Examining Paul Saladino's response to Sir David Attenborough's claims on meat sustainability

A shift towards plant-based diets would, therefore, not only free up pasture land; it would also reduce the amount of land needed globally to grow crops to feed livestock. Nicholas Carter explains that besides freeing up over 75% of farmland, this shift would also have the efficiency gain to feed 3.5 billion more people (Cassidy et al., 2013).

Beyond the direct uses of land that we’ve discussed so far (to raise and feed livestock), it is also important to keep in mind that there are further, indirect consequences to using up land for animal agriculture. The environmental impacts of meat production are indeed multifaceted, and Saladino’s argument undermines the role played by animal agriculture in driving deforestation and biodiversity loss, which in turn fuels the climate crisis:

‍

Let’s now move to Saladino’s second claim, that eating more meat would also support optimal health.

Claim 2: “What we have in our country and in our world is not a deficiency of calories. We have a deficiency of nutrients. And the way that humans can most easily get nutrients, vitamins and minerals, is with animal foods.”

Saladino then concludes in his post caption: “Humans need to eat MORE meat, not less…”

The claim lacks context. Let’s dig deeper, first looking at the global context and then more specifically at the picture of nutritional deficiencies in America.

1. The global context: The way the claim is phrased implies that meat (along with other animal foods) is the solution to a global problem: nutritional deficiencies. Saladino points out that while we might think nutritional deficiencies are associated with low calorie intake, that is not always the case: the real issue lies with getting the right nutrients. Malnutrition is an increasingly complex issue that does not have a single, straightforward answer, partly because it affects people differently around the world. It is important to note that malnutrition due to food insecurity remains a huge burden in large parts of the world. In other cases, malnutrition can be due to the poor quality of the food consumed (rather than low calorie intake), leading to micro-nutrient deficiencies, which can cause irreversible damage. This is referred to as Hidden Hunger, and it affects over two billion people worldwide. It is also possible to suffer both from obesity and malnutrition. This is a growing issue known as the “double burden of malnutrition.” But is the answer to these issues ‘more meat’?

• Evidence: To support the argument that humans need to eat more meat for optimal health, Saladino here references research pointing to the greater bioavailability of certain vitamins in animal-based foods compared with plant-based foods. Bioavailability refers to the proportion of a nutrient that is absorbed and utilised by the body.
• Verification and implications for combatting nutritional deficiencies: The evidence does support higher bioavailability of certain nutrients found in animal-based foods, but this does not entail that the answer to nutritional deficiencies lies with more meat. Both animal-based and plant-based foods have their own set of advantages and limitations in terms of nutrient bioavailability. Recommendations to tackle worldwide deficiencies mainly rely upon diet diversification, fortification and supplementation, and education and policy. In fact, research shows that increasing dietary diversity might be the most effective way to alleviate malnutrition. In the American context, emphasising the benefits of whole plant-based foods is an integral part of the fight against nutrient deficiencies. We will see why now.

‍

2. ‍The American context: If we focus on the United States, where Paul Saladino is located, the suggestion that the U.S. has a nutrient deficiency that can be solved by increasing animal food consumption does not hold up against current dietary patterns (see graph below) or nutritional science. While animal foods do provide certain nutrients, the U.S. already consumes a high amount of meat, and the real deficiency lies in the consumption of fruits and vegetables. Increasing the intake of these plant foods would address nutrient deficiencies more effectively and promote better overall health.

‍

‍

Research supports the health benefits of increasing plant-based food intake, pointing to decreasing risks of various diseases as animal sources of protein, especially processed and red meat, get replaced with plant sources of protein within U.S. cohorts. In particular, consumption of red meat tends to overly exceed recommended amounts (Source: Rust et al., 2020). When Saladino suggests that we need more, not less meat, it’s important to put things in context: what kind of meat? more meat than what? and to replace what? In the American context, the claim goes against evidence that people already tend to consume too much meat, especially red and processed meat:

‍

“Many Americans are not reaching micronutrient intake requirements from food alone, presumably due to eating an energy-rich, nutrient-poor diet. About 75% of the US population (ages ≥1 year) do not consume the recommended intake of fruit, and more than 80% do not consume the recommended intake of vegetables. Intakes of whole grains are also well below current recommendations for all age groups, and dairy intake is below recommendations for those ages 4 years and older. The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans highlighted the nutrients that are underconsumed in the US population, i.e., "shortfall nutrients," labeling a few as "nutrients of public health concern" because low intake may lead to adverse health effects: Vitamin D (adverse health effect: osteoporosis), calcium (osteoporosis), potassium (hypertension and cardiovascular disease), dietary fiber (poor colonic health), and iron (anemia in young children, women of childbearing age, and pregnant women) were such labeled. Other nutrients, including vitamins A, C, and E; choline, and magnesium, were identified as also being underconsumed by the US population.” Source: Victoria J. Drake, Ph.D, Oregon State University.

‍

The reasoning that more meat will lead to better health because it is nutrient-dense is based upon an incomplete picture, as it fails to take into account the flip side of the coin, particularly in the United States which is among the top meat-consuming nations:

There is also a flip side which cannot be ignored. While there can be a benefit to eating a certain amount of meat, there can also be harms from eating too much of some types of meat.” (Coburn 2021: 152)

Numerous studies have pointed to associations between a higher consumption of processed and red meat and increased risks of developing cardiovascular diseases as well as certain cancers. It is important to note that both the degree of exposure and the type of meat consumed affect that risk, hence recommendations to particularly reduce one’s consumption of processed and red meat.

‍

Final Take Away

Recognising the nutritional value of animal products should not detract from the important recommendation to reduce meat consumption, particularly red meat, and other animal-based products. Interestingly, the advice to particularly reduce consumption of red meat seems to serve both matters of sustainability and health. At a time when change is quickly needed, broad recommendations to the public that go directly against national guidelines can cause confusion and contribute to undermining trust in experts.

‍

‍

We have contacted Paul Saladino to ask for comments and are awaiting a response.