, a professor emeritus in nutrition at St. Catherine University in St. Paul, Minn., who has studied grains extensively. Jones adds, “Though the hunt for meat was pretty constant, the kill was rare. They didn’t sit down to Tyrannosaurus steaks every day.”
As for the gluten claim, Jones points to research sampling century-old wheat showing that the amount of gluten hasn’t changed. But she acknowledges a small increase in the population of people with gluten sensitivity and celiac disease, as well as other autoimmune diseases, such as Type 1 diabetes. “A lot has changed in our environment. Perhaps it’s changes in our grains, the gut, use of antibiotics or countless other factors,” Jones says.
Is it wise to omit grains? “Absolutely not. We need a variety of whole grains, as well as legumes, fruits and vegetables, to get the gamut of dietary fibers for their unique effects on the heart, digestive system and insulin and glucose control.” Plus, Jones adds, grains’ and legumes’ different types of fibers and amino acids make them a perfect nutritional match.
Nutrition pitfalls:
Vegetarian diet defined
The spectrum of vegetarian eating runs from the most restrictive, vegan, to lacto-ovo (eating eggs and dairy-based foods but no animals). All plant-based eaters generally consume fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, legumes and grains.
Research rundown:
Among the largest and longest research projects are the Adventist Health Studies, conducted over the past 40 years. The largest study in the series was conducted among nearly 100,000 Seventh-day Adventists. The researchers, based at Loma Linda University in California, use periodic questionnaires to gather data about participants’ health status, disease risk factors, eating and lifestyle habits and more. Results show that Adventist vegetarians have a lower risk of overweight, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, prediabetes and Type 2 diabetes than non-vegetarians in this population. And the closer people abide by a vegan diet, vs. the least-restrictive lacto-ovo vegetarian plan, the healthier they are.
The Adventist Health Study and several other large observational studies have drawn a link between reduced red-meat and processed-meat consumption and lower chronic disease risk. Turner-McGrievy points out that the more people choose plant-based foods over animal-based foods, the more they can cut down on saturated fat and cholesterol. That’s a healthy move.
But it’s not just plants that keep vegetarians healthier. Studies show they also tend to practice other healthful behaviors such as not smoking, being physically active, watching less television and getting sufficient sleep. That might turn out to be true for long-term paleo followers, but we don’t have the research yet.
Nutrition pitfalls:
Paleo vegetarian?
The only foods that overlap in the paleo and vegetarian plans are fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds. Translated, this would be a vegan eating plan, plus eggs, minus grains and legumes. “Following this eating plan could make it difficult to get enough protein, dietary fibers, iron, zinc and B vitamins,” Turner-McGrievy says.
Research shows most people can follow a regimented eating plan for a short time. That’s not the challenge. The challenge is finding a healthful eating plan you can follow day after day and achieve your long-term health goals. At this point, it doesn’t appear that the paleo eating plan meets these objectives for most people.
Warshaw, a registered dietitian nutritionist and certified diabetes educator, is the author of numerous books published by the American Diabetes Association and the blog EatHealthyLiveWell found on her Web site, www.hopewarshaw.com.
Have a nutrition question?


Why this chef is turning mushrooms into ‘bacon’ and tofu into ‘blue cheese’

Chef Todd Gray of Equinox created BBQ’d Oysters ‘Roosevelt Island’ Style as a vegan answer to the Hog Island Style BBQ’d Oysters served by chef Jamie Leeds of Hank’s Oyster Bar. (T.J. Kirkpatrick/For The Washington Post)
In Gray’s monthly Vegan Smackdown Challenge, a local chef provides a meat-based recipe and Gray creates a vegan version that’s featured on Equinox's menu that month. (T.J. Kirkpatrick/For The Washington Post)
To some chefs, “vegan” is a dirty word, representing an expletive-punctuated scramble in the kitchen to pull together a vegetable plate for a diner who eschews meat, eggs and dairy. Todd Gray, however, sees things a little differently.
As chef-owner of Equinox, just a stone’s throw from the White House, Gray — who is neither vegan nor vegetarian — has found the process of creating fine-dining vegan dishes (a rarity in Washington) to be a challenge and a delight. “There’s a tremendous world of great vegetables,” enthuses Gray. “I love my local soft-shell crabs, beef, pork and duck, but, once you get past those four items, there are actually 60 vegetables on our menu right now.”
As the vegan options at Equinox have grown over the past decade or more to include a brunch, originally served on Sundays at the now-defunct Corcoran Gallery of Art, and a tasting menu complete with wine pairings, Gray got itchy to play around with some other ideas, leading to this year’s Vegan Smackdown Challenge. If you never thought you’d hear the word “smackdown” associated with a white-linen-tablecloth restaurant, then you probably also never thought you’d eat an edible “oyster” shell. “If anyone had told me 10 years ago that I’d be flirting with making dashi with local mushrooms,” says Gray, “I would’ve said, ‘You’re out of your freaking mind.’ But that’s the evolution, and it’s exciting for me.”
The concept of the smackdown is simple: Unlike most such challenges, it’s really an exhibition, not a competition. Gray asked several prominent chefs, including José Andrés, Todd English and Carla Hall, to give him a meat-based recipe of theirs that he could convert into a vegan version, featuring one on the Equinox menu each month. The smackdown began in April with Spike Mendelsohn’s Prez Obama Burger, the most popular burger at his Good Stuff Eatery restaurants, which Mendelsohn says he thought would be a “fun challenge” for Gray. The original is laden with applewood bacon, Roquefort cheese and horseradish mayo, but Gray took on the challenge with gusto, using leek ash to simulate veining in a tofu-based “blue cheese” and creating a smoky “bacon” out of oven-dried royal trumpet mushrooms for his quinoa-black bean patty, calling it, cheekily, the FLOTUS Burger.
The FLOTUS Burger, with mushroom “bacon” and vegan “blue cheese,” was Gray’s April dish, inspired by Spike Mendelsohn’s Prez Obama Burger. (Dixie D. Vereen/For The Washington Post)
Mendelsohn says he found the smackdown concept intriguing, particularly now that he’s cooking more vegan-friendly dishes for his vegetarian fiancée and exploring adding such plant-based options as a savory mushroom tartine to the menu at his meat-focused, Montreal-inspired bistro, Béarnaise. “I’ve stumbled on some really delicious flavors,” Mendelsohn says. “Todd’s vegan challenge is definitely another push of creative inspiration.”
That kind of response from other chefs is exactly the point of the challenge for Gray’s wife and Equinox co-owner, Ellen Kassoff, who has been the driver of the vegan experimentation at their restaurant since they opened 16 years ago. “Chefs, being at the top of the food chain,” says Kassoff, “can effect change. Conscientious living provides a balance for mass consumption.”
Describing her current diet as 80 percent vegan — “I like cream in my coffee, and I love oysters” — Kassoff became interested in plant-based cuisine after spending several years working as a sales rep for Sysco. She sold foie gras, ducks and geese to Washington-area restaurants, meeting the chef who would become her husband while on a sales call. However, one day, she says, “I had an eye-opener into the world of meat production, and the way things were raised really got to me. And I just said, ‘That’s it.’ ”
Kassoff’s move toward part-time veganism was not a turnoff for Gray, trained in classical French and Italian cooking, where proteins are often considered more of a condiment than a centerpiece. And he was already well versed in seasonal cooking after working in his early career with chefs Roberto Donna and Jean-Louis Palladin. While Gray began seriously playing with vegan dishes as early as 2002, he and Kassoff had a sense that a plant-based diet was, as she puts it, “something for smelly hippies . . . and we did go to a lot of Grateful Dead concerts.”
“If anyone had told me 10 years ago that I’d be flirting with making dashi with local mushrooms,” says Gray, “I would’ve said, ‘You’re out of your freaking mind.’ But that’s the evolution, and it’s exciting for me.” (T.J. Kirkpatrick/For The Washington Post)
When in 2011 they opened Todd Gray’s Muse at the Corcoran, Kassoff saw a chance to experiment: “I always wanted to have my own little hippy-dippy vegan cafe, so Todd agreed we could try it — once a month.” They decided to offer a completely vegan brunch, advertising only by word of mouth, and it filled up completely the first time. By the third month, there was a waiting list to get in, and demand was so high that they decided to have it every Sunday rather than once a month. “We had no proper kitchen,” remembers Gray, “just a panini press and two induction burners. It was like someone had opened the floodgates.”
For Kassoff, it was a chance to connect with other people who were “vegan-curious.”
“The stories of who these diners were was fascinating,” she says. “We spent a lot of time just talking to people and finding out why they were there. Some people were actually vegetarian or vegan, but others were their non-vegan spouses or people who were health- or environmentally conscious and wanted to try it out.”
Through those conversations, Gray began to notice something. “The vegans were a little wistful for something of their own, and their friends and families wanted to be able to participate in their veganism,” he said. The smackdown has become Gray’s response, a search to create a series of signature dishes for vegans, and the vegan-curious, and have a little fun at the same time with original dishes from his peers.
While diners in New York, Chicago, San Francisco and even Asheville, N.C., can sit down to first-class vegan and vegetarian meals in some of the country’s best restaurants, Washington has so far lagged behind in dedicated plant-based fine dining, despite the fact that vegetable-centric cooking and eating generally have been on the rise. Equinox is picking up the slack, recently impressing Washington Post food critic Tom Sietsema with what he called “a meatless meal with pomp . . . spreading the message that you don’t need fish, fowl or flesh to draw people to the table.” In fact, Sietsema gave Equinox 2

1/
  2
stars in his Spring Dining Guide for just that reason; it was a 1

1/
 2
-star increase from its previous rating.
For the smackdown, chef Jamie Leeds of Hank’s Oyster Bar dared Gray to rethink her Hog Island Style BBQ’d Oysters, a delectation of broiled oysters in a spicy beurre blanc sauce. “I was interested to see how this particular recipe could become vegan,” she says. Undaunted, Gray started by thinking about the oyster shell itself, creating an edible vessel from a deep-fried round of nori, then considering the combination of ingredients that would nestle into that shell to provide just the right bite for his version: BBQ’d Oyster Mushrooms “Roosevelt Island” Style.
BBQ’d Oysters ‘Roosevelt Island’ Style. (Dixie D. Vereen/For The Washington Post)
“I’m not trying to emulate the flavor of the oyster,” he says, “but there are elements you want.” He naturally gravitated to salsify, a little-known vegetable also called “oyster root,” as the first flavor element he placed inside the nori shell. “It has that little bit of oyster sweetness, so it was perfect for this dish,” notes Gray. He then added grilled oyster mushrooms — “It seemed like the obvious choice” — but later revised the recipe to use maitakes, which he thought had a better overall texture.
It’s clear that Gray is having fun in the kitchen, thinking through textures and flavors down to the tiniest detail: “For instance, I thought about that burst of juice that you get when you bite into an oyster, and I knew I had to come up with that experience.” His solution? A few drops of fresh cucumber-melon juice strategically placed on the grilled mushrooms, which are then topped with a spicy cashew cream sauce and, finally, tiny leaves of red-veined sorrel for a lemony note of freshness. “This dish is probably the quintessential example of where I want to take my vegan cooking,” says Gray.
In the coming months, the Vegan Smackdown Challenge will continue as Gray tackles a cheesy frittata recipe from Cat Cora; Mary Sue Milliken’s cochinita pibil, a slow-roasted pork dish from the Yucatán Peninsula; and a chicken and mushroom paella by José Andrés, among others. “Taking other chef’s ideas is challenging,” says Gray. “Our goal is not to replicate the taste of meat; that’s not the point. It’s about arriving at a creative destination that you didn’t even think you could get to.”
Equinox: 818 Connecticut Ave. NW; 202-331-8118. equinoxrestaurant.com.
Hartke is a Washington-based food writer and editor. On Twitter: @khartke.
Recipes:
FLOTUS Burgers
Red Onion Marmalade. (Dixie D. Vereen/For The Washington Post)
Red Onion Marmalade
Mushroom “Bacon.” (Dixie D. Vereen/For The Washington Post)
Mushroom ‘Bacon’
BBQ’d Oysters ‘Roosevelt Island’ Style
Coming in the smackdown: Gray’s Artichoke, Oven-Dried Tomato and Green Onion Frittata, based on a frittata recipe by “Iron Chef” star Cat Cora. (Dixie D. Vereen/For The Washington Post)
Artichoke, Oven-Dried Tomato and Green Onion Frittata
More from Food:
Vedge duo translates vegan dishes for home cooks
Bryant Terry marries vegan cooking and African traditions


The profound planetary consequences of eating less meat

(iStock) This story has been updated. The results, while theoretical in nature, certainly make a strong case for treating the food system, and animal agriculture in particular, as a key part of the climate change issue. Namely, the researchers find that shifting diets toward eating more plant-based foods on a global scale could reduce between 6 and 10 percent of mortality — saving millions of lives and billions of dollars — even as it also cuts out 29 to 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions linked to food by the year 2050. “Dietary change could have large health and environmental benefits,” says Marco Springmann, the lead author of the new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and a sustainability researcher at Oxford University (all four researchers involved in the work were from Oxford). But the study itself acknowledges that the research in some ways represents an idealized experiment, and changing food systems as dramatically as envisioned in the study would be a momentous task. The researchers say it is “the first time, to our knowledge,” that health models and emissions models have been joined together in this way. Much recent research has highlighted how agriculture, and especially eating meat, contributes to climate change. Ruminant animals, like cattle, belch methane into the air as part of their process of digestion. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, especially over short time frames of several decades — which is when the key decisions about mankind’s steps to address climate change will be made. In addition, if tropical zones are deforested to make way for ranching, then animal agriculture can drive climate change in another way, since the planet’s forests are major storage areas for carbon that might otherwise end up in the atmosphere. Taking all of this as a premise, the new study uses a computerized model to examine four different dietary scenarios, for regions of the world and the planet as a whole, out to the year 2050. One is a standard “business as usual” outlook for our global diet, based on projections by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N. The second study scenario, by contrast, assumed a nation-by-nation implementation of a healthier diet in which people, on average, get adequate calories based on eating required amounts of fruits and vegetables, and consuming less meat and sugar (and not over-eating). That diet, says Springmann, consists of

(iStock)
This story has been updated.
A striking new study — but one that is bound to prove controversial — has provided a calculation of both the health benefits and the reductions in planetary greenhouse gases that might be achieved if the world shifted away from meat-based diets.
The results, while theoretical in nature, certainly make a strong case for treating the food system, and animal agriculture in particular, as a key part of the climate change issue. Namely, the researchers find that shifting diets toward eating more plant-based foods on a global scale could reduce between 6 and 10 percent of mortality — saving millions of lives and billions of dollars — even as it also cuts out 29 to 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions linked to food by the year 2050.
“Dietary change could have large health and environmental benefits,” says Marco Springmann, the lead author of the new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and a sustainability researcher at Oxford University (all four researchers involved in the work were from Oxford). But the study itself acknowledges that the research in some ways represents an idealized experiment, and changing food systems as dramatically as envisioned in the study would be a momentous task.
The researchers say it is “the first time, to our knowledge,” that health models and emissions models have been joined together in this way.
Much recent research has highlighted how agriculture, and especially eating meat, contributes to climate change. Ruminant animals, like cattle, belch methane into the air as part of their process of digestion. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, especially over short time frames of several decades — which is when the key decisions about mankind’s steps to address climate change will be made.
In addition, if tropical zones are deforested to make way for ranching, then animal agriculture can drive climate change in another way, since the planet’s forests are major storage areas for carbon that might otherwise end up in the atmosphere.
Meanwhile, the World Health Organization has recently charged that eating processed meats can be a risk factor for cancer, and a large body of health research points to the importance of consuming adequate fruits and vegetables in your diet to stave off a number of deleterious health outcomes.
Taking all of this as a premise, the new study uses a computerized model to examine four different dietary scenarios, for regions of the world and the planet as a whole, out to the year 2050. One is a standard “business as usual” outlook for our global diet, based on projections by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N.
The second study scenario, by contrast, assumed a nation-by-nation implementation of a healthier diet in which people, on average, get adequate calories based on eating required amounts of fruits and vegetables, and consuming less meat and sugar (and not over-eating). That diet, says Springmann, consists of a “minimum 5 portions of fruit and veg, and half a portion of red meat per day.” It was based on expert assessments of a healthier diet and required energy intake by the World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization.
In another scenario, the study also considered an even stronger dietary shift toward vegetarianism; and, finally, a shift of diets toward full veganism. In both of those diets, the food eaten was consistent with dietary guidance from the World Health Organization.
The research notes that these diets, as modeled in the study, are “not intended to be realizable dietary outcomes on a global level but are designed to explore the range of possible environmental and health outcomes of progressively excluding more animal-sourced foods from human diets.” It acknowledges that “large changes in the food system would be necessary to achieve” them and that, in truth, it is not expected that the world’s human population will get enough fruits and vegetables, or even food as a whole, over the first half of this century. (795 million people don’t get enough food in the world at present, according to the U.N. World Food Programme.)
Just to underscore this point, the healthy-eating diet alone would require 25 percent more fruits and vegetables consumed globally, and 56 percent less meat. The vegetarian and vegan diets require even larger shifts.
Springmann acknowledges that the changes that would be required — not just political or industrial, but cultural — would be massive. “We first want to show, is it actually worth thinking about it,” says Springmann. “And we show, yeah, it’s definitely worth thinking about it, and we hope with those numbers, we encourage more research and action to see how we get there.”
Certainly, the changes are striking — the healthy diet led to 5.1 million fewer global deaths per year in the model by 2050, from conditions like heart diseases, stroke, and cancer, especially in developing countries. The researchers said that more than half of the effect was from reductions in meat consumption (other factors included less over-eating). The other diets, in the model, saved even more lives.
At the same time, implementing these diets greatly cut greenhouse gas emissions from the food and agriculture sector. With the healthy diet that still contained some meat, global greenhouse gas emissions from the food sector only increased 7 percent by 2050, compared with an expectation of a 51 percent increase under business as usual. Again, the vegetarian and vegan diets had even sharper effects on emissions.
And as the study notes, “we did not account for the beneficial impacts of dietary change on land use through avoided deforestation,” meaning that the theoretical reductions in greenhouse gases could be even higher.
“We disagree with the premise of the study,” said Janet Riley, senior vice president for public affairs at the  North American Meat Institute, by email, noting that the institute had not yet had the opportunity to review the research in detail.
“The authors suggest that somehow consensus exists that a diet that is lower in meat is healthier and we would argue that no such consensus exists.  In fact, recent research is actually pointing to the health benefits of a balanced diet that includes meat in ensuring brain development in children, maintaining brain function later in live, preventing sarcopenia and anemia and so on,” Riley said.
Frank Mitloehner, a professor in the department of animal science at the University of California at Davis, pointed out that in the U.S., livestock related emissions only amount to 4.2 percent of the overall total. “Comparing the 4.2% GHG contribution from livestock to the 27% from the transportation sector, or the 31% from the energy sector in the United States, puts all contributors into perspective,” Mitloehner wrote in a document sent in response to a query about the new study.
But Mitloehner added that in other countries, the percentage of total emissions coming from livestock can be much higher.
Overall, the ability to cut emissions from the food sector could still be significant, because of the urgent quest, embraced by the nations of the world, to ramp down greenhouse gases quickly in the next few decades  to avoid warming more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures.
And as if that’s not enough, the research finds that these dietary shifts could reduce healthcare costs — in the U.S. more than any other nation, in fact.
“In terms of healthcare benefits, because the health expenditure is so large in the U.S., we find that the pure healthcare savings that would be associated with dietary shifts would be the largest actually of all countries,” says Springmann. By contrast, two-thirds of the actual health benefits of the dietary shifts would occur in developing nations, the research found.
Granted, any major shift of global diets would implicate huge changes in government policy and in industry — and might trigger some major resistance, not only from food producers, but also from individuals who, to put it bluntly, like to eat meat.
But Springmann says that over time, he thinks cultural change will push the world in this direction. “We already see a plateauing of meat consumption in higher income countries, like Europe,” he says. “So I wouldn’t say that the cultures now are prescribed to be the same cultures that we have in 2050.”