Good for You, Good for the Earth: New Study Links Healthy Diets with Environmental Benefits

Almonds: Nutty for Your Health, But Hard on the Planet? A New Look at Food Choices

Almonds are a popular snack touted for their health benefits, linked to weight management, heart health, and lower risk of diabetes. But concerns about their environmental footprint, especially water usage in drought-stricken California, have cast a shadow. So, can eco-conscious eaters still enjoy them guilt-free?

A new study by ecologist David Tilman of the University of Minnesota offers some perspective. Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, it analyzes the health and environmental impacts of 15 food groups, including nuts like almonds.

The researchers ranked these groups based on their influence on both human health and the planet. Factors considered included disease risk, water and land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and water and soil pollution.

The good news: the study found a general correlation between healthy foods and environmentally friendly ones. While almonds require significant water to grow, water usage was just one piece of the puzzle.

“If water is going to be used for crops,” Tilman says, “it’s better used for healthy ones.” While almonds have a five-fold higher environmental impact compared to vegetables, the picture gets bleaker with red meat.

Processed and unprocessed red meat came out as “uniformly bad” for both health and the environment. The study found that a serving of processed red meat has a whopping 40 times the environmental impact of vegetables, and increases the relative risk of overall mortality by 40%.

However, the study highlights nuance. Sugary drinks, detrimental to health, have a minimal environmental impact compared to vegetables. Conversely, fish consumption, beneficial for health, isn’t as environmentally friendly as a plant-based diet.

Tilman emphasizes that the fishing method matters. Open-ocean trawling has a much higher impact due to high fuel consumption. Fish caught with more sustainable methods, like line fishing or aquaculture, have a lower environmental impact, around six times that of plant-based foods.

The researchers analyzed data from previous studies following millions of people over time to assess health impacts. Environmental data came from life cycle analyses, which consider resources used to raise or grow different foods.

Dariush Mozaffarian, dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition at Tufts University, applauds the study for its comparative approach. He believes the findings reinforce the existing evidence – reducing processed red meat consumption is a healthy choice for both individuals and the planet. Additionally, the study highlights the importance of responsible cattle raising practices.

Jessica Fanzo, a food and agriculture policy professor at Johns Hopkins University, summarizes the key takeaway for consumers: “Eating less red and processed meat is key for both environmental and health concerns.” If you choose fish as an alternative, she advises “thinking a little bit more about how it’s sourced and raised.”

This research offers valuable guidance for making informed choices about the food we eat. Striking a balance between personal well-being and environmental responsibility is becoming increasingly important, and this study provides a framework to navigate that challenge.