Who can afford to eat sustainably?

Authored by inverse.com and submitted by nick314

Climate scientists urge people to eat more plants and less meat to help curb carbon dioxide emissions. And to help achieve that goal, researchers from around the world launched a guide earlier this year on how to eat sustainably.

Under those guidelines, the most affordable green diet would cost $2.84 per day. But that isn’t affordable for 1.68 billion people — more than one-fifth of the world’s population — according to a study published Thursday in the journal The Lancet: Global Health. The researchers also determine who would spend the most on food, and what kinds of food, under the recommendations.

The original guidelines, called EAT-Lancet, call for diets rich in fruits and vegetables. They recommend that protein and fats come mainly from plant-based foods; unsaturated oils from fish; and carbohydrates from whole grains.

EAT-Lancet was exciting, senior researcher at the International Food Policy Research Institute and study lead author Kalle Hirvonen, Ph.D., tells Inverse.

“I think we were all very excited to see this dietary recommendation that first time took into account both health of humans and the planet,” says Hirvonen.

“At the same time, my co-authors and I have rich experience with working in and on lower income countries so we started to wonder whether people in countries like Ethiopia, Nepal or Nicaragua can actually afford these diets.”

That doesn’t mean EAT-Lancet isn’t helpful, Hirvonen says: “On the contrary, he says, “we hope our findings will alert policy makers towards fixing our broken food systems.”

f3nnies on November 8th, 2019 at 18:42 UTC »

From the article:

And to help achieve that goal, researchers from around the world launched a guide earlier this year on how to eat sustainably.

From that guide:

The Commission quantitively describes a universal healthy reference diet, based on an increase in consumption of healthy foods (such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, and nuts), and a decrease in consumption of unhealthy foods (such as red meat, sugar, and refined grains) that would provide major health benefits, and also increase the likelihood of attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals.

From the actual summary of the report:

Food Type Macronutrient intake grams per day (possible range) Caloric intake kcal per day Whole grains: Rice, wheat, corn and other 232 811 Tubers or starchy vegetables: Potatoes and cassava 50 (0–100) 39 Vegetables: All vegetables 300 (200–600) 78 Fruits: All fruits 200 (100–300) 126 Dairy foods: Whole milk or equivalents 250 (0–500) 153 Protein sources: Beef, lamb and pork; Chicken and other poultry; Eggs; Fish; Legumes; Nuts 14 (0–28) ;29 (0–58); 13 (0–25) 28 (0–100); 75 (0–100); 50 (0–75) 30; 62; 19; 40; 284; 291 Added fats: Unsaturated oils Saturated oils 40 (20-80); 11.8 (0-11.8) 354; 98 Added sugars: All sugars 31 (0-31) 120

This assumes a "planetary health diet" for 2500kcal/day. It is described as a flexitarian diet.

From what I can tell from the rest of the document, this is based on what will keep humans alive and possibly relatively healthy while also meeting some pretty unclear environmental goals. I don't know enough on this to say whether or not anything that this study (well, not even a study really) has to say is useful or credible. Just thought I'd give people the important information that the Inverse article doesn't actually bother giving.

Edit: Please see the comment below by u/Qazerowl. They do a great job of showing real-world pricing of individual items to meet the items on the table from the study.

buspirpone on November 8th, 2019 at 17:55 UTC »

I want to see the link on how to eat green for that cheap. I would totally try that.

ec20 on November 8th, 2019 at 17:33 UTC »

So what is the cost of standard non-green diet per day?