Intended to help human,
planetary health, EAT-Lancet diet too costly for 1.6 billion people
Tufts University, Health Sciences Campus
– November 7, 2019 -- A new study estimates that a diet meant to improve both
human and planetary health would be unaffordable for at least 1.58 billion
people, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
Earlier this year, the EAT-Lancet
Commission on Food, Planet, Health published recommendations for a universal
diet that addresses both human and planetary health. The Commission suggested
that adherence to this diet could ensure that our future food systems can
sustainably and nutritiously feed the estimated population of 10 billion people
in 2050.
The study published today in The
Lancet Global Health - from researchers at the Friedman School of Nutrition
Science and Policy at Tufts University and the International Food Policy
Research Institute (IFPRI) - sought to address what many felt was one of the
main components lacking in the creation of the recommended diet, namely
affordability.
"When formulating this pioneering
benchmark diet - addressing individual health outcomes as well as the health of
the planet - the Commission deliberately did not take its cost into
account," said senior and corresponding author Will Masters, an economist
at the Friedman School of Nutrition at Tufts.
The research team also found that the
EAT-Lancet diet was 64 percent more costly than the lowest-cost combination of
foods that would provide a balanced mix of 20 essential nutrients. The
EAT-Lancet diet has higher quantities of animal-source foods and fruits and
vegetables than the minimum required for nutrient adequacy, and much higher
quantities than are now consumed in low-income countries.
"We found that the global median of
the proposed diet would cost $2.84 per day as of 2011. In low-income countries,
that amounts to 89.1 percent of a household's daily per capita income, which is
more than people can actually spend on food. In high-income countries, we found
that the EAT-Lancet reference diet would cost 6.1 percent of per-capita income,
which is often less than what people now spend on food," said Kalle
Hirvonen, the lead author and development economist in Ethiopia at the
International Food Policy Research Institute.
The EAT-Lancet Commission diet consists
of a large amount of vegetables, fruits, whole grain, legumes, nuts and
unsaturated oils, some seafood and poultry, and little to no red meat,
processed meat, added sugar, refined grains, and starchy vegetables.
Fruits, vegetables, and animal-source
foods are often the most expensive components of a healthy diet, but prices
vary widely around the world, report the researchers.
To compute the affordability of an
EAT-Lancet diet in each country, the researchers drew on retail prices for
standardized items obtained through the International Comparison Program, a
collaboration between the World Bank and country statistical agencies. They
used prices for 744 food items in 159 countries, from which they could identify
the lowest-cost combination of items in each country to meet EAT-Lancet
criteria. They then did the same for nutrient requirements, and compared the
cost of food in each country to survey data on household expenditure and income
per capita from the World Bank's PovcalNet system.
"Although 1.58 billion is a lot of
people, it is actually a conservative lower limit on the total number who
cannot afford the diet recommended by the EAT-Lancet Commission. The cost of
food preparation and of non-food necessities ensure that an even larger number
of people cannot afford that kind of healthy diet," said Masters.
"Even if many poor consumers were
to aspire to consume healthier and more environmentally sustainable foods,
income and price constraints frequently render this diet unaffordable.
Increased earnings and safety-net transfers, as well as systemic changes to
lower food prices, are needed to bring healthy and sustainable diets within
reach of the world's poor," concluded Hirvonen.
Limitations to the study include that
the models count only the least expensive items in each country, so other
research would be needed to address the additional costs and barriers to food
use imposed by time constraints, tastes and preferences. Additionally, the
study used 2011 prices and nationally aggregated data, so next steps include
research on variation within countries as well as over time. There is also
uncertainty regarding the nutritional content of the foods whose prices were
used in the study's models.
No comments:
Post a Comment