Blog / Recipes

Healthy and Sustainable Eating: Leading the Shift – Event Highlights

Posted on

Sue Mah with Dr. Fiona Yeudall and Dr. Cecilia Rocha

Sue Mah with Nutrition Connection Forum speakers Dr. Fiona Yeudall and Dr. Cecilia Rocha. Image source: Lucia Weiler

Hosted by Nutrition Connections, this year’s annual forum explored the shifts that will be required in eating habits and food choices in order to benefit the health of current and future generations as well as the health of the planet. Here’s our summary of a few of the presentations.

What is Sustainable Eating? – Dr. Cecilia Rocha

Dr. Rocha is a member of the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, a Professor in the School of Nutrition and a researcher at the Centre for Studies in Food Security at Ryerson University.

Sustainable diets, defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations are: those diets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations. Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources.

Rocha reminded us of the 17 sustainable goals proposed by the United Nations, in particular, goal #12 which focuses on responsible consumption and production. Consumers have the potential to be agents of change through their healthy and ethical choices of what to eat. Through responsible consumption, ordinary people can effect change by carefully selecting the products they buy. However, price, convenience and brand familiarity are often the most important decision for most consumers, rather than fairness, sustainability and health.

In a world in which food is mostly a commodity, bought and sold through markets, how do we make the transition from unsustainable and unhealthy food systems to sustainable diets? Can consumers, through their choices of what food to buy, lead the way to that transformation? Rocha further posed this thought-provoking question: Is it realistic or reasonable to put this heroic task on the shoulders of consumers?

Rocha acknowledged that alternative food markets such as Community-Supported Agriculture (CDA), famers’ markets and fair-trade may offer consumers a more sustainable, healthy and ethical model of food production and consumption. Her opinion is that these alternative markets are still viewed as niche and alone, aren’t the answer. Rocha suggested that public policy is needed in at least three areas to facilitate responsible consumption:
– taxes and regulation (e.g. on sugar-sweetened beverages, use of chemicals, ultra-processed foods, and advertising)
– subsidies (e.g. for ecologically-friendly processes and alternative markets)
– information, education and nudging (e.g. food-based dietary guidelines).

 

How Do Our Eating Habits Compare to Canada’s Food Guide? – Dr. Rachel Prowse

Dr. Prowse, Applied Public Health Science Specialist at Public Health Ontario, compared the recommended proportions of food (by weight) in the new Canada’s Food Guide versus Ontario adults’ intakes from the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey – Nutrition Public Use Microdata File. Research results are expected to be published next year, however preliminary findings show that we’re not eating according to the recommended proportions of the food guide. Dr. Prowse suggests that non whole grains and “Other foods” (such as cookies, cakes, pastries, ice cream and confectionary) may be displacing nutritious foods on our plates. A consumer shift towards eating a more plant-based diet may help to drive the production of sustainable food options.

 

A Deep Dive into Food Waste – Dr. Kate Parizeau

As an Associate Professor at the University of Guelph, Dr. Parizeau researches the social context of waste and its management. Parizeau shared some staggering statistics:
– Canada generates 12.6 million tonnes of organic waste per year
– Canada wastes $49.5 billion of food annually – enough to feed every person living in Canada for almost 5 months.

In collaboration with the Guelph Family Health Study, Parizeau looked at food waste both at the household level. Household food waste was defined as either “avoidable” (food that could have been eaten such as whole fruits and vegetables, spoiled food, uneaten leftovers, food past it’s best before date as well as bought but forgotten food) versus “unavoidable” (such as egg shells, banana peels and meat bones).

The study found that about ¾ of the household food waste was avoidable. Most of the avoidable food waste (over 65%) came from fruits and vegetables, 24% from bread and cereals, 6% from meat and fish, and 2% from milk, cheese and eggs. Overall, this amounts to an average of $936 per year, over 175,000 calories thrown out and 1,196 kg of C02 emissions created.

 

Image source: Kate Parizeau

 

Food literacy skills can result in reduced food waste. Behaviours such as meal planning, shopping with a list, food preparation, storing food safely and cooking at home are encouraged. A new cookbook Rock What You’ve Got – Recipes for Preventing Food Waste is now available for free download. This cookbook was created by the Guelph Food Waste Research Group in partnership with The Helderleigh Foundation, George Brown College’s Food Innovation and Research Studio (FIRSt).

 

 

 

5 Things You Need to Know about that Red Meat Study

Posted on
A piece of marbled red meat on a plate.
[Image: Canva]

Yes, red meat is in the news…again. Headlines last week announced that we may not have to cut back on red meat or processed meat after all, based on conclusions published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

This stirred up quite a bit of controversy especially since many health organizations offer different advice. The Canadian Cancer Society for example, recommends limiting red meat (beef, veal, pork, lamb and goat) to 3 servings a week (a serving is 85 grams or 3 ounces of cooked meat – smaller than the size of a deck of cards) and avoiding processed meats.   The World Cancer Research Fund (WRF) advises that if you eat red meat, limit it to no more than about three portions per week (total of 350-500 grams or 12-18 ounces per week). And the WCRF also recommends eating very little, if any, processed meat like bacon, ham, hot dogs and sausages.

So, is that confusing or what? It sure is! And it took me a while to read through the science to figure it out.

Here are 5 things you need to know about the study to help you understand how and why the guidelines were made:

  1. This wasn’t a new study about red meat. Basically, a panel of scientists reviewed existing studies looking at the impact of red meat on health. They looked at “absolute risk”. In other words, they considered how many people per 1000 people would likely benefit from eating 3 fewer servings of red meat or processed meat (e.g. going from 7 servings/week of red meat to 4 servings/week or going from 4 servings/week to 1 serving/week). They found that out of 1,000 people, only between 1 to 18 people would have a lower chance of heart disease, type 2 diabetes or cancer if they ate 3 fewer servings of red meat or processed meat.
  2. The evidence for this guideline is “low” to “very low”. The panel found “low” to “very low” certainty evidence for their conclusions. The panel even admitted that their guideline for adults to “continue current unprocessed and processed red meat consumption” is a weak recommendation. In fact, three out of the 14 panel members didn’t agree with this recommendation.
  3.  Observational studies were reviewed. In observational studies, researchers observe the effect of something – in this case, the effect of eating red meat and processed meat. When it comes to making recommendations though, observational studies aren’t as strong or conclusive as experimental studies in terms of showing a cause and effect relationship. In experimental studies, typically two or more groups are compared – for example, an experimental study could compare the health status of Group A who ate red meat versus Group B who didn’t eat red meat. Plus, many of the observational studies lumped red meat and processed meat together, and didn’t consider other dietary factors or the cooking methods (e.g. broiling versus BBQ).
  4. Pros versus cons. The researchers believed that for most people, the desirable effects from eating less red / processed meat (a potential lower risk for cancer and heart disease) did not outweigh the undesirable effects (impact on life, burden of modifying cultural and personal meal preparation and eating habits).
  5. Other issues were not considered. The researchers acknowledge that their guideline didn’t consider issues of animal welfare and potential environmental impact. They admitted that their guideline may be less relevant for people who see these as important issues.

So what’s the bottom line?

Remember that we choose foods for many different reasons – cost, taste, nutrition, health, animal welfare and environmental concerns. No single food completely causes or prevents a health condition. But we do know that an overall healthy pattern of eating plus lifestyle habits can make a big difference to your well-being. News headlines can be sensational and the stories may not always give you the full picture.

As a dietitian and chef’s daughter, I wholeheartedly believe in enjoying delicious, wholesome food. Processed meat can add extra saturated fat and sodium to the diet – these are the nutrients we’re trying to limit. From a nutrient point of view, red meat is packed with protein, iron, zinc and vitamin B12. Whether you choose to eat red meat or not, keep your portions in check. Moderation is truly the key. And make sure to fill at least half your plate with Mother Nature’s superheroes – fruits and veggies.

Love to learn? Love to eat?

Sign up for my free nutrition news, tips, trends, recipes and fascinating food facts!