Saturday, 23 February 2019

ABC : What milk should we be drinking for the planet?


Soy, almond, cow's, none? What milk should we be drinking for the planet?

By environment reporter Nick Kilvert
                                    
Have you ever looked at an almond-milk latte and just thought: "Why?"

Dairy milk produces more emissions on the farm
Water and transport costs for alternatives should be factored in
Diversity of food sources reduces strain on individual resources
Why trade the smooth, creamy, protein-rich bounty of a cow's mammary glands for nut water?
For some, intolerance to lactose or certain proteins means avoiding dairy milk is a dietary necessity.
For others, it's an ethical choice aimed at easing the subjugation and suffering of animals.
But increasingly, avoiding dairy is seen as a way to reduce our dietary impact on the environment.
After all, cattle belch methane, and land-clearing for grazing is one of the biggest drivers of deforestation globally.

So, is it time we all we all made the switch to a milk alternative like almond or soy, or is there a dark horse — or camel — on the horizon?

Soybeans don't burp, but they do linger

Research from the University of Wisconsin last year analysed the comparative energy costs of dairy milk, and soy and almond milk substitutes.

They looked at the entire life cycle of each product, from production on a farm, through transport to market, and time spent on the supermarket shelf.

For their source farms, they picked the biggest dairy, almond and soy producing regions in the US: Wisconsin, California and Illinois respectively.

And for their retail outlet, they chose a supermarket in Chicago.

Not surprisingly, dairy milk faired poorly in the "cradle-to-gate" phase — as in, before the product made it off the farm.

had higher greenhouse-gas emissions than almonds and soy, and cows caused more eutrophication — the runoff of nutrients into waterways that contribute to algal blooms like those responsible for the mass fish deaths at Menindee recently.

But by the time consumers were plucking their preferred cereal salve from the supermarket shelf, those carbon footprints had been turned on their heads.

00 kilometres to the supermarket in Chicago.

The supermarket was running its refrigeration on Chicago's electricity grid, with a mix of 74 per cent coal, 20 per cent nuclear.

Dairy milk spent an average 2.6 days in the supermarket fridge, compared with 5.9 and 7.8 days for fresh almond and fresh soy respectively.

After fossil fuel costs were calculated for the longer distance to market and longer refrigeration time, both soy and almond drinks had a higher global warming potential than the dairy, according to researcher Courtney Grant.
"It's important to consider the full life-cycle of a product when evaluating its environmental impacts," she said.
"I was surprised to see that the transportation of the products had such a large influence on the results."
OK, back up - some clarifications are needed here.

Now, this is one very specific study and is not representative of all markets and market parameters.
Also, the emissions from the soy and almond products don't come from the crops themselves.

This study is probably more an indictment on fossil-fuel-dependent transportation and electricity systems than soy- or almond-based products.

But it does highlight the complexity of our food production systems, and the danger of making assumptions and generalisations when it comes to buying environmentally friendly products.
An environmentally friendly option in one location, may be the exact opposite in another, according to sustainability researcher Michalis Hadjikakou from Deakin University.

"Every country is unique, every continent is unique, and the thing [we] find very hard to understand is that, even if you look at one thing in isolation like milk, you can have very, very different degrees of efficiency of production," he said.

But, if you grab a carton of dairy, almond and soy milk at random off the shelf in Australia, chances are the latter will have significantly smaller carbon footprints than the cow juice.


According to the Water Footprint Network, it takes roughly 3,400 litres of water to produce a kilogram of rice, and about 4,142 litres of water for a kilogram of almonds.

That doesn't translate exactly to almond milk, as almond milk often contains as little as 3 per cent almonds.

But the point is, almonds like water. They also like warm weather.

As the world's appetite for almonds has grown, California has taken up the brunt of production, doubling its land area devoted to almond growing in 20 years.

While it has the reliable warm weather, the region's water supply is less predictable.

In 2014, California was experiencing one of its worst droughts on record. Snowmelt-fed rivers normally used to irrigate crops were running on empty.

To get water, large-scale irrigators were locked in an arms race. Multinational farming companies were dropping bores into groundwater reserves, emptying aquifers faster than they were being replenished.

As far back as 2011, researchers were warning that the water reserves under California's Central Valley were being rapidly depleted by irrigators with "potentially dire consequences for the economic and food security of the United States".

Almond crops certainly weren't solely to blame, but California's tug-of-war between environmental flows and crop irrigation mirror Australia's own recent struggles.

Almonds here are grown almost exclusively on the mid and lower reaches of the Murray River.
Soy on the other hand is grown up and down the east coast, and in limited parts of the Northern Territory and northern Western Australia.

he best alternative to cow's milk from a nutrition perspective.

According to Roy Morgan data from 2016, about 5 per cent of Australians had consumed at least one soy drink in a given seven-day period that year.

That's versus our daily dairy milk consumption of around a quarter of a litre per person every day.
Soy production would need to be massively ramped up to plug that gap.

According to The Lancet's Planetary Diet, the optimal daily dairy target for planetary and human health is 250 grams. Australians consume about 350 grams per day now, according to Dairy Australia.

Both soy and almond can undoubtedly play a role in replacing some of our dairy excesses.
But, especially as climate change makes rainfall and temperatures more erratic, we'll want more options to feed ourselves, not fewer.

Diversifying the products we consume stops us from hammering one particular resource or growing region to meet demand, according to Dr Hadjikakou.

"When you're eating a more flexitarian diet with a reduced percentage of animal products and diversified around different plant based proteins and some animal protein, you're spreading out the impact," he said.

So, in the interests of diversity, what do climate-change resistance, milk and vodka have in common?
The future: one hump or two?

Have you ever looked at a camel-milk latte and just thought: "Why?"

No. Probably not. But it may soon be coming to a cafe near you.

Camels are adapted to arid conditions and are capable of converting dry, nutrient-poor feed into energy.

In a practical sense, that means they can be grazed on more marginal pasture, and may show resilience in the face of climate change.

And many farms including Summerland Camels in southeast Queensland catch wild camels, meaning they're taking pests out of the environment, according to its director Paul Martin.

"We catch them in the wild, train them and domesticate them to become dairy animals," he said.
There's also some evidence that camels aren't as methane heavy as cows.

A small study in 2014 analysed the emissions from five Bactrian (two-humped) camels, five alpacas, and six llamas (both species of camelid).

While the camels produced the same amount of methane per unit of fibre as cows, when the data was standardised for body weight, the camels emitted around half the amount of methane over a 24-hour period.

That's because they consume smaller quantities of food and are more efficient at converting that to energy.

While camel's milk may be one in a smorgasbord of milk options we should embrace in future, it's not likely to be a big player.

Camels produce less than half the milk of a dairy cow, and Mr Martin says making camel's milk economically viable is a challenge.

But there is a silver lining. Camel dairies like Mr Martin's have been forced to experiment and diversify to be profitable.

Among the camel-milk-based products they've come up with are gelato, cheese, and vodka, made from whey.

Cheers to diversity.


Tuesday, 19 February 2019

ABC : NSW election : climate change and food consumption



NSW election: Where the parties stand on tackling climate change through food consumption

Less meat, more vegetables and legumes is the message scientists and nutritionists are calling for when considering ways to combat climate change.


Conversely the Western diet, which includes high consumption of meat and processed foods, puts pressure on the environment, according to Daniel Mason-D'Croz from the CSIRO.

He suggested we should be eating only one serving of meat a week, or roughly 70 to 100 grams.
"[Agriculture] is one of the biggest users of land around the world ... and leads to increases in deforestation and degradation of ecosystems," he told ABC Radio Sydney.

"It's one of the leading users of fresh water, and the management of chemical inputs can be a factor in pollution and water waste, which also impacts biodiversity."

So is it time for our politicians to listen to the experts and help us reduce our carbon footprint through the food we eat?

Armidale resident Joshua Barlin certainly thinks so, and asked the ABC via You Ask, We Answer:
"Are any of the parties going to do anything to help promote the planet diet — reducing the amount of meat and increasing veggies?

"We're talking about promoting the environment and they [political parties] also seem to be talking about boosting health, so I thought why not do it both at the same time?"
So we put the question to the parties that currently have members in the NSW Lower House.

Liberals

A spokesman for Environment Minister Gabrielle Upton said the planet diet question was "not for this department" and instead would be better directed to the health portfolio.
NSW Health said the Government promoted healthy eating through its various early childhood services and school programs, and encouraged healthy food and drink in school canteens.
It did not mention any initiatives in relation to food consumption and climate change.
"The NSW Government is committed to promoting healthy eating through our Healthy Eating and Active Living Strategy and the Premier's priority to reduce childhood overweight and obesity by 5 per cent by 2025," a spokeswoman said.
"This financial year, $38 million has been invested towards reducing the prevalence of overweight and obesity."

Labor

Labor's environment spokesperson Penny Sharpe said the party was committed to supporting primary industries across the state but currently did not have plans to tackle climate change through food consumption.
"Climate change is impacting on every farmer in NSW, and Labor will take real action on climate change through initiatives such as massively supporting increased renewable energy, looking at innovative ways to reduce emissions through our waste systems, reducing emissions through land clearing and using soils as a carbon sinks.
"The question about how people consume food and its impact on climate is not currently in our plans."

Greens

Cate Faehrmann, Greens MP and environment spokesperson, said the party recognised both the health and environmental reasons to reduce meat consumption and increase fruit and vegetables in the average Australian diet.
She said the Greens encouraged farmers to combat climate change through regenerative grazing and no-till seeding.
Ms Faehrmann also noted that plant-based diets could have "serious environmental and climate impacts" and supported ongoing research and education.
"The Greens also support the phasing out of intensive meat and egg production such as feedlots and caged hens, both for their unacceptable animal welfare impacts and because they have significantly higher environmental costs and associated carbon emissions than free-range farming.
"However the Greens also recognise that animals are an integral part of farming systems and we need to be conscious of where all our food comes from and how it is produced."

Nationals

The NSW Nationals said it continued to "wholeheartedly" support the agricultural industry.
"The Nationals don't believe it is our place to tell people what they should eat, but we do support the idea of people making sensible decisions about their diet based on sound medical advice.
"That being said, the Nationals do wholeheartedly support our beef, lamb, poultry, pork, dairy, fishing, goat meat industries, along with our fruit and vegetable farmers."

Shooters, Fishers and Farmers

The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers believe the planet diet is "overhyped and somewhat ill-considered", and that meat "is healthy and can form part of a good diet".
A spokesman said many small towns across rural Australia depended on the livestock industry and the party was concerned about the Government's promotion of "movements" that could lead to job losses.
"We've seen the devastation the gutting of the cattle industry has had on farmers and their families," he said.
"Government policies and reforms destroyed an industry, but government did very little to help those who lost their jobs, businesses and livelihoods."
The spokesman said the party acknowledged that reducing meat and increasing vegetables could have benefits, but "at the end of the day, we're not going to dictate or police what people should or should not eat"


Monday, 18 February 2019

From the ABC : Junk food and life expectancy


Eating ultra-processed foods like chips, sausage rolls and biscuits has been associated with higher risk of obesity, hypertension, and cancer, but up to now studies have not looked at whether you die any earlier.
Turns out you do. Probably.
A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) shows those who ate more junk food had a higher risk of dying earlier than those who ate less.
The risk is about 14 per cent higher for each 10 per cent increase in the proportion of highly processed food a person eats.
The study monitored the diets of tens of thousands of French people between 2009 and 2017 as part of the ongoing NutriNet-Sante study.
After seven years, 602 of the 44,551 adults had died.
The authors of the study have cautioned the results do not mean eating a single packaged meal gives you a higher risk of dying.
"We shouldn't be alarmist," said Mathilde Touvier, director of the nutritional epidemiology research team at Paris 13 University.
"It's another step in our understanding of the link between ultra-processed food and health."
What are ultra-processed foods?
Ultra-processed foods come under group four of the NOVA food classification system recognized by health agencies including the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.
The other three groups are unprocessed foods like fruit and vegetables, or meat and eggs; processed ingredients like oils, butter, sugar and salt; and processed foods like canned fish, fruits in syrup, and certain types of cheeses and bread.
Home delivery isn’t necessarily unhealthy, but it does make it easier to eat badly.
Ultra-processed foods include soft drinks, packaged snacks, reconstituted meat produces, and pre-prepared frozen dishes.
"The main purpose of industrial ultra-processing is to create products that are ready to eat, to drink or to heat, liable to replace both unprocessed or minimally processed foods that are naturally ready to consume, such as fruits and nuts, milk and water, and freshly prepared drinks, dishes, desserts and meals," according to the  Who in 2016.
"Common attributes of ultra-processed products are hyper-palatability, sophisticated and attractive packaging ... health claims, high profitability, and branding and ownership by transnational corporations."
Basically, it's bright shiny junk food. If you know, you know.
Why is junk food unhealthy?
Linking junk food with bad health isn't exactly groundbreaking, and the study itself isn't definitive.
Since it is not possible to conduct an experiment where you cram junk food into people for several years, observational studies are the only option. Since they rely on people accurately reporting what they ate, they are inevitably flawed.
The authors also had to adjust the results to isolate junk food from all the other causes of an earlier death, including the overall quality of the diet, or the amount of exercise - factors that are associated with eating more junk food.
In any case, assuming there is a modest link between junk food and a heightened risk of dying early, the question becomes why is junk food so unhealthy?
The JAMA report offers several hypotheses:
  • High salt content. Consuming more sodium has been associated with heart disease and stomach cancer
  • More sugar. High sugar intake has thas been associated with an increased risk of heart disease
  • Not enough fiber. Dietary fiber has been linked with a substantially decreased risk of dying early
  • Suspected carcinogen-contaminants, such as acrylamide, in foods that have undergone high-temperature processing
  • Food additives such as titanium dioxide have been associated with gut and intestinal inflammation
  • Harmful chemicals present in food packaging may be migrating into food
Whatever the causes, what's not in doubt is that people in lower socioeconomic groups eat more junk.
"These results underline the social inequalities associated with food choices," the authors write in the JAMA report.
"Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings and to disentangle the various mechanisms by which ultra-processed foods may affect health."


Wednesday, 13 February 2019

From the ABC : Plant based milks


Almond, soy or coconut? How plant-based milks compare to regular dairy

By health reporter Olivia Willis for Life Matters

Looking at a bottle of almond milk, it's easy to see why so many people have made the switch.
"Just filtered water, activated almonds, organic brown rice syrup and sea salt."

No wonder juiced nuts are having a moment! It sounds like a magical nutrient wonder potion.

Except that "organic brown rice syrup" is just a fancy way of saying "sugar", and "activated almonds" are just nuts that have been soaked in water.

Not all plant milks are created equal, of course, and there are lots of good reasons why people make the switch to dairy-free.

But how do alternatives like soy, almond and coconut milk stack up nutritionally?

Milk that's real milk

Before we make the jump to juicing oats, let's first consider the nutritional benefits of dairy.
Cow's milk has been a staple of Western diets for thousands of years and is an excellent source of vitamins and minerals, particularly calcium.

Milk plays an important role in bone health, and drinking it is an easy way to boost your nutrient intake, said Nicole Dynan, an accredited practicing dietitian and spokesperson for the Dietitians Association of Australia.

"Milk gives us a lot of the nutrients that we need in our diet, including calcium, protein, vitamin A, vitamin B12, zinc, magnesium and riboflavin," Ms Dynan said.

The Australian Dietary Guidelines recommend you eat 2.5 servings of "milk, yogurt, cheese and/or their alternatives" per day.

Tim Crowe, a nutrition researcher and accredited practicing dietitian, said although calcium intake was important, it was "a bit of a myth" that people needed to consume dairy.

"There's no reason why anyone has to drink cow's milk … There's nothing inherently special about it that you can't get from other aspects of your diet," he said.

However, Dr Crowe said cow's milk was a "great source of nutrition", and added that any concerns about it having negative impacts on people's health were unfounded.

"If you don't like milk, or if you're intolerant, that's fine, have something else," he said.

"But if you enjoy it, then by all means keep enjoying it — there's no strong reason to change your habit anytime soon."

Soy: the original 'alt-milk'

If you're opting for a dairy-free milk alterative, soy milk is a good place to start. Soy was the first plant-based milk to appear on supermarket shelves and is still the most widely available option.

Soy milk is made from either ground soy beans or soy protein powder, reconstituted with water, and often adjusted with oil (and sugar) to imitate the consistency of cow's milk.

"Soy milk is a good source of protein, and if it's fortified with calcium — which most soy milks are — it really is on a par to cow's milk," Dr Crowe said.

2017 study investigating the nutritional differences between cow's milk and almond, soy, rice and coconut milk found soy milk fared the best of the alternative milks — by a long shot.

"It is quite clear that nutritionally soy milk is the best alternative for replacing cow's milk in human diet," the authors wrote.

Soy milk has more protein on average than other plant alternatives, contains fibre, and is a source of "good" fats.
Dr Crowe said that while soy milk was nutritionally superior to other plant-based milks, it always paid to check whether a product was fortified, and preferably unsweetened.

"That's one thing to watch out for — some soy milks have added sugars to try and mimic the natural sweetness of milk, so it always pays to check," he said.

Confusion and distrust surrounding soy foods has grown in recent years because of concerns about their effects on hormones.

Soy milk contains large amounts of phytoestrogens — a class of plant chemicals that mimic the body's natural oestrogen — but on a much weaker scale.

Dr Crowe said despite concerns about phytoestrogens causing an increased risk of breast cancer and hyperthyroidism, clinical studies have consistently shown those fears are overstated.

"Studies that have been done in humans do not point to any harmful effects," Dr Crowe said.

On the contrary, there is research to suggest phytoestrogens may have a protective effect against some cancers.
"We know that people in Japan, for example, who have lots of soy foods have lower risk of cancer, particularly breast cancer … but the research is not conclusive," Dr Crowe said.

The only exception is women with existing breast cancer or past breast cancer, who are advised (by the Cancel Council) to "be cautious in consuming large quantities of soy foods or phytoestrogen supplements".

Almond, coconut and rice alternatives

As for trendy new alternatives like almond and coconut milk, Dr Crowe said they're rarely the natural, nutritious milks they're touted to be.

"There's not a lot in them. They're basically just very watery," he said.

"They might be useful to use as substitutes in cooking, but they're not a nutritional substitute for cow's milk."


Nut milk, such as almond and cashew, is a mix of ground nuts and water, and usually contains added sweeteners and salt. It tends to be low in calories and saturated fat, but isn't always calcium-fortified.

Rice milk is made from milled rice and water, and has comparable calories to cow's milk. It's generally calcium-fortified, but it tends to be low in protein, and high in natural sugars.

Coconut milk is typically low in carbohydrate and protein, high in saturated fat, and whether it's fortified — like other alternatives — depends on the brand.

Dr Crowe said although the plant milks "paled in comparison" to soy milk, almond milk was probably the next best plant-based alternative to soy.

Ms Dynan said she'd put oat milk "marginally above" almond milk, simply because it had some fibre in it, as well as some "vitamins and minerals".

Both dietitians agreed it was important to read the packaging to check closely for sweeteners (look for sugar and syrups) and to always pick calcium-fortified products where possible.

"Especially if you're following a vegan diet, you do need to make sure you're getting B12 — so fortified milks are a good source of that," he said.

The same goes for calcium, he said.

"You just have to be more aware of good calcium sources, because a lot of these substitutes aren't going to give it to you," Dr Crowe said.

"There's no harm in these milks, they're just not adding a lot to your diet," Dr Crowe said.