Australia's dietary guidelines and the environmental impact of food “from paddock to plate”

Perspective draft revision of Australia’s dietary guidelines was released by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) for public comment in December 2011.1 Although comprehensive with respect to nutrition, there is minimal reference in the guidelines to the environmental impact of the food supply and what food choices consumers can make to minimise this impact. Continuing to consume food that has a large ecological footprint will threaten our future food supply. As ensuring food security and minimising the environmental impact of food are intrinsically linked, it is time that all involved in making recommendations about food consumption start taking this food and environmental interconnection into account. Recently, the NHMRC released a draft appendix to the revised dietary guidelines, Australian dietary guidelines through an environmental lens.2 Although this draft appendix acknowledges the critical need to consider the environmental impact of food “from paddock to plate”, the recommendations made are limited, fairly generic and need to be strengthened. The idea of considering the environmental impact of food in dietary guidelines is not new. The Australian dietary guidelines for adults released in 2003 include an appendix on the sustainability of food systems, which flagged that future dietary guidelines would probably have a greater emphasis on sustainability as “the problems caused by non-sustainable systems become more starkly obvious”.3 More recently, the Health Council of the Netherlands developed dietary guidelines from an ecological perspective.4 Even acknowledging the limitations and complexity of the environmental data about minimising the ecological impact of food production in Australia, there is sufficient information to make stronger statements in the dietary guidelines about some key areas: in relation to fish, bottled water and red meat, the evidence is clear. Fish stocks globally are collapsing at an alarming rate, with more than three-quarters overexploited or overfished.5 Forty per cent of Australia’s managed fish stocks have been deemed overfished,6 and 72% of fish now consumed in Australia is imported.7 The growth of imports of fish into Australia is mirrored by other developed countries such as the member states of the European Union, which sources around 40% of its fish from a range of fisheries outside its own exclusive economic zone.5 Aquaculture has expanded to meet fish market requirements, but largely relies on fishmeal (usually sourced from small fish caught as bycatch when fishing for target species) as a food source for the fish being farmed. This further depletes fish stocks, especially of small fish that are the main source of food for larger pelagic fish.5 Climate change and ocean acidification from increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) will also have an impact on fisheries throughout the world, particularly in tropical areas.8 The Australian draft dietary guidelines recommend at least two serves of fish per week. To meet these recommended intakes, fish consumption in Australia would need to increase by 40%.1 The guidelines acknowledge that Australian fish stocks may not be sufficient to meet this recommendation, with resulting implications for global fish stocks. Many populations in the world rely on fish as their main source of protein, and fish consumption is expanding globally. Marine ecologists have predicted that, if current trends continue, global fish stocks are set to collapse within the next 40 years.5 Although the draft appendix recommends that consumers “choose fish and other seafood from stable stocks”, can any recommendation to increase consumption of a depleting resource be considered advisable, given that even current fish consumption levels are exceeding a renewable supply? As was recommended in the Netherlands,4 the recommendations in the Australian guidelines should be modified to match population consumption levels that are achievable within catch limits from Australia’s exclusive economic zone, and should suggest alternative sources of omega-3 fatty acids (even though the evidence supporting their effectiveness is not as compelling). The draft dietary guidelines recommend drinking water in preference to other beverages, but make no reference to the impact of consuming bottled water, beyond reference to fluoride and cost.1 The draft appendix recommends drinking tap water in preference to bottled water, to decrease the production and disposal of plastic bottles, but does not mention energy consumption.2 In Switzerland, a life-cycle analysis (tracing energy use from water catchment and extraction through to drinking) showed that tap water requires less than 1% of the energy required to produce bottled water.9 Bottled water also creates waste and is expensive. The Australian guidelines should recommend against not only bottled water but also other bottled drinks, to minimise environmental impact as well as, in the case of sweetened and carbonated drinks, on health grounds. Australian men consume 20% more red meat than the maximum recommended in the draft dietary guidelines, but women, children and infants consume less.1 Livestock contributes a significant proportion of agriculture’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.10 Reducing red meat consumption would not only reduce emissions but would also reduce the risk of colorectal cancer1 and the consumption of saturated fat, with associated health benefits.10 Although the draft appendix refers to protein Australia’s dietary guidelines and the environmental impact of food “from paddock to plate”