Towards healthier and more sustainable diets in the Australian context: comparison of current diets with the Australian Dietary Guidelines and the EAT-Lancet Planetary Health Diet

Abstract

Background There is increasing focus on moving populations towards healthier and more environmentally sustainable dietary patterns. The Australian Dietary Guidelines provide dietary patterns that promote health and wellbeing. It is unclear how these guidelines align with the more recently published global recommendations of the EAT-Lancet Planetary Health Reference Diet, and how Australian diets compare to both sets of recommendations. Methods Data from one 24-h recall collected for the 2011–13 National Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey were analysed for 5,920 adults aged 19–50 years. Subgroups of this population were identified by diet quality and lower or higher consumption of foods often considered to be environmentally intensive (higher animal meat and dairy foods) or associated with healthiness (higher vegetables and lower discretionary choices). Food group and nutrient composition of Australian diets were compared to diets modelled on the Australian Dietary Guidelines and Planetary Health Reference Diet. The environmental impacts of diets were estimated using an index of combined metrics. Results Compared with the Planetary Health Reference Diet, the Australian Dietary Guidelines contained more servings of the vegetable, dairy and alternatives, fruit, and discretionary choices. The amount of meat and alternatives was higher in the Planetary Health Reference Diet than Australian Dietary Guidelines due to the inclusion of more plant-based meat alternatives. The average Australian diet contained two to almost four times the Australian Dietary Guidelines and Planetary Health Reference Diet maximum recommended intake of discretionary choices, and provided inadequate amounts of the vegetables, cereals, unsaturated fats and meats and alternatives food groups, primarily due to lower intakes of plant-based alternatives. The average Australian diet also contained less dairy and alternatives than the Australian Dietary Guidelines. In the average Australian diet, red meat and poultry contributed 73% to the total servings of meat and alternatives compared to 33% and 10% for the Australian Dietary Guidelines and Planetary Health Reference Diet respectively. The modelled Australian Dietary Guidelines diet met the relevant nutrient reference value for all 22 nutrients examined, whereas the Planetary Health Reference Diet contained an inadequate amount of calcium. The environmental impact scores of the Planetary Health Reference Diet and Australian Dietary Guidelines were 31% and 46% lower than the average Australian diet. Conclusions Significant changes are required for Australians’ dietary intake to align more closely with national and global dietary recommendations for health and environmental sustainability.

Comparison of Four Dietary Pattern Indices in Australian Baby Boomers: Findings from the Busselton Healthy Ageing Study

“…Another difference was observed in the saturated fat component where the cohort performed better in the EAT-Lancet Index, likely due to lard not being commonly consumed in a typical Australian diet; lard is, therefore, not the ideal measure of saturated fat in an Australian context. A recent Australian study also found there are considerable differences between the ADGs and the EAT-Lancet dietary pattern, largely attributed to the EAT-Lancet diet recommendations of meat intake and discretionary foods being lower than in the ADGs [ 32 ]. Given the environmental benefits of the EAT-Lancet diet [ 33 ], the differences and low concordance observed in the present study between the DGI-2013 and the EAT-Lancet Index highlight the need for further research to evaluate the potential benefits of incorporating elements of these plant-based dietary patterns into the ADG, which is currently undergoing revisions with updated guidelines estimated to be released in 2024 [ 34 ].…”

Current dietary intake of the Japanese population in reference to the planetary health diet-preliminary assessment

“…Since the publication of the SHDs and the PHD in 2019, diets in various countries have been examined for their feasibility ( 9 ). For example, in Italy ( 10 , 11 ), the United States ( 12 ), India ( 13 ), Mexico ( 14 ), Spain ( 15 ), and Australia ( 16 ), the EAT-Lancet Reference Diet was evaluated for its feasibility of achievement. Although the foods for which intake was found to be inadequate or excessive differed according to each country’s dietary pattern, the intake of animal protein was found to be excessive in every country with the exception of India.…”

The Association of Planetary Health Diet with the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes and Related Complications: A Systematic Review

“…The EAT-Lancet planetary health reference (PHR) diet was compared to the Australian dietary guidelines (ADG) diet, and it was found that while the ADG diet met all of the relevant reference values for the 22 nutrients that were examined, the PHR diet did not meet the requirements for calcium [ 17 ]. In addition, the PHR diet and the ADG diet were lower than the average Australian diet with respect to the environmental impact score by 31% and 46%, respectively [ 17 ].…”