IntroductionThe food supply accounts for ~20% of the greenhouse gas emissions for which UK consumers are responsible – ~30% when consequential land use change is added. Animal foods account for more than 60% of this.1

‘Contraction’ of meat consumption in high income countries and ‘converg-ence’ in low and middle income count-ries will be a geopolitical necessity if a mid century global population of >9b is to be fed sustainably. We have assessed the co-benefits to health of such a change.

We have therefore executed an initial examination of the district eye screening programme, to explore any seasonal influence.

Materials and methodsWe assessed current intakes of red, processed and white meat in UK adults using the National Diet and Nutrition survey of 2000/1. Composite dishes containing meat were first disaggregated and recoded. Each constituent food (including the non-meat constituents of composite dishes) was allocated to 1 of 26 categories homogeneous for green house gas emissions based on ‘life cycle analyses’2.Presumptively causal risk associations between red and processed meat intake and CHD, diabetes and colorectal cancer were taken from meta-analyses.3,4

Survey subjects were allocated to 1 of 6 strata: self-declared vegetarians plus fifths of red + processed (R+P) meat intake. Food intakes in each stratum were then energy standardised to the sex specific mean energy intakes.

Acknowledgments

Office for National Statistics. National Diet and Nutrition Survey: Adults aged 10 to 64 years, 2000-2001 [computer file] SN: 5140. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor]; May 2005.

Results (cont)5. Reduction in GHG from food

Reduction of 1.53 Kg CO2e/p/d (=23% reduction of emissions from food).

Literature cited1. Audsley E, Brander M, Chatterton J, Murphy-Bokern D,

Webster C, Williams A. How low can we go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope to reduce them by 2050. London: FCRN-WWF-UK; 2009.

2. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Scenario building to test and inform the development of a BSI method for assessing GHG emissions from food.  Research project final report FO0404. London: DEFRA; 2009.

3. World Cancer Research Fund / American Institute for Cancer Research. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective. Washington, DC: American Institute for Cancer Research; 2007.

4. Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D. Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 2010;121(21):2271-83.

Conclusions

At least 1/5 of the UK population have adopted (for whatever reasons) intakes of red and processed meat that are ‘climate friendly’.Extension of this dietary pattern to the whole population would bring further re-ductions in chronic disease risks as well as GHG emissions. Less inequality in health determinants should also mean less inequality in health outcomes.

Results (cont)

3. Change in R+P meat intakes under counterfactual M F

Overall reduction: M 69% , F 78%

4. Proportional risk reductions (assuming independent effects)

‘Climate-friendly' intakes of red and processed meat - already adopted by more than one fifth of the UK population - would, if

generalised, further lower chronic disease risksLouise Aston, James Smith, Amir Shroufi, John Powles

Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge CB2 0SRMethods (cont)The counterfactual distribution of meat consumption was chosen as:

•Proportion of vegetarians doubled

•4 highest fifths of red and processed meat consumers converged to diet of lowest fifth.

Results1. Consumption (economic sense) vs intake (g/d, m+f/2)

2. Current marked heterogeneity of R+P meat intakes in the UK