Meat-free marvels: does a vegetarian diet reduce your risk of disease?

Is it me, or are there times when contemporary diet trends appear to verge on pseudoscientific crankery? While I briefly mentioned potentially dangerous items such as raw water and unpasteurised milk a few years' ago, it's surprising how many fad diets in developed nations bear a suspicious resemblance to the traditional ingredients of non-Western societies. 

Super foods are a particularly overhyped element of this faddish arena; the marketing suggests they can help achieve perfect 'balance' and 'wellness' in the body. Some assertions go much further, with consumption of the likes of kombucha claimed as something of a miracle cure. While the pseudocereal quinoa is sold in the West as the 'grain of the gods', it is unlikely to give the partaker any super powers. It certainly didn't save the Inca and Anasazi - who cultivated it in pre-Columbian America - from the rapid collapse of their civilisations and apparently suffered from disease and famine as much any other society.

There is a scientific basis for recommending certain non-meat items, from the antioxidants in tea and coffee to the vitamin D in mushrooms, while various plants and vegetable oils contain Omega-3 fatty acids. But a recent report has concluded that a vegetarian diet may have a marked positive effect on overall health compared to one with regular meat consumption. The research was conducted by the University of Glasgow, with the data showing substantial reductions in disease biomarkers for non-meat eaters. However, it was unable to provide an underlying reason for the positive results, once risk factors such as age, alcohol and nicotine intake had been accounted for. Cholesterol and products linked to increased risk of cancers, cardiovascular disease, and liver and kidney problems were all lower in vegetarians.

Apart from suggesting that vegetarians eat more fibre, fruit, vegetables and nuts - some of which have known health benefits - the report's conclusion also noted that rather than the positive effect of these items, avoiding processed meat products and red meat may have also contributed to the results. As someone who hasn't eaten meat in over thirty years, I find the research extremely interesting, although I think there are many other factors that should be considered, with the report forming just part of the debate. 

For example, the data was drawn from c.420,000 people living in just the UK, rather than from a variety of nations and environments. In the past century, the diet and lifestyle of most people in the West has changed enormously, with the emphasis on quick-to-prepare meat dishes including the likes of burgers and sausages, remaining at the forefront despite the replacement of physically demanding lives with predominantly sedentary ones. In other words, the diet hasn't changed to match the alteration in lifestyle. It's little wonder that obesity has outranked malnourishment in some nations.

In addition, it is thought that several billion people, predominantly in less developed regions, consume insect protein on a regular if not daily basis. This is a profoundly different diet to those of Western meat eaters with the latter's concentration on domesticated species such as cattle and horse, sheep/goat, poultry, etc. Although game, bush meat and exotic species such as crocodile are eaten in many regions, these are a much smaller element of the human diet. 

In contrast, vegetarians in many regions can eat an enormous variety of plants and fungi. The geographic and seasonal availability of many fruit and vegetables is expanding too: until a few years ago I hadn't heard of jackfruit, but it is now available as the tinned unripe variety from many stores here in New Zealand. So in both time and in space, there's no such thing as a typical vegetarian diet! This also doesn't include the differences between lacto-vegetarians and vegans; it would definitely be rather more time-consuming to plan a diet with an adequate mix of proteins in the absence of eggs and dairy products. It would therefore be interesting to conduct research to find out the health differences between these two groups.

Although some of the blame for poor health and obesity has been placed on processed and refined foods, there is an ever-increasing array of prepared vegetarian products, often marketed as meat substitutes for meatatarians wanting to cut down on their consumption of animal flesh. My daughters (regular meat eaters) and I have a penchant for fake bacon made of wheat, pea and soy and I also eat a variety of meat-free sausages and burgers as well as Quorn products. 

Many companies are now getting on the bandwagon, with products that aim to replicate the taste and texture of the real thing. Some brands such as Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods have seen a rapid rise to international success, while the UK bakery chain Greggs has benefitted from its tasty (if high-fat) Quorn-based vegan sausage roll becoming one of their top five selling products. Therefore the range of processed foods suitable for vegetarians has grown out of all proportion to those available several decades ago. Could it be that these may have detrimental health effects compared to the less refined ingredients traditionally eaten by Western vegetarians (and still eaten in developing nations)?

Just as there are shed loads of books claiming that epigenetics will allow you to self-improve your DNA through your lifestyle, diet gurus play upon similar fears (and gullibility) to encourage people to eat all sorts of weird stuff that at best maintains equilibrium and at worst can lead to serious health issues. I personally think that a wider amount of research, undertaken in all sorts of regions and societies, needs to be done before a vegetarian diet can be claimed to be distinctly superior to a meat-based one. Of course, a reduction in ruminant farming is good for the planet in general - both for saving water and reducing methane - but as far as a diet equates to health I still think that moderation and a sensible attitude can be key factors in this regard. Nevertheless the Glasgow study certainly is...wait for it...food for thought!

Fundamental fungi: the forgotten kingdom vital to our future

At the end of 1993 the Convention on Biological Diversity came into force. A key piece of global legislation in the promotion of sustainable development, it marked a change in focus for environmental concerns. Whereas previous high-profile conservation efforts such as those of the World Wide Fund for Nature or Greenpeace were frequently aimed at individual species or regional ecosystems, the legislation initiated by the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro was aimed at the biota of the entire planet. However, there are still segments of enormous ecological importance that are lacking sufficient research.

I've previously discussed how little attention general-readership natural history pays to the kingdom of fungi, which may have somewhere between 1.5 million and 3.8 million species. Of these, less than 150,000 have been scientifically described. Clearly, this is one life form where our knowledge barely covers the tip of the iceberg. It's hardly as if this attitude is a new one, either. While Linnaeus produced comprehensive editions on plant and animal taxonomy in the 1750s, it took over seventy years for anyone to bother with fungi: it wasn't until 1821 that another Swedish naturalist, Elias Magnus Fries, produced an equivalent work called Systema Mycologicum.

Thanks to the majority of fungal material living either underground or in dark, damp environments such as leaf litter, the kingdom fails to get the attention it deserves. Even the forms we see more regularly, such as mushrooms and symbiotic lichen, engender little interest. Many people no doubt still mistake the former as plants - and are scared off any interest in the wild forms due to the dangers of poisonous species - while the latter are rarer in polluted, i.e. urban, environments and fail to compete in sight and scent with the glories of the flowering plants.

In the eight years since I wrote about the lack of interest in fungi, I've found reason to mention the long-forgotten kingdom in various important contexts. For a start, numerous animals and plants are becoming critically endangered due to fungal pathogens accidentally being spread by global travel. In addition, research over the past three years has shown that Aspergillus tubingensis and several other types of fungi show promise as a bio-friendly solution to plastic waste. Finally, last month I looked at non-animal protein substitutes, including the mycoprotein-derived Quorn.

Despite the potential of these various forms of fungi, the organism's losses due to rapid environmental changes don't appear to be garnering much attention. The IUCN Red List, which tabulates the differing levels of threat faced by all life on Earth, only shows 343 fungi as currently endangered; this contrasts with over 43,000 plants and 76,000 animals on the list. Undoubtedly, the Kingdom Fungi is being given an underwhelming amount of attention just as we are discovering how important it is to maintaining ecosystem stability and for the future of our species.

Recently published reports of studies conducted in the Amazon region show that deforestation has a long-term impact on soil biota, which in turn affects the entire local ecology. Studies of a range of habitats, such as primary forest, agricultural land (including monoculture), pasture/grazing, forestry plantations and secondary/regenerated forest showed that although overall fungal mass might remain consistent, species diversity is far lower outside of the original rainforest. The lack of fungal variety was linked directly to the lack of plant diversity in those biomes, with recovery a slow or unlikely prospect due to the newly-fragmented nature of the landscape preventing efficient dispersal of fungal spores.

There are some obvious points that agribusiness seems to ignore, such as the effects of pesticides and fertilisers on local fungi and the loss of microhabitats vital to maintaining a healthy variety of fungal species. If only more generalist fungi can survive the change in land use from the wonderful diversity of the rainforest (with up to 400 fungal species per teaspoonful) then this may have repercussions for future farming. As an example, the fungus Fusarium oxysporum has a phytopathogenic effect on agricultural plants including palm oil, but without competition from a wider cross-section of fungi (for example, Paraconiothyrium variabile) it could spread rapidly within a dismal monoculture environment. 

As a predominantly visual species, we humans are unthinkingly biased about the natural world based upon what we see: think cute giant panda versus the unappealing aesthetics of the blobfish. It really is a case of out of sight, out of mind, but unfortunately no amount of spin doctoring will make fungi as much loved as furry mammals. Yet our attitudes need to change if we are to maintain the delicate ecological balance; fungi are highly important for recycling nutrients, regulating carbon dioxide levels, and as a source of food and pharmaceuticals. Yet they remain the soil equivalents of the ubiquitous underwater copepods, unsung heroes of the global ecosystem. It's about time we took a lot more notice of this forgotten kingdom.

Eco-friendly eats: the potential of new foods to save the planet

Back in 2015 I wrote a post about the potential for insect-based protein to become a much more common environmentally-friendly food in the near future. Although it may be rather better for the environment than traditional ingredients, Western cultures have a cultural bias against eating anything with more than four limbs. So what are the alternatives to conventional farming and fishing that can be eco-friendly but don't rely on insects as their source material?

As someone who hasn't eaten meat in over three decades, I was interested to read that Helsinki-based Solar Foods have found how to create a protein flour from almost nothing. Hydrogen-eating soil bacteria are being used to generate a taste-free product called Solein, intended as an additive in place of other protein sources and also serving as a medium for growing lab-cultured meat. There's even the potential for it to become a livestock feed; could it replace the environmentally appalling Palm Kernel Expeller?

It might sound fantastic, but the issue of course comes down to economics. Current estimates suggest it will be five to ten years before Solein can compete with soya on a commercial scale. It has even been predicted that this sort of precision fermentation may cost as little as ten percent of conventional animal-derived protein by the mid-2030s, indicating a potentially key role in food technology over the next few decades.

This is in marked contrast to growing real meat via laboratory cultures, such as from stem cells. Synthetic meat may be far more ecologically sound than livestock farming (did you know that it takes 15,400 litres of water to produce a kilogram of beef?) but cultured animal flesh is still some years from viability; after all, it's only seven years since the first bio-reactor burger, produced for an eye-watering $300,000!

The United Nations is promoting a reduction in meat consumption to fight climate change, so what are the current options for those wanting to change their diet to reduce agricultural land usage, greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption/pollution? The oldest alternatives to animal protein such as soy or gluten are known allergens, so although these are increasingly widespread - think of the vast number of tofu-based products that have become available over the past twenty years - they are not a completely satisfactory solution. In addition, soya agriculture in developing nations has been linked to critical deforestation, some of which has been committed illegally.

Mycoprotein-based foods (i.e. those derived from fungi) are one possibility. Since the early 1990s, Quorn products have become available in nineteen countries. It has a very small environmental footprint, can be fermented rapidly and is a high-quality form of nutrition. There is some evidence for it being mildly allergenic, but the main sticking point to it spreading to international markets appears to have been due to failure to comply with food standards authorities. My main issue with the product is that for something consisting primarily of fungal filaments grown on glucose syrup, it is very expensive!

Algae is another potential source of meat replacement. Fake shrimp made primarily from red algae (itself a food for real shrimp) are said to be close to the texture and flavour of the real thing. Considering the carbon mileage of commercial shrimp fishing, this product alone could be of tremendous benefit to the environment - including of course to the sustainability and preservation of shrimp species themselves.

An unlikely substitute for meat, at least in terms of texture if not nutrition or taste, is the unripe jack fruit. In the last two years here in New Zealand it has risen from zero to hero and can now be found in supermarkets as a basic canned product as well as being served in vegetarian fast food options; before 2018 I had never seen jackfruit, despite it having been cultivated in Asia for at least six thousand years.

All this isn't to say it will be easy to make a global transition to non-meat diets. Quite apart from the powerful cattle and fishing lobbies, some alternative products use genetically-modified ingredients, which is still a key political issue in many nations. However, with even fast food companies falling over themselves to offer lacto-vegetarian and vegan dishes, the public is slowly but steadily increasing its green eating credentials. Whereas there used to be a clearly defined boundary - at least in more affluent nations - between most people and the vegetarian minority, the likes of the Impossible Sausage and Beyond Burger are now appealing to both groups, the intention obviously being to minimise disruption to the meat-lovers' diet.

With the global human population forecast to peak at over nine billion later this century, responsible eating cannot come a moment too soon. It's slowly beginning to dawn on both Westerners and elsewhere that the rights of the individual to consume a high fat, highly processed, red meat-heavy diet has led to a situation that is bad both for them and for the quality of life of future generations.

Over-exploitation of seafood stocks is already having a profound effect on local ecosystems such as the Sea of Cortez, so a reduction in both types of protein is essential to the long-term health of the oceans as well as the land. Luckily, new start-ups and established companies are beginning to find alternatives that can appeal to even the most ardent of meat eaters. The trick is to find a satisfying diet (that's just what you eat, not something to slim by) that can aid your personal health as well as reducing your carbon footprint, water usage, and other environmental factors. The good news is that the number of options is only going to increase. Why not check one out today?