EXPERT REACTION: Global food sustainability needed to avoid catastrophic damage to the planet

There seems to have been very little consultation by the EAT-LANCET group with agricultural scientists who understand the sustainability tradeoffs that would be associated with of some of their main dietary recommendations.

Although it may seem like switching to a diet with less red meat and more fruits, fish and milk should be desirable from an environmental perspective, it may actually exacerbate climate change due to the relatively high energy and water use per calorie of these food products.

There is no one sustainable diet, and depending upon the question that is being asked (e.g. carbon emissions/water use/land use/energy use per calorie/unit weight/unit protein/unit nutrient), different food products will look like the “most sustainable” choice. Often there are direct conflicts between what is perceived as the most sustainable production system depending upon the metric that is being given priority.

If by 2050 humanity is not to eat itself and the planet to death, the multinational expert Lancet Commission on food, health and sustainability finds there will need to be a ‘Great Food Transformation’ in production and consumption.

For Australian farmers this represents a major opportunity to steer production toward emerging healthy foods markets internationally while boosting the resource efficiency of our agricultural system.

For the nation’s health care community, it means we have to be smarter in battling the causes of obesity and poor diet – the principal sources of non-communicable disease – and in engaging people in taking better care of themselves.

For Federal, State and Local Government it demands far better natural resource and development governance, much more transparent emphasis on sustainability and an end to fudging in the trade-offs between economics and environment.

For Australians generally, like much of the global community, it begs attitudinal and behavioural change away from ‘lose-lose diets’ to acceptance of personal responsibility for the environmental and health impacts embedded in our consumption.

By the Commission’s own admission this is a challenge so enormous, demanding change on such a scale that it is in “uncharted territory”.  

The Great Food Transformation will not meet with success even partly without stronger coordination of public policy, massive food science and technology innovation from farm to plate and without consumers informed and motivated sufficiently to modify their diets. 

It’s a massive ask, but the stakes have never been greater and are global and inter-generational in their magnitude.

The Lancet Commission on Health Diets from Sustainable Food Systems is an urgent call to action to systematically address a range of interconnected issues with food security and sustainability firmly at the centre. The world is now an inter-connected global food bowl and we need to take collective responsibility for ensuring that everyone has safe access to nutritious food and a clean water supply. By bringing together international experts across diverse disciplines and sectors the Commission has framed an action plan that is both practicable and positive about the future. It argues for both personal responsibility and government action and outlines a vision for a future that transforms the way we address the urgent issues of climate change, biodiversity loss, land-system use and nitrogen and phosphorus flows. This Commission is both a road map for a sustainable future but also a legacy for generations to come.

The Lancet Commission has provided clear guidelines that we need to halve the amount of red meat we are eating and double the amount of nuts and legumes. This Great Food Transformation recommendation provides a tangible way to help ensure parents given their children a healthy start to life but has the added benefit of decreasing the impact of agricultural production on climate change. Recent protests by school children demonstrate that the next generation care deeply about our planet and so should we.

 The EAT-Lancet Commission which seeks to enshrine sustainable and healthy eating in guidelines to save a habitable planet is most welcome, as time runs short with accelerating climate change.

Fortunately, and encouragingly, it builds on a growing emphasis on plant-based diets in national and international dietary guidelines, which are sustainability -orientated, wittingly or not. However, some recommendations need greater emphasis, like the more use of legumes and tree crops, along with local support for ecologically-sensitive food production and nature -engaging healthy habits.

Ethical and equity nutritional dilemmas   are emerging, however where desirable foodstuffs like seafood are contaminated with microplastic and fermented dairy products add to the dependency on ruminant animals which add to the methane load on the atmosphere. These may be prioritised for novel green technology.

Above all, concerted community actions and international accord for policies such as EAT encourage are now critical.

 

Back in the 1960s, when the Green Revolution started, the need was to provide calories for a starving world. Today, food is cheap. But it comes at great environmental cost. 

Climate change and the need to feed an ever-growing world population in a healthy way without ruining the natural environment are inextricably linked. It's hard to see how to solve such 'wicked problems'. The authors show that a dramatic change in the human diet could make a huge difference.

Why would changing human diets to be primarily plant-based help? 

We know in the business world that cutting out the 'middle (wo)man' cuts costs. It's the same with food. It is much more efficient for us to eat the plants, rather than eat the animals that have eaten the plants. Energy is lost along the way.

Rising carbon dioxide not only changes the climate. It also makes plants more efficient at absorbing carbon dioxide. Rather than just growing more, most plants also downsize their photosynthetic machinery, which is made of protein. When a cow eats grass, it's getting its protein from the photosynthetic machinery in the leaves. Less protein means that more land will be required to support each cow or lamb or whatever. Grains also end up with less protein - you won't be able to make a decent loaf of bread in 50 years time, unless we act now to reduce carbon emissions, because the protein levels will be too low.

Traditional plant breeding, genetic engineering and advances in digital agricultural technologies will help but are now too slow. Put simply, the balance between plants and animals on the planet is wrong. Plants use up carbon dioxide in the process of photosynthesis; animals release it back again. 

I've been trying to get the message out about climate change and the negative effect on the nutritional value of plants for over 20 years. It's really good to see this aspect incorporated into the modelling presented here. By 2050, eucalypt leaves may not have enough protein to support koalas simply as a result of the higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The levels of naturally occurring toxic cyanide will increase in cassava, with climate change increasing the risk of poisoning, death and paralysis in the people who depend on it for their calories. Micronutrient levels also decrease, potentially making micronutrient deficiencies worse.

These are big targets, but we have to start somewhere.

This comprehensive synthesis is one of the first to unite human and environmental health projections for the world. Currently parts of humanity are both over and under nourished, while the agricultural system has both over production with environmental costs or yield gaps with mere subsistence.   This study looks at healthy diets and how they can be produced for a larger and more affluent population. A balance both demand and supply is necessary and just possible but dramatic shifts in trends are needed. The conclusions are quantitative across a range of future scenarios and generally increase plant diversity (including N fixing legumes) with diets lower on the food chain (fewer animal products). The challenges are largely social and solutions have some flexibility, eg not absolute vegan, but lower meat and processed foods with more greens and grains and beans.  They outline a globally sustainable and healthy diet as a benchmark for the food system to adjust toward to dissuade critiques from certain food sectors. Limiting agriculture land expansion and restoration of degraded land is critical to environmental sustainability. Reducing food waste post consumption in the developed world and post production in the developing world is also key to meeting the challenges.

One omission from summary but included in paper is that of crop land being u)sed bioenergy and carbon capture and storage. This has and will have, a growing demand on land use to stabilize climate to +2C and even more so for +1.5C. Figure 2 shows how global agriculture must shift from emissions (CO2e to draw down into soils later this century. Critically this transition needs to begin in the 2020s for the effects to be realized as (agro)ecosystems mature.   

One option for further consideration in light of large increases in demand for lower yielding legumes and fruits and nut trees is to intercrop them via agroforestry. Together they could yield more than the sum of their parts. 

This important study addresses the two critical issues for food production: sustainable use of resources and improving community health. It correctly finds that feeding the growing world population will prove impossible unless we modify both eating habits and food production. More than 800 million people don’t get enough food, while unhealthy diets are a major cause of ill-health in Australia.

The first national report on the state of the environment pointed out, more than twenty years ago, that productive land is being degraded in Australia, while runoff of nutrients and sediment from primary production is a serious threat to the Great Barrier Reef. Two-thirds of adults in this country are now overweight or obese, a consequence of successive governments tolerating proliferation of highly processed foods and unhealthy consumption of added sugars.

We have known for decades that a healthy diet would involve increased consumption of fruit, vegetables, nuts and legumes, with dramatically reduced levels of red meat and sugar. Such a diet would also be more environmentally responsible. This report is a reminder of the urgency of changing government policies to promote both healthy diets and responsible food production. It is no exaggeration to say millions will needlessly suffer and die if the warnings are ignored.

Imagine coming home to dinner after a long at work but your family announce there is nothing to eat for dinner… again. Well, nothing decent anyway.

You are hungry, your kids are hungry, food is expensive and climate change is making it more difficult for farmers to grow food. The news reports another drought year (20 years to-date), the Murry-Darling has dried up and water desalination plants are struggling to keep up with demand.

Food insecurity in Australia is predicted to escalate - currently, two million Australians report being food insecure - unless the current food system changes – the way food is produced, western diets, and food waste practices are a few examples. The significance of this issue can be compared to the climate emergency.

If we are to feed a growing global population of 9.8 billion by 2050, a planetary health diet is being advocated which protects the health of people and the planet. A planetary health diet is anticipated to alleviate the considerable environmental damage currently being inflicted on the planet, but also improve the health of billions.

Worldwide, a chronic disease epidemic (cancer, cardiovascular heart disease, and obesity) are significant issues burdening health care systems. A planetary health approach could begin by shifting consumption patterns, such as increasing vegetable, legume, fruit and nut consumption and reducing meat, dairy and sugar.

An impossible feat? Maybe, but we don’t have many straightforward alternatives - the health of our planet and future populations depend on it.

Food security is probably going to be the number 1 global challenge this century, and this paper hits some of the key challenges right on the head.  But I have some caveats.

The authors correctly emphasise that changing human diets to reduce excess meat consumption -especially in wealthy nations - would not only have great environmental benefits, but would also markedly improve human health.  However, campaigns to reduce meat consumption need to stress their health benefits more than anything else, as those will be most effective.  Experience has shown that, realistically, few people will avoid hamburgers to save rainforests.

Beyond this, food production is overwhelmingly the biggest human land-use: we presently farm an area the size of South America, and graze an area the size of Africa. If we don’t amp-up agriculture, by making it more productive on a per-hectare basis, we’ll soon need a further expanse of land the size of Canada to meet global food demand.  The environmental impacts of achieving this - not to mention its financial, social, and political costs - would be enormous.  Fortunately, there is great scope to improve agricultural productivity in much of the world.
 
Food waste could be reduced dramatically by some fairly simple social tweaks, and by improving roads between farming areas and urban food markets to reduce food spoilage.  But we need to build roads in the right places to avoid devastating nature.  Right now we are building roads across the planet in the most chaotic manner imaginable, devastating many of the world’s last wild areas.
 
It’s remarkable that many issues revolving around global food security could be addressed in ways that pay great dividends for humanity.  But we need to get smarter, because right now we’re doing a lot of things poorly.

The typical and dominant diet consumed by the majority of the global population is mainly animal-based, low in plants, and high in processed foods, which is contributing to chronic lifestyle diseases (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity). It is also a major contributor to climate change and accelerating the erosion of our natural biodiversity. Overall, the global food system currently has one billion people not getting enough food, while two billion are over-eating. It is easy to see, as this report has found, that the balance between providing healthy food to all whilst balancing the Earth’s resources has failed and will lead to the demise of humanity on Earth.

The dietary pattern that is recommended to meet Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on climate change is low in animal products, with a reduction in red meat intake to 14g/day, and largely plant-based, with a 100 per cent increase in intake of legumes, nuts, vegetables and fruit. Additionally, it is low in saturated fat, refined grains, processed foods and added sugar. The focus on reductions in red meat (beef and lamb) is justified as red meat is the greatest contributor to climate change.

This dietary pattern for sustainable food systems has been promoted for many years globally to reduce the risk of death from chronic diseases. In Australia, it is the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADG). While meat does feature in the ADG, it is grouped as an option alongside nuts, seed and legumes/beans. Globally, most dietary guidelines reflect this same pattern. The Mediterranean Diet, which is evidence-backed for a range of favourable health outcomes, is also a low-animal, high-plant-based diet which is minimal in saturated fats and processed foods. This dietary pattern for sustainable food systems is not new - as nutritionists and dietitians, we have been promoting it for a long time. As it happens, the dietary pattern that is best for human health is also best for the environment - they are aligned and are the best dietary pattern for humanity.

Another key aspect of the Great Food Transformation is to reduce food waste at all points across the food chain, with the consumer being responsible for a greater percentage of food waste. For this, greater education will be needed about food storage, improved planning of food shopping, education on use-by and best-before dates, and improved knowledge in use of left-overs.

This is probably the most important report ever produced. And it is published in the world’s top medical journal with a bevvy of authors from major institutions worldwide.

The problems highlighted affect everyone on planet Earth, as well as future generations. Not complying with the recommendations will spell doom for our planet.

The report adds strength he the United Nations 'Sustainable Development Goals' and the Paris Agreement on addressing climate change.

The report identifies red meat at a major cause of carbon dioxide emissions and thus global warming, and recommends people eat no meat or at least 50 per cent less. Instead, a doubling of intake of healthy vegetables, fruit, whole grains, legumes, nuts and unsaturated oils is recommended, perhaps with sustainable seafood as well. The report states that this diet will be a 'WIN-WIN' for health and the planet.

With approx. 10 million people dying each year from preventable diseases caused by bad diet, lives will be saved.

This is a wake-up call for all governments worldwide, including Australia. 

I recommend a task force to address current agricultural practices in Australia and take measures to align them with the report’s recommendations.

Those measures should include education and legislation …. A ‘nudge’, and a sledge hammer if necessary.

The issue is far too important for our politicians to sit on their hands while giving free reign to unsustainable farming practices devoted to producing food which is damaging to health, and to the mass production of processed food by the food industry.

This is, in effect, a DOOMSDAY REPORT.

The human population continues to expand and global food production must increase to ensure good health. [In this study] Willett et al. propose a healthy reference diet which imposes less environmental damage on the planet and, if equitably adopted, would foster improved health.

The challenge of limiting global population to reduce pressure on the Earth’s ecosystems both directly and indirectly is not addressed. The most dramatic change they propose to our diet is the substantial reduction in red meat consumption, substituting proteins from plants (e.g. chickpeas and dry beans, pulses) and consuming carbohydrates as whole grains rather than refined products.

The arguments in support of reduced red meat consumption are the environmental costs associated with farming pigs and cattle and the health risks associated with meat consumption. Global production of animal and plant proteins has changed dramatically since 1960. Production of chicken per capita has risen seven-fold, two-fold for pigs, while surprisingly, cattle production per capita has been rather stable. There was a fall in the production of plant protein crops (pulses) until the last decade, when it began to increase again.

To meet the global need from the reference diet, production of pulse crops would need to more than double. Australia currently exports two million tonnes of chickpeas (worth $1.9B in 2016/17) and could increase its production. Australia also exports significant amounts beef and lamb (worth $7.4B and $2.4B in 2016/17, respectively), so any rebalancing of diet would have a major impact on farmers.

In terms of cereals, Australia is a major wheat exporter (22 million tonnes worth $6.1B in 2016/17). The Nobel laureate Noman Borlaug promoted the ‘Green Revolution’ in the 1960s, which combined the introduction of dwarfing genes and disease resistance with high input agronomy and lead to massive increases in cereal production. Large scale famine in the late 1950s was averted and human population has more than doubled. Cereal production per capita has been remarkably stable since the 1980s apart from the recent rise in maize production used to feed animals. The stable per capita production has required enormous efforts in breeding, improved agronomy and the use of fertilisers and irrigation to keep pace with population growth.

Willett et al. highlight the need to use fertiliser and water in ways that minimise environmental damage, while acknowledging that plant growth requires these inputs. Australian agriculture and farmers regularly face the challenge of producing crops with limited water, and researchers are actively seeking ways to increase crop yield through more efficient use of water and nutrients. Australian farmers have largely adopted no till farming to preserve our fragile soils, and this relies on the use of herbicides.

Gene editing is a rapidly advancing technology that will be needed to provide improved plant varieties. Australia has recently released a canola variety that produces the healthy omega 3 oil that was created through genetic engineering. This type of canola oil fits nicely into the Healthy Reference Diet, which suggests a considerable intake of unsaturated plant oils rather than animal fats. Future agriculture will need to continue to use all technologies to produce enough food on the minimum amount of land.

It’s exciting to see such a detailed approach to addressing both environmental sustainability and human health, as these issues are often discussed in isolation. The authors are forthcoming about the unavoidable uncertainty that underpins their calculations, and remain open to integrating other protein sources that are currently under study, such as blue-green algae and insects. The EAT-Lancet Commission’s recommendation for a global shift to a predominantly plant-based diet is highly ambitious, and will require a great deal of cooperation between consumers, producers, and policy-makers.

That said, I think there’s good cause to be optimistic, as the recommendations allow a range of diets, from vegan through to flexitarian, and can easily be translated into culturally appropriate food choices. As the authors point out, many traditional diets, such as those in Mexico and India, consist largely of plant-based food and only small amounts of animal products.  At the same time, there is a steady stream of innovations in plant-based products and cuisine, making it even easier for people to follow healthy and sustainable diets while continuing to enjoy their food.

The report published today in the Lancet on 'Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets for Sustainable Food Systems' has important implications for Australia's dietary guidelines and healthy eating policies. The report shows that a healthy diet can and should be an environmentally-sustainable diet.

Governments, schools, universities, hospitals and other institutions should urgently update their dietary guidelines and healthy eating policies to include environmental considerations.

This means encouraging a greater proportion of the diet from plant-based foods, lesser consumption of sugar and red meat and avoidance of food waste. These measures can address common causes and harness synergistic solutions for a healthy sustainable food system.

Clear dietary guidelines can help guide effective specific legal and policy solutions such as labelling, taxes, and restrictions on advertising of some products.

Currently, unhealthy eating patterns are a greater risk factor for chronic disease and premature death than drugs, alcohol and smoking combined. The world gets a ‘fail’ in terms of how current approaches to feeding people do not optimise health of people or the planet. This paper provides a welcome discussion that spotlights the world triple threat of obesity, undernutrition and climate change, and highlights that we face a triple challenge to fix the global food system. Poor nutrition affects every aspect of our world, from the health and well-being of individuals to the health and viability of our planet. It is excellent to see scientific targets for a healthy diet that could improve food systems, while also nurturing the planet.

There has been a shift in eating patterns away from basic food groups to a dominance of hyper-palatable ultra-processed foods that use a lot of resources to produce. Improving nutrition has the potential to avert around 11 million premature deaths per year-and also allow people to live more years with better health. 

But this paper calls for a broad focus on the impact that poor nutrition has on the whole planet not specific individuals. This paper clearly outlines a strong case for action and call for all countries to act together, and to start now.

This analysis is led by a strong group of international experts across 16 countries. Within countries, there is a need to increase intakes particularly of plant sources of protein and vegetables and reduce intakes of red-meat (and nutrient-poor, ultra-processed foods).

But it is not just a decrease in meat intakes - we also need a global re-distribution. 800 million people don’t have enough to eat while ‘billions’ carry excess weight. For many lower- and middle-income countries there is a need to increase intakes of red meat in order to reduce undernutrition and conditions such as anaemia.  

It is not a panacea, and vulnerable population and groups have higher requirement for nutrients including vitamin B12, iron and zinc, such as pregnant women, infants, children and the elderly.

We need to take care that the world does not make the mistake of creating a new wave of ultra-processed plant food, under the guise of reducing food waste or saving the planet. The recommendation for planetary diets encourage consuming a variety of plant based foods, including higher intakes of legumes, nuts, vegetables and fruits. 

Global collaboration and leadership is noble, but will require buy-in from governments to deliver policy changes to support this, but also support from manufacturers.

We need policies that help people to choose healthy foods, including improved availability, access and food security, and that are underpinned by sustainable food sources and suppliers, that achieve a reduction in food waste, while protecting precious environmental resources on land and sea.

An ecological footprint (EF) estimation was performed in 2008 for the Lochiel Park Green Village northeast of Adelaide’s CBD. 

An EF estimates the amount of land it would take to supply all the needs of a precinct’s inhabitants if those needs were provided via renewable resources only. Rules placed on this development focused on reduction of external energy use. These included building thermal performance meeting 7.5 stars out of 10, instead of the required 6 stars, and 1 kW of photovoltaic cells per 100 sq. m. of living space.

The energy initiatives were predicted to lower the EF by 10 per cent compared to other South Australians. These predictions have been borne out by subsequent analysis. An extra initiative was evaluated, that of the hypothetical situation of all residents adopting a healthy diet in line with the recommendations of the NHMRC. When this was added to the estimation, the EF reduction was 17.6 per cent. The extra reduction comes from lower energy and land use, as well as lowering greenhouse gas emissions, in line with the findings of The Lancet study. The reduction in EF was almost as significant from an alteration in diet as from major initiatives for lowering energy use.

For many, the proposed sustainable diet would represent a dramatic change with much less meat and much more fruit, veggies and nuts.
 
Coupling the effects on the environment and the deleterious effects bad diets (from the extreme fatty and sweet diets leading to obesity and heart disease to those deficient in nutrition) could have on our Earth over the next thirty years justifies the authors proposed revamp of our global diets.
 
For many, who are currently consuming more than 700 per cent of the new recommended dietary intake of red meat, this diet will be like a red flag to a bull.  Coupling this to a drastically reduced sugar intake would make this a bitter pill to swallow. 
 
[In the study] Table 4, 'Environmental effects per serving of food produced', illustrates just how demanding meat and dairy is in terms of greenhouse gases, land use, energy use, acidification and eutrophication potential compared to the vegetarian or vegan options.  

In addition to the proposals outlined it should be recognised that much is already being done to improve the world's food production and consumption, and steps are being taken to optimise food production (taking account of climate alterations), reduce food waste (much product is rotting in the fields because of inefficient transport and storage facilities) and food donation schemes are being put in place to recycle almost out-of-date food that would otherwise have gone to waste, and ensure that the global population has access to sufficient clean water and nutritious food (UN Sustainability Development Goals).
If these are small steps, then the dietary changes proposed by this Lancet Commission is a giant leap.
 
How long before we see the first 'Great Food Transformation' diet book and a glut of 'GFT Cooking Shows'! And the first 'Great Food Transformation Denier'?

This analysis comes from 37 experts in 16 countries with expertise in health, nutrition, environmental sustainability, food systems, economics and political governance, and demonstrates that serious changes are needed to feed an increasing world population with a diet that’s both healthy and sustainable.
 
Reducing food waste and increasing food production won’t be enough to provide a sustainable diet on a global level. We also need to transform eating habits.
 
Bodies responsible for health, transport, agriculture and environment, trade, and education will need to work together. The urgency of the task is because climate change is driven by food production (which is responsible for up to 30 per cent of global greenhouse-gas emissions and 70 per cent of freshwater use).
 
The report concentrates on food patterns and recognises these differ in various regions of the world. Suggestions therefore accommodate omnivorous, vegetarian or vegan diets, giving a range for recommended daily consumption of different foods.
 
Daily recommendations include: 200-600g of vegetables, 100-300g of fruit, 0-14g red meat 0-14g pork, 0-58g poultry, 0-100g fish (including shellfish), 0-100g dry beans, 0-75g tree nuts, 0-75g peanuts, 0-500g milk and milk products. Wholegrains are set at 230g/day, but can be adjusted to meet energy needs. Sugar is set at a maximum of 5 per cent of daily kilojoules.
 
Each recommendation comes with an extensive list of impressive references e.g. for meat: eight meta analyses, one review and 16 cohort studies.
 
The report also discusses producing animal protein by raising animals on grassland unsuited to crop production or using by-products arising from agricultural crops or food waste. These could make higher levels of intake possible in some areas, but much less than is consumed in most wealthy countries. Grass-fed beef is also included.

For centuries, people in Asia and Africa have grown and consumed a wide variety of nutritious foods. Unfortunately, more recent generations have slowly but surely changed their diets and have moved away from many of these traditional foods.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is working with Member Countries to reinvigorate both production and consumption of these crops – often referred to as neglected and underutilized species (NUS).

To achieve the Zero Hunger goal, which is the aim of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2, dietary patterns and food systems need to be improved urgently. Stakeholders in the agriculture and the food value chain are affected by the disconnect between production, consumption and nutrition.

Countries are facing challenges associated with population growth and climate change. Agricultural diversification offers enormous opportunities for addressing hunger and malnutrition, especially in the context of climate change. In this regard, NUS (termed as Future Smart Food) offers diverse and nutritious food resources and agricultural resilience.

NUS are important in specific agro-ecological niches and are often linked with traditions and cultural heritage in their places of origin. They are an essential source of protein and micronutrients, and can enhance climate resilience, improve agriculture sustainability and boost household incomes and livelihoods with considerable commercial potential.

The Lancet Commission report is of great importance for society. It clearly shows that food production is a threat to both human health and ecological sustainability. It is a wake-up call for change that comes up with five key strategies. I question its assertion that we can feed ten billion people in 2050 through these strategies (we need to aim to reduce population as well). However, it clearly identifies that current food production - and the Western diet - are not sustainable. Such a recognition is long overdue, and I welcome the focus on food production the report will generate.

A global food crisis is inevitable by the mid-21st Century, without radical change to the human diet and food production system, The Lancet has confirmed. The crisis will be driven by worldwide scarcities of water, topsoil and nutrients, combined with +2-3°C of global warming, loss of deltas and coastal lands and desertification. These are coupled with growing toxification of the food chain and collapsing agro-ecosystems. Though many are reluctant to acknowledge it, agriculture and fishing can no longer remain the mainstays of human nutrition which they were in the past as, at present scales, they are not sustainable and will destroy their own future.
 
The Lancet report sounds a timely warning of a crisis which is totally avoidable, provided governments and the food industry globally acknowledge its imminence and agree to act together to solve it. If we do not act now, my latest research shows, we face not only the likelihood of major famines, but also spreading wars over food, land and water.
 
Beyond changing the diet, we need also to evolve the entire global food system to one that is equally balanced between regenerative agriculture, aquaculture and urban food production using recycled water and nutrients in modern, climate-proof production systems. This will not only secure the world’s food supply, it will create a chance to end the Sixth Extinction by re-wilding up to half of the world’s present agricultural lands.
 
Furthermore a new world diet offers a chance to reduce the scourge of diet-related disease, which is now the primary killer in all societies. At present humans eat less than 1 per cent of the world’s edible food plant species – by expanding the range of crops we can dramatically improve both the sustainability and healthiness of the human food supply.
 
Such a far-reaching change to the world food system is totally affordable, provided we reinvest 20 per cent of the world’s present military budget ($1.8tr) in peace through food.