Choose Prevention: Embrace a Healthier Future with Less Meat

Choose Prevention: Embrace a Healthier Future with Less Meat

Choose Prevention: Embrace a Healthier Future with Less Meat

The World Animal Protection launched a #EatLessMeat campaign in Nairobi, Kenya.

 

While it’s true that many African countries already consume less or no meat compared to developed nations, it remains crucial to steadfastly promote the benefits of a preventative approach—#EatingLessMeat. Previously I have advocated for this cause through a joint publication with the University of Nairobi and the National Cancer Registry of Kenya in the year 2016 on embracing healthier lifestyles (including reduction of red and processed meat) to avert cancer (https://www.onehealthjournal.org/Vol.2/8.html).

 

Experts unanimously endorse prevention as the superior choice. Just as animals and humans wisely vaccinate to avert the onset of diseases, shouldn’t we passionately advocate for a proactive and preventative approach to Eating Well by consuming less meat? (Remember, it is about a targeted reduction of meat consumption rather than eliminating it entirely). Waiting until our meat consumption reaches alarming levels before advocating a reduction would be counterproductive. The World Health Organization has unequivocally established the detrimental health consequences associated with the consumption of red and processed meat. However, we acknowledge the importance of tailoring the campaign to specific populations, particularly those in major urban setups across Africa (including Kenya), who may have higher meat consumption patterns.

 

Eating well, through targeted and informed Meat Reduction habits, is not merely a choice; it is our sole, indispensable option. The #EatLessMeat campaign aims to raise awareness that meat is not an essential requirement but rather an optional necessity. By showcasing the diverse and healthier protein sources abundantly available in Africa, it emphasizes the importance of Eating Well by Consuming Less Meat (where and when applicable).

 

Together, let us strive towards a future where prevention takes precedence and paves the way to a healthier society.

Yes, reducing meat consumption can have several benefits for both individuals and the environment. Here are some reasons why eating less meat is often considered a good thing:

  1. Environmental Impact: The meat industry significantly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and water pollution. Livestock farming requires vast amounts of land, water, and feed, leading to habitat destruction and increased pressure on natural resources. Individuals can help mitigate climate change and reduce their ecological footprint by reducing meat consumption.

  2. Health Benefits: While moderate meat consumption can be part of a healthy diet, excessive consumption of red and processed meats has been linked to an increased risk of various health issues, including heart disease, certain types of cancer, and obesity. By reducing meat intake, individuals can lower their risk of these health problems and improve overall well-being.

  3. Animal Welfare: The meat industry often involves practices that raise ethical concerns regarding the treatment of animals. Many animals raised for meat production endure crowded and stressful conditions, and some may be subjected to painful procedures without adequate anaesthesia. By reducing meat consumption or adopting vegetarian or vegan diets, individuals can help reduce the demand for animal products and support more humane and sustainable farming practices.

  4. Food Security: Meat production requires large amounts of resources, such as land, water, and feed. With a growing global population, reducing meat consumption can free up resources that can be allocated to more efficient and sustainable food production methods. This can contribute to improved food security and ensure that more people have access to an adequate and nutritious diet.

7

Untangling antimicrobial resistance – the legacy of an unhealthy development model

Untangling antimicrobial resistance – the legacy of an unhealthy development model

Untangling antimicrobial resistance – the legacy of an unhealthy development model

The Society for International Development (SID), in collaboration with the AMR Think Do Tank released a new report during a workshop on 24th October 2022 titled, “Untangling antimicrobial resistance – the legacy of an unhealthy development model.

The discussions in the workshop highlighted the importance of challenging the highly industrialized food systems and their dependency model on antibiotics, pesticides, and external input that impact people’s and planet’s health, while increasing the concentration of power in the hands of only a few.

Page 78-80 of the report provides recommendations for creating “transformative policies.” Sharing below some of those recommendations:

  • A moratorium on intensive factory
  • A conversion from industrial food systems to scaling up agroecology
  • Cut off funding to the factory farming industry – “development banks must stop funding factory farming, instead, they should support and help expand truly sustainable farming projects with a focus on plant-based proteins and high animal welfare, that takes into account the needs of animals, local communities and the environment.
  • Reconverting financial flows from the global agrifood system to agroecology
7

Updates direct to your Email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts and opportunities by email.

Join 7,243 other subscribers

Post categories

How much do you know about the food on your fork?

How much do you know about the food on your fork?

How much do you know about the food on your fork?

Food production and consumption has a major impact on the environment (True/False)

True

Food systems place considerable pressure on the environment, generating between 21 and 37 per cent of all human greenhouse gas emissions. Because it requires vast amounts of land, agriculture is responsible for three-quarters of global deforestation and trends suggest that by 2050, about 10 million km2 of forests will have been cleared to meet food demand. This a serious loss, particularly because trees mitigate climate change by storing carbon and releasing oxygen.

Also, food that is wasted accounts for 8 per cent of annual greenhouse gas emissions and unnecessary packaging results in solid waste – the majority of which ends up as landfill.

Food production and consumption has nothing to do with coronaviruses (True/False)

False

Wildlife habitats act as natural buffer zones that can reduce opportunities for viruses to spill over from wild animals to people. So, when we remove trees and wildlife habitats to create space for farming and other industries, in many cases we are also increasing our exposure to disease risks.

Intensive livestock farming may also provide a bridge for pathogens to be passed from wild animals to domesticated animals, and then from those animals to humans.

According to a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) assessment released last year, increasing demand for animal protein, unsustainable agricultural intensification and climate change are among the human factors affecting the emergence of zoonotic diseases.

People living in developed countries are typically healthy and well-nourished (True/False)

False

While large quantities of food may be available in developed countries, it is not necessarily nutritious. In every part of the world, people are consuming more foods that are energy-dense – high in sugar and saturated fats – but low in nutritional value. In fact, 46 per cent of the global burden of disease is at least partly attributable to poor diets.

Malnutrition can be found in every part of the world and many countries now face a double burden of both undernutrition and overweight or obesity.

Globally, hunger is more common than obesity (True/False)

False

More people are obese than underweight. Worldwide, 39 per cent of all adults are overweight and 13 per cent are obese. This increases the risk of heart disease, stroke, musculoskeletal disorders and some cancer, and results in at least 2.8 million deaths every year.

Excess weight and obesity are not just problems in high-income countries. Cases are rising dramatically in low- and middle-income countries and particularly in urban areas. In fact, many low- and middle-income countries now face simultaneous challenges of malnutrition and obesity.

690 million people in the world are hungry, even though there is enough food for everyone (True/False)

True

The world produces enough food to feed everyone on the planet. However, food production and consumption are not as efficient as they need to be and 3 billion people are unable to access a healthy diet.

Around one-third of the food we produce is lost or wasted. Every year, individuals waste 74kg of food on average – more than the weight of the average human – and this is a worldwide phenomenon.  The UNEP Food Waste Index Report shows substantial household food waste in nearly every country that has measured it – regardless of income levels. So, preventing loss and waste is an important way to reduce hunger. It could also reduce human greenhouse gas emissions by 8-10 per cent.

We might also consider the food we are producing in the first place – and the way that land and crops are used. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), if grasslands were more efficiently used as a basis for livestock feed and people were to consume the grain meant for animal feed, then the food would be sufficient, even for the global population projected for 2050.

About 2 billion people in the world suffer from micronutrient deficiencies because they do not have enough food to eat (True/False)

False

When we consider food as a component of global health, it is not simply a matter of getting enough to eat. It is also about a diet that is healthy, balanced and plant-rich.

The reduction of agricultural biodiversity in global food systems represents a serious health concern. From a total of 250,000 known plant species, just 7,000 have been used for human food since the origin of agriculture. Of those, 12 crops and five animal species provide 75 per cent of the world’s energy intake. In the last 50 years alone, human diets have become 37 per cent more similar.

According to the EAT-Lancet Commission, an estimated 19-24 per cent of adult deaths could be prevented by adopting diets that are diverse, plant-rich and low in saturated fats, refined grains, highly processed foods and added sugars.

Some common livestock farming practices have made it more difficult to develop treatments for diseases, including coronaviruses (True/False)

True

The overuse of antibiotics in intensive livestock farming – not only to prevent disease but also to promote growth – is creating resistance in humans and animals. In fact, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), some types of bacteria that cause serious infections in humans have already developed resistance to most or all available treatments. About 700,000 people die of resistant infections every year; by 2050, this may cause more deaths than cancer, and cost more than the size of the existing global economy.

There is no difference between animal-sourced and plant-sourced proteins (True/False)

False

Protein is an important component of a healthy diet, but there are some important environmental factors to bear in mind when making consumption choices.

Animal-sourced proteins are resource-intensive and can have a negative impact on the environment. For example, livestock produces 15 per cent of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and, according to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, may be the single largest driver of biodiversity loss.

Plant-sourced proteins are less resource-intensive. They require less land, less water and produce less greenhouse gas. Moving toward plant-rich diets could help avail the cropland necessary to feed the world’s growing population, play an important role in combatting chronic illnesses, such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer, and reduce lost income and healthcare costs.

Provided that it is packaged and sold in grocery stores, food is healthy and safe to eat (True/False)

False

WHO has noted that although systems of food production should be designed to meet recommendations for healthy diets, the reality is that the goals of agriculture and nutrition have often diverged. The health and safety of food may be compromised in various ways throughout the production process.

The use of pesticides for intensive farming is a serious detriment to both environmental and human health. In developing countries, 25 million people suffer from acute pesticide poisoning every year. Glyphosate, one of the most widely used herbicides worldwide, is associated with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers.

Food processing and packaging also present risks. In 2015, WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified processed meat as carcinogenic, linking it to colorectal cancer. And in some countries, food is packaged in plastic bottles and metal food cans that contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals. These can produce adverse developmental, neurological and immune effects.

Source: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/quiz-how-much-do-you-know-about-food-your-fork

 

7

Updates direct to your Email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts and opportunities by email.

Join 7,243 other subscribers

Post categories

How much do you know about the food on your fork?

6th IPCC report: Human activities are pushing planet earth beyond its limits

6th IPCC report: Human activities are pushing planet earth beyond its limits

On 9th August 2021, the IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change) released their sixth assessment report which consists of contributions from each of the three IPCC Working Groups and a Synthesis Report, which integrates the Working Group contributions and the Special Reports produced in the cycle.
The first instalment from working group 1, “Climate Change 2021: the Physical Science Basis” is available and key highlights are:
  • The report shows that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are responsible for approximately 1.1°C of warming since 1850-1900
  • The report also shows that human actions still have the potential to determine the future course of climate.
  • The evidence is clear that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main driver of climate change, even as other greenhouse gases and air pollutants also affect the climate
  • Stabilizing the climate will require strong, rapid, and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and reaching net-zero CO2 emissions.
  • Limiting other greenhouse gases and air pollutants, especially methane, could have benefits both for health and the climate
  • The report shows that every corner of the planet is already being affected and it could get far worse (see attached regional fact sheet for Africa)

An article by SBS News, published by Evan Young on 12th August 2021, provides good suggestions on what each of us can do to push forward action on climate change such as:
  • Vote for climate action – vote for a politician that prioritizes climate (among other things) when next at the ballot box
  • Power up with renewables – pivoting your home and business energy sources towards renewables
  • Talk with friends and family – conversations about climate change can be transformative in the social space
  • Speak up at work – the workplace is another setting where the ideas, decisions, and actions of individuals can have a ripple effect
  • Re-think how you get around – options such as using bikes, using public transport,  getting an electric vehicle if you have the means etc.
  • Switch your bank – keeping your money with someone that doesn’t invest with high-emitters is one of the most direct ways your money can affect the climate
Further reading 
7

Updates direct to your Email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts and opportunities by email.

Join 7,243 other subscribers

Post categories

AMR-MPTF Biosecurity Guidelines Review and Stakeholders Validation Workshop Nakuru, Kenya held between 12-16th July 2021

AMR-MPTF Biosecurity Guidelines Review and Stakeholders Validation Workshop Nakuru, Kenya held between 12-16th July 2021

AMR-MPTF Biosecurity Guidelines Review and Stakeholders Validation Workshop Nakuru, Kenya held between 12-16th July 2021

The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) funded through the AMR-Multi Partner Trust Fund (MPTF) held a write shop on March 2021 in Nakuru, Kenya to develop national farm biosecurity guidelines and interventions for high-risk food chains (poultry, pigs and dairy cattle) where high AMR has been reported in Kenya. Reference to existing regulations, international standards and best practice were made to identify potential pathways for the introduction and spread of animal disease in a farm or areas where poultry, pigs and dairy cattle are reared; and described mitigation measures packaged as guidelines for these production systems.

A second validation workshop was held between 12-16 July 2021 to review and finalize the guidelines and validate farm biosecurity guidelines for Dairy, Poultry, and Pig value chains to enhance preventive approaches to containing AMR. During the 3-day workshop stakeholders completed drafting the biosecurity guidelines and validated the developed guidance documents for use in training, extension and national dissemination to relevant stakeholders including professionals and farmers.

Participants for the validation workshop were drawn from the Directorate of Veterinary Services (DVS), Directorate of livestock production (DLP), veterinarians working in the counties, Kenya Dairy Board (KDB), as well as veterinary paraprofessionals and other animal health field experts working in the identified poultry, pig, and dairy cattle value chains and as well as representatives from FAO.

The adoption of biosecurity measures is expected to sustainably contribute to improved animal husbandry as well as minimize AMR risks attributed to foods of animal origin that could be contaminated by resistant pathogens. Moreover, subsequent use of the validated biosecurity guidelines for training and during extension services by animal health service providers is expected to provide tools to support farmers in improving their production practices. This in turn is anticipated to improve the livelihoods and increase resilience of the livestock farmers.

Updates direct to your Email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts and opportunities by email.

Join 7,243 other subscribers

Post categories