PHM-Exch> Article: India is Not a 'VegetarianCountry' Like the EAT-Lancet Report Would Have Us Believe (contd)

[Claudio Schuftan]

From: eva.maintz at gmail.com



Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts about the lancet EAT-Report.

I am currently working in a working group for sustainable food in germany

and we are discussing EAT very intensively. I think it is a important and

very useful paper in a lot of sences but with several weak and criticable

points as yiu already mentiined. Our main concern from a geman perspective

is the influence of the food industry as the health concerns of highly

processed foods are not mentioned in a single sentence and the allowed

amount of sugar ( which has the highest evidence of being unhealthy food)

is quite high.

Richa, could you share the references you mentioned in your email?



Thanks a lot and greetings from germany



Eva

Xxx

>From Radha Holla   holla.radha at gmail.com



I do agree with you, Kaaren, that a plant based diet may reduce the impact
of farming on the climate. However, not all plant based agriculture does
so. The cattle farms will be replaced by grain producing industrial farms
with the continued heavy use of chemicals. Secondly no where does the EAT
Lance report stress on the diversity-based farming systems of many
indigenous and poor communities across the world, which have little effect
on climate change, but rather mitigate it. This diversity based agriculture
includes not just mixed cropping, but also the use of animals for manure,
for energy and for food both as milk and meat. The animals and poultry
forage rather than being fed in feedlots. There are also studies that the
meat of foraging goats has lower effects on cholesterol than even chicken
or other white meat. One of the most damaging statements in the EAT Lancet
report is on achieving balance in use of nutrients - reduce the use of
chemicals in countries where industrial agriculture is practised, but
increase them where it is not. This seems to imply that diversity-based
farming should start using more chemicals. How is this going to help
climate change.



To me, what seems to be the thrust is to promote organic food only as a
niche product, which it is in most countries already, and further trade by
treating locally nutrient rich sources of food as unsuitable and needing to
be replaced by highly priced organic foods, including imported food. The
millets, which are a wonderful answer to climate change, are being
increasingly replaced in middle class families by foods such as quinoa,
which is a good food, but needs to be imported. Foods like amaranth leaves,
chenopodium leaves, beet leaves, colocasia leaves, etc. are hardly
available in the market except a few local markets, but spinach, broccoli,
orange carrots, brussels sprouts are all available. Why not pumpkin instead
of orange carrots in summer? The range of ingredients identified by the Eat
Lancet report does not take into consideration the nutritive value of local
products like coconut oil, sesame oil, peanut oil, but is only focusing on
improving usage of olive oil, which again needs to be imported.  Advertising
with its beautiful colourful pics of imported fruits and vegetables adds to
this. There is no mention of the need to promote local production for local
consumption, to reduce the stress on land and water, to consume what the
season gives in abundance, to vary the diet to include all foods - plants,
grains, fruits (not just apples and pears), eggs, milk and meat in a
balance that does not negatively impact climate change while at the same
time, improves health and nutrition.

Xxxx



From: Sam Lanfranco  lanfran at yorku.ca



I think it is important to understand how the EAT Lancet article went

wrong, and how it is being dealt with wrongly, as opposed to what it got

wrong, or right. Food is essential to survival, not just to health. Also,

every part of the human food ecosystem (production, processing,

consumption, waste) links to other crucial issues such as global warming,

chemical pollution, food waste, and waste disposal, through to issues of

small scale farming income and gender employment (e.g. most African food

crops for local consumption are tended to by women).



            One would think that being essential to survival and health,
and the

impact on bigger natural and social ecosystem issues, would make

understanding the food ecosystem a high priority. Instead the food

ecosystem has been mainly a battle ground of special interests, special

interests ranging from the massive multinational food corporations where

the oligopolies in production, processing and distribution have inordinate

market and political power, to those pushing one diet or another. This is

frequently done irrespective of the local context, and without stakeholder

participation in the dialogues whose policies will affect them directly.



            As a development economist and farmer who has worked with Indian

colleagues for decades the Lancet article reads, to me, as though the

writers had been seduced by a blend of smooth talking self-interest South

Asian charm on the part of their hosts, combined with a limited

understanding of the local context in terms of the links between food

practices, health, family income and wider environmental concerns.



            In my view what the article should prompt is a deeper
understanding of the

importance of engaging all of the stakeholders in discussions around (a)

what are the lessons to be learned from the food ecosystem, here for both

Indian best practices and for Indian problems (e.g. water, poverty) and (b)

 what are the knowledge translation and practice opportunities afforded by

contacts across different food ecosystems. To use the article to push one

dietary solution or another does a disservice to both ourselves and to the

health of the planet, a planet whose health we rely on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20191219/b6448bdb/attachment.html>