Unacceptable use of substandard metrics in policy decisions which mandate large reductions in animal-source foods

Abstract

AbstractMany 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.