Time for change

As someone who advocates for sustainable food production and balanced, nutritious diets, I was very disappointed in the article, Time for Change” by Dr. Grant. While I respect food choices and the need for a balanced diet, this article is very misleading. I believe Dr. Grant has the responsibility to look objectively at scientific information and present a balanced view. Although this is an opinion piece, he has a clear bias, using selective information that only tells part of the story. Much of the information is dated, has been refuted, and is misleading. As a medical doctor, Dr. Grant has an ethical responsibility to research the latest and most balanced facts, especially if he is giving advice on diets which affect human health.

For example, there are flaws under each of the topics he discusses:

Obesity and Diabetes
While some of his statistics about less obesity in vegetarian diets are true, he is implying that obesity and diabetes levels have increased because of meat consumption. Since 1978, while obesity levels have essentially doubled and diabetes has tripled, red meat consumption has declined 24% over the same timeframe. To me, this seems obvious that meat may not be the blame. (Sources: www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/hp-ps/hl-mvs/oic-oac/adult-eng.php#figure-1 ; www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/1997003/article/3477-eng.pdf and www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2017001/article/14763-eng.htm ; Statistics Canada Table 002-0011 Excerpt from “Food available in Canada adjusted for losses” annual (kilograms per person per year))

Cancer
Again, the data here may be correct, but he has misled the reader into thinking the risk of eating meat and getting colorectal cancer is 17%. Overall, Canadian’s have a 6.7% chance of contracting colorectal cancer in their lifetime. With a 17% increase by eating 100g or more of red meat per day, the overall risk increases by 1.1% to 7.8%. Currently Canadians on average eat about 64g of red meat per day, and so are not at this increased risk level. In addition, many studies have indicated the risk may not be due to the meat itself, but to cooking methods or increased nitrates in the case of processed meats.

Environmental Issues
Cattle in Canada are raised primarily on a grass-based pasture system (80% of their feed comes from forage) (Commission for Envrionmental Cooperation, 2015). Typically, cattle are then finished in a feedlot where are then fed on a high energy diet including grains for about 90-120 days (3-4 months). The prevalence of foreign data in Dr. Grant’s article is short-sided and fails to take into account Canada’s position as a world leader in sustainable beef production.

Resource Use
Only 9% of annual cropland is used for growing cattle feed in Canada (CRSB, 2016). Much of the grain or other forage used in feeding cattle was intended for human use, but didn’t meet the standards necessary for human consumption. Cattle can also be fed the by-products, essentially waste, from human food processing, such as pea screenings and distiller’s grains. Source: https://crsb.ca/signup-for-nbsa-environmental-and-social-assessment/

Emissions
The FAO Study Livestock’s Long Shadow had many flaws in its methods and calculations and there is more accurate information available. In Canada, livestock represent about 3.6% of Canada’s total GHG’s, while transportation accounts for 28% of Canada’s GHG emissions. (Environment Canada, 2015, National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada Executive Summary, 1990-2013; The Canadian Government's Submission to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.)

Inefficiency
In Canada, it takes about 6kg of feed to grow 1kg of beef. This is quite a bit different than Dr. Grant’s statistic of 20kg feed/ 1kg of meat. (http://www.beefresearch.ca/research-topic.cfm/optimizing-feedlot-feed-ef...)

Scarcity
In Canada, cattle typically are raised on marginal lands and soils that can’t be used to grow other crops. 70% of Canada’s native grasslands have been cultivated or developed, with only 30% left. Cattle are the main users of these grasslands and help preserve their function and health, including soil carbon storage, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, water filtration, and nutrient recycling.

Pollution
Manure is a very important source of fertilizer to grow crops and replenish soils. Without it, more chemical fertilizer would need to be manufactured, which increases the carbon footprint of crop production. Manure is well managed in Canada under strict regulations to prevent and minimize runoff and eutrophication into water.

Conclusion
It is true that a vegetarian or vegan diet CAN be healthy, and we as members of an affluent society value having choices when it comes to food. However, recognizing that balanced diets can ensure that all foods can play a role in human health is fundamental and should be considered. Especially by the medical profession. While Canadian beef farmers, ranchers and consumers also believe that reducing environmental impacts is of utmost importance, Canada’s environment is highly variable. In this complex climate, a combination of foods is needed for the best use of our landscape. In many areas it is not feasible, or friendly to the environment, especially in native grasslands, to grow food other than livestock.

I expect more out of our doctors who are supposed to be diligent and objective promoters of human health. This article is very disappointing.

Tom Lynch-Staunton
Manager, Public and Stakeholder Relations
Canadian Cattlemen’s Association

The physician community has started to acknowledge the health benefits of a plant-based diet; the next step is to start recommending it to our patients.

Dr. Grant’s commentary (Time for change – Benefits of a plant-based diet) is remarkable for a number of reasons. Number one, it highlights the broad and impressive health benefits of a plant-based diet, all backed by scientific evidence. Vegetarians, and especially vegans, are much less likely to be overweight, have high cholesterol levels, or have diabetes. The exposure to carcinogens and microbes (that can cause food-poisoning) in certain meat products is eliminated by eating plants. If a new pill were discovered that had all these health benefits it would constitute a ground-breaking discovery!

It is a step forward that these health benefits are being clearly acknowledged in medical journals such as the CFP. No longer is it acceptable to view a plant-biased diet as a fringe or quirky activity.

The general public and popular media are becoming increasingly aware of the health benefits of a plant-based diet. As physicians, we should not lag behind them. We should acknowledge the health benefits of a plant-based diet – but we should go further too, and actually recommend its use to our patients.

Doctors should consider advising our patients that if they move toward a plant-based diet they will be healthier, need to take less pills, improve and possibly reverse the course of their chronic diseases such as diabetes, and experience an increase in longevity (!).

When put this way – why wouldn’t we recommend a plant-based diet to our patients?

Sincerely,
Scott D. Smith
MD, CCFP, MSc
Hospitalist
Kelowna, BC

Selected resources for patients considering more plant-based meals:
• Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine – 21-Day Vegan Kickstart (website)
• Forks Over Knives – Getting Started on a Plant-based Diet (website based on the documentary of the same name)
• Oh She Glows by Angela Liddon (vegan cookbook)
• Plant-powered Families by Dreena Burton (vegan cookbook)
• Becoming Vegetarian by Vesanto Melina and Brenda Davis (informational resource and cookbook)