Food, Health, and Mitigation of Climate change in Italy

OBJECTIVES: to provide evidence on how diet can influence health, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and land use. DESIGN: cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: data collected in the EPIC Italy cohort (N. 47,749). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: hazard ratios (HR) for overall mortality and for cancer incidence in association with a sustainable diet (EAT-Lancet). RESULTS: sustainable diets are characterized by lower associated GHG emissions and lower land use (LU). Adherence to the guidelines proposed by the EAT-Lancet Commission was considered. This diet was associated with lower HRs for mortality and cancer incidence in EPIC Italy, estimated with Cox models accounting for potential confounders and stratified by sex. The hazard ratios for overall mortality showed a dose-response relationship with quartiles of diets associated with high GHG emissions, land use, and high distance from the EAT-Lancet diet calculated using a novel index, the EAT-Lancet distance index (EatDI). The HR for overall cancer incidence was also higher in the population with non-sustainable diets. CONCLUSIONS: the association among dietary GHG emissions, LU, and EatDI and overall mortality and overall cancer incidence suggests that promoting diets with low associated environmental impact can be an effective mitigation strategy with important co-benefits.

The need for new metrics in the Anthropocene era.

A limitation in the discussion concerning climate change is the large degree of separation between scientific, economic, and technological approaches to tackle the crisis. This issue is most noticeable when considering the lack of metrics to measure the impact of different productive sectors on both the environment and the health of the population. The best-known attempt to measure these repercussions has been the introduction of the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) ratings for bonds. However, this rating system suffers from a lack of transparency and standardization. Moreover, it does not offer insights on the health impact and the regenerative effort of the evaluated bonds. Thus, we think it is necessary to introduce new metrics, focusing on at least four dimensions: circularity, climate change, biodiversity and health (including well-being). A sector that needs a special consideration is that of energy. To better compare different energy sources, we propose to adjust metrics such as the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) or the energy intensity metrics to include the negative health effects and the environmental degradation associated with producing energy. A similar index of return on investment corrected for health impacts may be considered to evaluate food production as well. Hyper-analytical and extremely focused approaches have dominated the discussion around the environmental crisis. We believe that a more inclusive approach is now needed, to highlight the potential co-benefits of different strategies, especially those that promote regeneration and a truly circular economy.