Adherence to the EAT–Lancet Diet: Unintended Consequences for the Brain?

Young, Hayley

doi:10.3390/nu14204254

Cited by 14 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding the influence on health, opinions differ widely on the assessment of plant-based diets: for some, the considerable reduction in animal foods proposed as part of the PHD leads to the perception that a diet without any animal components is even more beneficial, while others sound the alarm that the reduction is too drastic and that (micro-)nutrient adequacy is not possible with the PHD [ 7 , 8 , 9 ].…”

Section: Is the Planetary Health Diet Beneficial To Health?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Climate-friendly” diets from an allergy point of view

Reese

2024

ALS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the EAT-Lancet Commission’s call for a change in diet towards more plant-based foods, especially protein sources, this so called “Planetary Health Diet (PHD)” has been widely discussed. While for some the reduction in animal foods is not enough and vegan diets are advocated to save the climate, others are sounding the alarm that the reduction is too drastic and that the PHD makes it impossible to provide a diet that meets our needs (of essential nutrients). In addition to climate aspects, health benefits often cited to justify the PHD do not take into account that vegetarians/vegans differ from the general population by far more factors than the reduction or elimination of animal foods. Also not sufficiently discussed is the fact that a diet which excludes or severely restricts animal foods is also associated with health risks if critical nutrients are not adequately covered. Moreover, the challenge of meeting protein requirements is underestimated by many. The food industry has responded to the trend towards more plant-based foods by massively expanding the range of highly processed or ultra-processed vegan foods. These – vegan or not vegan – are suspected of being partly responsible for the development of non-communicable diseases. In addition to general criticism regarding the usefulness of advertising the PHD, the replacement of animal protein sources with plant-based sources notably harbors a number of additional relevant risks for allergy sufferers so that the latter should be classified as an unfavorable target group for the implementation of the PHD recommendations.

show abstract

Section: Is the Planetary Health Diet Beneficial To Health?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Climate-friendly” diets from an allergy point of view

Reese

2024

ALS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It should be noted that the causal evidence linking unprocessed red meat to noncommunicable disease mortality is reportedly weak [53] and adherence to the EAT-Lancet diet has not, thus far, been linked to reduced mortality from cardiovascular disease and cancer [54]. In fact, it has been argued that the EAT-Lancet diet may contribute to the increasing burden of mental illness [55] and that the guidance offered is not feasible [56,57] on a global basis and may exacerbate food inequity. Meat consumption has been linked to lower rates of depression and anxiety, which may be reflective of select nutrients and amino acids within the whole food [58][59][60][61].…”

Section: Historical Aspects Of Planetary Health Dietsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Plants: The Ultra-Processing of Global Diets Is Harming the Health of People, Places, and Planet

Prescott

D’Adamo

Holton

et al. 2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global food systems are a central issue for personal and planetary health in the Anthropocene. One aspect of major concern is the dramatic global spread of ultra-processed convenience foods in the last 75 years, which is linked with the rising human burden of disease and growing sustainability and environmental health challenges. However, there are also calls to radically transform global food systems, from animal to plant-derived protein sources, which may have unintended consequences. Commercial entities have moved toward this “great plant transition” with vigor. Whether motivated by profit or genuine environmental concern, this effort has facilitated the emergence of novel ultra-processed “plant-based” commercial products devoid of nutrients and fiber, and sometimes inclusive of high sugar, industrial fats, and synthetic additives. These and other ingredients combined into “plant-based” foods are often assumed to be healthy and lower in calorie content. However, the available evidence indicates that many of these products can potentially compromise health at all scales—of people, places, and planet. In this viewpoint, we summarize and reflect on the evidence and discussions presented at the Nova Network planetary health meeting on the “Future of Food”, which had a particular focus on the encroachment of ultra-processed foods into the global food supply, including the plant-sourced animal protein alternatives (and the collective of ingredients therein) that are finding their way into global fast-food chains. We contend that while there has been much uncritical media attention given to the environmental impact of protein and macronutrient sources—meat vs. novel soy/pea protein burgers, etc.—the impact of the heavy industrial processing on both human and environmental health is significant but often overlooked, including effects on cognition and mental health. This calls for a more nuanced discourse that considers these complexities and refocuses priorities and value systems towards mutualistic solutions, with co-benefits for individuals, local communities, and global ecology.

show abstract

“…For an effective transition to healthier and more sustainable diets, an in-depth understanding of current dietary patterns and their associated environmental impact is required [ 11 , 14 , 15 , 16 ].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%