Nutrition and climate change: “It doesn’t always have to be organic”

What does a diet look like that is healthy and has as little impact on the climate and environment as possible? We don’t have to do without meat and animal products entirely, says agricultural economist Hunecke. But the less we eat of it, the better.

tagesschau.de: We’ve all heard it many times: If you eat vegan, then you’ve actually done the best for the climate. Is that correct?

Claudia Hunecke: On the one hand, that’s true. On the other hand, one can also say: Completely vegan is not absolutely necessary. So a certain meat component can definitely be there. However, the less meat, the better for the climate and for the environment and for yourself.

The recommendation is 300 grams of meat per week

tagesschau.de: So how should I behave properly? What else can I put on my plate so that I eat as climate-friendly as possible?

Hunecke: A few years ago, the EAT-Lancet Commission drafted a recommendation called the Planetary Health Diet. It states that as much as possible from the various food groups should be on the plate every day. So these are green vegetables, red vegetables, whole grain products, actually animal products too. It also contains oils and sugar. But with all these recommendations, it’s always about the quantity. It’s about how much of what to eat.

The recommendation is very clear to reduce animal products as much as possible in order to be within our planetary limits, i.e. what our world can produce and also to be healthy for yourself. This means that you can eat about 300 grams of meat per week – the less, of course, the better. You can also set this to zero, but about 300 grams of meat are included in this diet.

However, there are also differences between the individual types of meat. Red meat, which we mainly come from ruminants, i.e. above all from cattle, should be reduced as far as possible – reduced even further than these 300 grams. Other types of meat, such as poultry and pork, could reach up to these 300 grams. But overall you should stick to this 300 grams per week.

The following applies to meat: “As little as possible”

tagesschau.de: Does this meat then have to be organic? Or how am I supposed to choose the meat when I’m allowed to have 300 grams on my plate a week?

Hunecke: On the one hand you have the diet itself, so what should you eat to stay healthy and to keep our planet healthy? The other side is then the production. There are different standards. Of course, organic meat is best known to us. That’s a kind of production that’s also very good. There are different rules that have to be followed, that have to be certified in order to sell the meat under this label. Organic meat is certainly better, but the general rule is: whether organic or not – as little as possible.

“It doesn’t always have to be organic”

tagesschau.de: If I now try to stick to these 300 grams of meat and go to the weekly market and buy my vegetables there and try to buy organic vegetables if possible – am I on the right track?

Hunecke: Yes. We always talk a lot about meat that should be reduced. And not just about meat, but about animal products in general, including dairy products, for example. Of course, this number of calories must be absorbed. It is recommended to do this over the fruit and vegetables, but also over legumes.

And here, too, one can ask oneself, where does the food come from. There are different approaches. The weekly market is of course always a very good approach, then it’s mostly regional, i.e. what is produced in my area. But now we live in Central Europe and in winter there is not much to get at the weekly market. That said, in order to get the micronutrients people need, trade is an important component. That’s why you shouldn’t demonize the trade, because important components can also be added to our diet from other regions of the world.

tagesschau.de: This means that you can shop elsewhere than at the weekly market. And it doesn’t always have to be organic. Why is trade so important?

Hunecke: Trading is a very important component. Trade keeps prices reasonably stable. We have growing seasons and if we want to have the same supply in winter that we have here in summer, then the fruit and vegetables have to come from somewhere else. And of course, trade also means jobs. So we have to talk about the whole food system. And jobs are an important component, because many people in other countries also work in the food system and trade also maintains these jobs.

A third of all greenhouse gas emissions

tagesschau.de: You said that the issue of nutrition and climate change is becoming increasingly important. Why?

Hunecke: The food system and nutrition itself are – we now know this – one of the really big components in climate change. On the one hand a driver of climate change, but on the other hand also one of the possible solutions to reduce warming. That’s because the food system – everything from production to trade to consumption – produces a third of all greenhouse gas emissions. This is the second largest sector after energy. And that’s a whole lot not to be neglected.

On the other hand, of course, we have a much greater environmental impact. It’s not just about greenhouse gas emissions, it’s also about water use, it’s about land use, it’s about jobs, it’s about social participation. All these aspects are behind the food system and of course they have to be considered, both in causing climate change and in finding a solution.

Solutions for sustainable food systems

tagesschau.de: What would have to happen specifically now so that we can come to such a food system?

Hunecke: Both Greenhouse gases, for example, CO2 is one of the problems. Then we have methane and nitrogen oxides. For example, CO2 does not only come from agricultural production itself, but is mainly created through land use and changes in land use. An example is the deforestation of rainforests or the sealing of land. A little CO2 is also generated by the energy consumption during production, i.e. fuel for agricultural technology. Almost all of the methane and nitrogen oxides come from production. In the case of methane, it is primarily the meat that is used, and in the case of nitrogen oxides, it is of course primarily fertilizers that are used.

And this is exactly where you could start: In the case of methane, above all by reducing animal products. Simply reducing the mass of animals we have for consumption would be one way to solve it. With nitrogen, it’s a bit more complicated. It’s not just about the nitrogen consumption alone – i.e. how much fertilizer is used – but it’s also about usage efficiency, which is a bit more complicated. Not quite as easy as giving up the piece of meat at the lunch table.

Nutrition is becoming more and more important

tagesschau.de: You were also at the climate conference in Egypt and discussed projects that you are planning. How far are we in the area of ​​climate and nutrition?

Hunecke: Unfortunately not quite as far as we had hoped. Unfortunately, the food system did not make it into the final declaration of the COP27. On the other hand, this was the first climate conference where nutrition and the food system were actually an incredibly large part. There were pavilions and events that were all about nutrition and health. This was also the first time this was the case at a climate conference.

In public, too, I have the feeling that nutrition is becoming more and more the focus and that we are not only talking about “We have to ban meat” but also about agricultural production and the way we consume it , contributes to climate change. We are probably not quite where we want to be politically, but more and more people are dealing with the topic – not only scientists, but also many NGOs and many politicians and that is actually a very good sign.