This plant-focused diet won’t save the planet | Letters

Richard Vernon says population reduction would do more for the planet than a change of diet, Stuart Roberts and John Davies extol the benefits of British farming, Dr Michael Antoniou calls for balanced scientific information and Paul Faupel on meeting his dietary needs with chocolate-enrobed brazil nuts

Damian Carrington gives us a fine review of the “planetary health diet” in his article (New plant-focused diet would ‘transform’ planet’s future, say scientists,, 16 January). It’s clear that this diet offers both better health than the current norm of a high-meat diet, and a more environmental food production system with its emphasis on plant rather than animal production. However, I doubt the validity of some claims in the report.

The report states: “Food is the single strongest lever to optimise human health and environmental sustainability on Earth.” Population reduction is a much more powerful lever. It reduces not just the need for food, but also the need for energy, housing, transport, schools, climate change mitigation strategies and waste disposal.

Moreover, population reduction should be easier to effect than the proposed change of diet, the latter clearly being, as the report states, a daunting task. “Humanity has never aimed to change the global food system on the scale envisioned. Achieving this goal will require rapid adoption of numerous changes and unprecedented global collaboration and commitment.” Conversely, when women have access to education and contraception, they will not choose to have more children than they can support. Population decline follows. The provision of education for girls and women, and of contraception, needs only expansion of existing well-known programmes.
Richard Vernon
Iffley, Oxfordshire

• Your story oversimplifies a report that does not acknowledge the significant differences in farming methods and consumption patterns across the globe, and could serve to misinform readers about the realities of our fantastic livestock production here in Britain.

We do not yet understand the implications of a heavily plant-based diet like the report recommends on either our health or the environment. There is a very real possibility it could see us relying on imported produce, produced to lower standards than our own and with increased transport emissions.

In Britain we have extensive grasslands, which act as carbon stores helping to mitigate climate change. The most effective and sustainable way to use this land is to graze livestock, which will turn inedible grass into high-quality, grass-fed, nutrient-rich beef, lamb and dairy, all reared in an extensive system.

Your readers should be assured that when they buy British, they are buying a product that is high quality, safe and sustainable. It would be a shame if this report has the effect of undermining British farmers who do a fantastic job producing food for the nation, all while caring for our countryside.
Stuart Roberts Vice-president, NFU
John Davies President, NFU Cymru

• The survey featured in your article (Strongest opponents of GM foods know the least but think they know the most,, 14 January), contains flaws that question the validity of its conclusions. The UK government’s GM Nation? debate on GM crops and foods in 2002-03 included formal public engagement meetings. At these events, participants were presented with information on GM technology, including arguments for and against its application in agriculture.

The outcome was clear: the more knowledge about the subject the participants received, the greater was their concern, as reported by the Guardian at the time. The lesson learned from this exercise was that balanced scientific information on a technically complex subject such as GM must be provided so that people can make an informed decision. Thus the information gathered from surveys of the type featured in this latest article is meaningless, since no effort was made to educate the survey respondents on the topic in question.
Dr Michael Antoniou
Head, Gene Expression and Therapy Group, King’s College London

• Every January we get a shedload of articles in the media about health and diet followed by a plethora of correspondence arguing the points about what is good or bad, and what we should or should not eat and drink. It’s almost like having an annual Brexit debate and just as tedious.

I’ve discovered a highly nutritious way to get oils, fibre and fruit in one bite-sized package every Christmas: brazil nuts “enrobed” (as they say in the industry) in plain chocolate. I manage to make them last through January to help cope with all the newspaper articles, magazine supplements and TV programmes that bang on about diets. Balanced diets and all things in moderation (even chocolate coated brazil nuts).
Paul Faupel
Somersham, Cambridgeshire

• Join the debate – email

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition


The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
New plant-focused diet would ‘transform’ planet’s future, say scientists
‘Planetary health diet’ would prevent millions of deaths a year and avoid climate change

Damian Carrington Environment editor

16, Jan, 2019 @11:30 PM

Article image
Can lab-grown food save the planet? | Letters
Letters: Daniel Pryor of the Adam Smith Institute, David E Hanke, Georgina Ferry and Prof Mick Watson respond to an article by George Monbiot claiming that lab-grown food will end farming and save the planet


09, Jan, 2020 @7:14 PM

Article image
How livestock grazing is benefiting the planet | Letters
Letters: Readers respond to George Monbiot’s article about the damage caused by organic, pasture-fed beef and lamb


21, Aug, 2022 @4:11 PM

Article image
The need for better soil, and fewer people | Letters
Letters: Farmers should be incentivised to switch to nature-friendly farming techniques, writes Graeme Willis of the Campaign to Protect Rural England. Meanwhile Melvyn Rust says people should be persuaded to have slightly fewer children


29, Jan, 2019 @6:29 PM

Article image
Food for thought on our carbon footprint | Letters
Letters: Artificially grown ‘meat’ has the potential to reduce carbon emissions, argues Patrick Cosgrove. As for Extinction Rebellion, its aims couldn’t be clearer, according to Mark Haworth-Booth


29, Oct, 2019 @6:33 PM

Article image
Ways to step up the fight against global antimicrobial resistance | Letters
Letters: Decision-makers must acknowledge the pivotal role that water, sanitation and hygiene play in preventing infection, writes WaterAid’s Margaret Batty. Meanwhile Matt Ball of the The Good Food Institute says moving to plant-based and clean meat is the best thing we can do to avoid pandemics of antibiotic-resistant superbugs


29, Mar, 2018 @5:02 PM

Article image
Halving meat and dairy consumption could slash farming emissions

Adopting a 'demitarian' diet would lead to a 25-40% reduction in nitrogen emissions from agriculture in Europe, report shows

Adam Vaughan

25, Apr, 2014 @5:00 AM

Article image
Why cutting cattle can’t solve the climate crisis | Letters
Letters: Stuart Roberts, vice-president of the NFU, makes the green case for maintaining cattle grazing in the UK, while Simon Fairlie thinks cutting meat production is a distraction


17, Dec, 2019 @4:25 PM

Article image
Keeping the collapse of civilisation at bay | Letters
Letters: Readers respond to Damian Carrington’s interview with Paul Ehrlich whose book The Population Bomb was published 50 years ago


27, Mar, 2018 @5:37 PM

Article image
Cut out meat, pets and kids to save the Earth | Letters
Letters: Readers react to George Monbiot’s article on dropping meat and dairy, news about Sainsbury’s selling vegan ‘fake meats’ , and a report on meat being found in vegan and vegetarian meals


12, Jun, 2018 @5:13 PM