{"title":"在政策决定中使用低于标准的衡量标准,强制要求大量减少动物源性食品,这是不可接受的","authors":"Alice V. Stanton","doi":"10.1038/s41538-024-00249-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many recent very influential reports, including those from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Risk Factor Collaborators, the EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health, and the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change, have recommended dramatic reductions or total exclusion of animal-source foods, particularly ruminant products (red meat and dairy), from the human diet. They strongly suggest that these dietary shifts will not only benefit planetary health but also human health. However, as detailed in this perspective, there are grounds for considerable concern in regard to the quality and transparency of the input data, the validity of the assumptions, and the appropriateness of the statistical modelling, used in the calculation of the global health estimates, which underpin the claimed human health benefits. The lessor bioavailability of protein and key micronutrients from plant-source foods versus animal-source foods was not adequately recognised nor addressed in any of these reports. Furthermore, assessments of bias and certainty were either limited or absent. Despite many of these errors and limitations being publically acknowledged by the GBD and the EAT-Lancet authors, no corrections have been applied to the published papers. As a consequence, these reports continue to erroneously influence food policy decisions and international dietary guidelines, such as the World Wildlife Fund’s Livewell Diet, and the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023.","PeriodicalId":19367,"journal":{"name":"NPJ Science of Food","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-024-00249-y.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unacceptable use of substandard metrics in policy decisions which mandate large reductions in animal-source foods\",\"authors\":\"Alice V. Stanton\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41538-024-00249-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many recent very influential reports, including those from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Risk Factor Collaborators, the EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health, and the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change, have recommended dramatic reductions or total exclusion of animal-source foods, particularly ruminant products (red meat and dairy), from the human diet. They strongly suggest that these dietary shifts will not only benefit planetary health but also human health. However, as detailed in this perspective, there are grounds for considerable concern in regard to the quality and transparency of the input data, the validity of the assumptions, and the appropriateness of the statistical modelling, used in the calculation of the global health estimates, which underpin the claimed human health benefits. The lessor bioavailability of protein and key micronutrients from plant-source foods versus animal-source foods was not adequately recognised nor addressed in any of these reports. Furthermore, assessments of bias and certainty were either limited or absent. Despite many of these errors and limitations being publically acknowledged by the GBD and the EAT-Lancet authors, no corrections have been applied to the published papers. As a consequence, these reports continue to erroneously influence food policy decisions and international dietary guidelines, such as the World Wildlife Fund’s Livewell Diet, and the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19367,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NPJ Science of Food\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-024-00249-y.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NPJ Science of Food\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-024-00249-y\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NPJ Science of Food","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41538-024-00249-y","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Unacceptable use of substandard metrics in policy decisions which mandate large reductions in animal-source foods
Many recent very influential reports, including those from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Risk Factor Collaborators, the EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health, and the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change, have recommended dramatic reductions or total exclusion of animal-source foods, particularly ruminant products (red meat and dairy), from the human diet. They strongly suggest that these dietary shifts will not only benefit planetary health but also human health. However, as detailed in this perspective, there are grounds for considerable concern in regard to the quality and transparency of the input data, the validity of the assumptions, and the appropriateness of the statistical modelling, used in the calculation of the global health estimates, which underpin the claimed human health benefits. The lessor bioavailability of protein and key micronutrients from plant-source foods versus animal-source foods was not adequately recognised nor addressed in any of these reports. Furthermore, assessments of bias and certainty were either limited or absent. Despite many of these errors and limitations being publically acknowledged by the GBD and the EAT-Lancet authors, no corrections have been applied to the published papers. As a consequence, these reports continue to erroneously influence food policy decisions and international dietary guidelines, such as the World Wildlife Fund’s Livewell Diet, and the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023.
期刊介绍:
npj Science of Food is an online-only and open access journal publishes high-quality, high-impact papers related to food safety, security, integrated production, processing and packaging, the changes and interactions of food components, and the influence on health and wellness properties of food. The journal will support fundamental studies that advance the science of food beyond the classic focus on processing, thereby addressing basic inquiries around food from the public and industry. It will also support research that might result in innovation of technologies and products that are public-friendly while promoting the United Nations sustainable development goals.