No, Fake Meat Wasn’t Found to Cause Heart Disease, as Some Headlines Suggest

A recent study found that eating ultraprocessed plant-based foods was linked to heart attack and stroke risk. But the devil is in the details

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-a-study-on-ultraprocessed-fake-meat-and-heart-disease-really-found/

BY LORI YOUMSHAJEKIAN

3D illustration of a conveyor belt in a food processing facility with packaged plant-based meat alternative veggie burgers
Artist’s illustration of plant-based burgers in a food processing facility. Guteksk7/Getty Images

Diet

Recent headlines denounced plant-based fake meat—such as vegetarian sausages and textured vegetable protein—as unhealthy and claimed that their consumption is linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and death. But a closer look at the study underpinning these claims suggests a more nuanced story.

The real culprits are in fact “plant-based” ultraprocessed foods as a whole, not meat substitutes in particular, according to the paper that kickstarted the headlines. But there’s an important caveat: “plant-based” foods include ones you might not expect—such as chocolate-covered biscuits, frozen pizza and sodas. The study, published earlier this month in the Lancet Regional Health–Europe, linked plant-based ultraprocessed foods to an increased risk of cardiovascular-related illnesses and death.

Plant-based meat represented a very small slice of study participants’ overall food consumption, however, and the study was not designed to pinpoint exactly which foods had the strongest links to poor health outcomes. Nevertheless, the muddled interpretations show just how complex nutrition research can be, critics say, because food definitions used by scientists don’t always reflect what other people might interpret as a plant-based diet.

Foods are described as ultraprocessed when they undergo an industrial transformation that significantly alters the original ingredients. These foods have a long journey before reaching your plate. Pantry staples such as instant noodles and store-bought cookies typically undergo several stages of processing that unravel the internal architecture of their raw ingredients. They are then reassembled in a form that prioritizes convenience and taste—often with a mix of additives designed to enhance appearance and shelf life. A rule of thumb is to “think of a food you wouldn’t be able to prepare in your own kitchen,” either because of its chemical constituents or the industrial machinery needed to prepare it, says Evangeline Mantzioris, a researcher and dietician at the University of South Australia, who was not involved with the study.

In nutrition research, including in this widely discussed paper, a framework known as the NOVA classification system is used as a benchmark to group foods along a spectrum from unprocessed to ultraprocessed based on the level of alteration from their natural state. Most foods can be categorized intuitively. Broccoli or beans are not considered ultraprocessed, whereas breakfast cereals and canned soups are. Others might not be obvious at first glance, however. For example, the new Lancet Regional Health–Europe study included beer and wine as examples of non-ultraprocessed beverages, but spirits such as vodka were considered ultraprocessed.

The idea behind using this framework in food research is that processing food might fundamentally change how it interacts with the body to influence health, says Fernanda Rauber, lead author of the new study and a nutritional epidemiologist at the University of São Paulo in Brazil. The health effects of food aren’t “just from the sum of its nutrient functions,” she says. “The way foods are combined, prepared and consumed as meals also plays a crucial role in their health impacts.”

In the study, Rauber and her colleagues linked what people ate in a day to their hospital and mortality records related to cardiovascular diseases. The researchers did this using data from more than 100,000 adults in the U.K. BioBank—a large database that tracks the health, lifestyle and genetic information of volunteers between the ages of 40 and 69 in the U.K.

Curated by Our Editors

The plant-based category in the study was something of a catchall, says Gunter Kuhnle, a nutritional epidemiologist at the University of Reading in England, who was not involved in the study. When he first read the paper’s title, Kuhnle assumed it referred to plant-based meat alternatives, plant-based drinks or plant-based milks—in other words, only the replacements for animal-derived products. “Reading the paper, it became pretty obvious that it was not that,” he says. The press release also emphasized that interpretation, specifically stating in the first paragraph that products “intended to replace animal-based foods”—such as plant-based sausages, nuggets and burgers—were linked to the higher risk for cardiovascular illness.

But there’s more to the story: meat alternatives were evaluated alongside ultraprocessed foods that were less intuitively “plant-based,” including bread, cakes, sugary sodas, potato chips and ketchup—foods that don’t immediately come to mind when people think of a plant-based diet, Kuhnle says. Such a broad categorization was “not wrong,” he says. “It was just easy to misunderstand.”

The study found that the more ultraprocessed foods people consumed, the more likely they were to have or die from heart disease—results that “weren’t really that surprising,” Kuhnle says, given the inclusion of “plant-based” foods that many dietary guidelines recommend eating in moderation—such as sugary foods or drinks.

As a percentage of total energy intake, for every 10 percent increase in consumption of plant-sourced ultraprocessed foods—which included foods such as cookies and chocolate bars but also tofu and tempeh—the risk of cardiovascular disease went up by 5 percent, and the likelihood of dying from the disease rose by 12 percent. The reverse was also true—for every 10 percent increase in consumption of foods that were not ultraprocessed but still plant-based—such as pasta, beans and potatoes—the risk of heart disease fell by 7 percent, and mortality did so by 13 percent.

The problem is that this type of analysis isn’t able to show whether one specific food is worse than another because they’re evaluated as a group. Additionally, the tofu, tempeh and textured vegetable protein products categorized as plant-derived, ultraprocessed foods only accounted for a fraction of the total calories that people consumed—about 0.2 percent in total—whereas other foods such as packaged breads made up 10 percent. “We cannot draw specific conclusions related to this particular type of food,” Rauber says in response to the way the paper has been portrayed in some media coverage.

Nevertheless, the findings add to a growing body of evidence linking ultraprocessed foods to negative health outcomes. A recent review of multiple studies that included data from a total of almost 10 million people found that eating more ultraprocessed food was associated with a range of health risks, including cardiovascular diseases. The health effects of imitation meat products are less clear cut. One recent study showed that vegetarians and vegans consume more ultraprocessed foods compared with meat eaters and that they preferred unhealthy plant-based foods over healthier alternatives, but it did not examine the long-term health effects of such dietary patterns. On the other hand, ultraprocessed meats themselves, such as sausages and salami, have been linked to higher all-cause mortality and to colon cancer in particular.

https://ea20aaae71451ef2cdc786ae5ce714b6.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html

Exactly how ultraprocessed foods might cause such health harms is still unclear. Some research points to the high saturations of salt, sugar and fat in these foods as the culprits, but other studies suggest that the act of processing a food—breaking down its natural structures and forming them into something new—could be affecting the body in ways we don’t yet understand. Chemical additives, such as the common flavor enhancer monosodium glutamate (MSG) and contaminants that might appear from frying, baking or fermenting ultraprocessed foods, such as acrolein, might also affect appetite and health; acrolein specifically has previously been associated with higher cardiovascular disease risk.

Rauber cautions that the study could not parse cause and effect. In reality, people’s eating habits are messy and don’t typically adhere to a strict regimen over a long period of time—making it a challenge to design studies that can draw conclusions about whether certain diets cause disease. But given the number of observational studies available, “there are huge amounts of evidence … to tell us that ultraprocessed foods are probably not doing the best thing for our health,” Mantzioris says. Rauber’s study accounted for other variables, such as the effect that family history, physical activity and ethnicity might have on an individual’s risk of developing heart disease.

Kuhnle says an ultraprocessed food isn’t necessarily a “good” or “bad” choice but should be viewed in the broader context of a person’s diet, keeping in mind that the health effects of ultraprocessed food won’t develop overnight.

Gassy cows and pigs will face a carbon tax in Denmark — a world first

Denmark will tax livestock farmers for the greenhouse gases their animals emit, starting in 2030.

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/cows-pigs-carbon-tax-methane-denmark-rcna159019

A herd of cows near Allerup, Denmark.

A herd of cows near Allerup, Denmark.Michal Fludra / NurPhoto via AP file

  • SAVECreate your free profile or log in to save this article

June 26, 2024, 8:03 AM PDT / Source: The Associated Press

By Associated Press

Denmark will tax livestock farmers for the greenhouse gases emitted by their cows, sheep and pigs from 2030, the first country in the world to do so as it targets a major source of methane emissions, one of the most potent gases contributing to global warming.

The aim is to reduce Danish greenhouse gas emissions by 70% from 1990 levels by 2030, said Taxation Minister Jeppe Bruus.

As of 2030, Danish livestock farmers will be taxed 300 kroner ($43) per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2030. The tax will increase to 750 kroner ($108) by 2035. However, because of an income tax deduction of 60%, the actual cost per ton will start at 120 kroner ($17.3) and increase to 300 kroner by 2035.

Although carbon dioxide typically gets more attention for its role in climate change, methane traps about 87 times more heat on a 20-year timescale, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Levels of methane, which is emitted from sources including landfills, oil and natural gas systems and livestock, have increased particularly quickly since 2020. Livestock account for about 32% of human-caused methane emissions, says the U.N. Environment Program.

“We will take a big step closer in becoming climate neutral in 2045,” Bruus said, adding Denmark “will be the first country in the world to introduce a real CO2 tax on agriculture” and hoped other countries would follow suit.

New Zealand had passed a similar law due to take effect in 2025. However, the legislation was removed from the statute book on Wednesday after hefty criticism from farmers and a change of government at the 2023 election from a center-left ruling bloc to a center-right one. New Zealand said it would exclude agriculture from its emissions trading scheme in favor of exploring other ways to reduce methane.

In Denmark, the deal was reached late Monday between the center-right government and representatives of farmers, the industry, unions, among others, and presented Tuesday.

Recommended

ENVIRONMENTDeaths during Hajj: How this year’s pilgrimage turned fatal

LATINOCDC issues dengue fever alert in the U.S.

Denmark’s move comes after months of protests by farmers across Europe against climate change mitigation measures and regulations that they say are driving them to bankruptcy.

The Danish Society for Nature Conservation, the largest nature conservation and environmental organization in Denmark, described the tax agreement as “a historic compromise.”

“We have succeeded in landing a compromise on a CO2 tax, which lays the groundwork for a restructured food industry -– also on the other side of 2030,” its head Maria Reumert Gjerding said after the talks in which they took part.

A typical Danish cow produces 6 metric tons (6.6 tons) of CO2 equivalent per year. Denmark, which is a large dairy and pork exporter, also will tax pigs although cows produce far higher emissions than pigs.

The tax is to be approved in the 179-seat Folketing, or parliament, but the bill is expected to pass after the broad-based consensus.

According to Statistic Denmark, there were as of June 30, 2022, 1,484,377 cows in the Scandinavian country, a slight drop compared to the previous year.

Fishing line is a death trap to wildlife

26/06/24

Share this article https://www.scottishspca.org/news/fishing-line-is-a-death-trap-to-wildlife

Share this page

Image

Seal with fishing wire round her neck

We are urging fishing enthusiasts not to discard fishing tackle after a seal and duck became entangled causing serious injuries.

In two separate incidents over the weekend, our animal rescue officers were called out to a juvenile grey seal who had fishing line entangled around her neck that had cut in deep causing bleeding.

Animal rescue officer Lucy Rattray who attended to the seal said: “On Sunday evening I was called to an injured seal in Beach Road, Johnshaven in Montrose.

“The line was firmly stuck around her neck and was bleeding and it took time to help her. It looked like she could have been suffering for at least three weeks with this wound.

“The seal, now named Ariel, was transported to our wildlife centre later that evening for treatment.

“She was given painkillers and the fishing line was detached from her neck. The wound as given a good clean and any dead tissue removed. This will take weeks, if not months, to fully heal.

“Although the vast majority of anglers are very responsible and take care to clear away their equipment after they’ve used it, there is a minority of people who fish and don’t respect the environment and the wildlife that inhabits it.”

This incident was the second of the weekend for our charity.

On Saturday afternoon, an Animal rescue officer was called out to an injured duck on a path at Hillend reservoir in North Lanarkshire.  

Image

fishing line round the duck's legs

Animal rescue officer Heather Shaw said: “The female juvenile duck had her leg wrapped up in fishing line which caused her to be unable to walk.

“She was clearly in a lot of pain lying on her belly and the leg looked mangled with the tight wire and was extremely swollen.

“I took her to the vet to be examined and the fishing line had cut down to the bone. Sadly due to her injuries and the pain she was suffering, she was euthanised.

“We’re urging anyone fishing in this area, or anywhere in Scotland, to show some consideration and clear away every last piece of fishing equipment. This really could save an animal’s life.”

Paw

If anyone is concerned about an animal, please do not hesitate to contact our confidential animal helpline on 03000 999 999.

Inside Alaska’s scapegoat killing of grizzly bears

BY 

KITTY BLOCK AND SARA AMUNDSON

SHARE https://www.humanesociety.org/blog/alaska-officials-killing-grizzly-bears

A bear cub rides atop an adult bear in the wild

Alamy Stock Photo

Under the guise of conservation, Alaska wildlife officials have recently killed 175 grizzly bears, including at least 20 cubs, as well as 19 wolves and five black bears. The method of choice has largely been to shoot them from helicopters and airplanes. 

These killings took place during the past two springs, when bears are coming out of hibernation with their cubs, as part of Alaska’s “intensive management” of wildlife. This program attempts to artificially grow the numbers of animals for hunters to shoot—in this case, the Mulchatna caribou herd living in southwest Alaska.  

Keep grizzly bears protected!

Take Action

Amy Gerber / Cub Creek Photography

Starting in 2012, Alaska officials allowed the public to gun down wolves from aircraft with the aim of helping to grow this caribou herd. But when the herd still showed no increase in size, officials decided to also target grizzlies, also known as brown bears, and black bears themselves. This is nothing more than a scapegoat scheme, and the result has been an unconscionable toll on native carnivore populations for no justifiable reason whatsoever.  

The killing of native bears and wolves ignores the reality that the Mulchatna herd faces: a degraded, overgrazed and fragile habitat further imperiled by climate change. The herd is also plagued by disease (brucellosis) and rampant poaching. No amount of predator control will restore the herd’s size to its one-time, record level.  

What is clear is that Alaska’s wildlife management is not based on science. Ecosystems are extremely complex, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has had no method or study in place to analyze the results of all its predator killing. Even if the Mulchatna caribou herd population were to suddenly increase, there would be no way to know why. Alaska officials forge ahead spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an approach to wildlife management that has about as much sophistication and nuance as whack-a-mole.

Indeed, dozens of biologists have decried the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s attempts to grow the Mulchatna herd, writing in an op-ed last summer: “We know that caribou herds naturally go through significant fluctuations over time and that it can take many decades for forage resources to recover from overuse during population peaks.” In other words, that herd’s one-time peak of 200,000 caribou should not be taken as an ideal, because the caribou’s fragile Arctic habitat will take decades to recover from overgrazing by this once-massive herd. 

Alaska’s fumbling approach shows why it is essential for grizzly bears to have federal protections under the Endangered Species Act, both there and across the U.S. For now, in the lower 48 states, grizzly bears are federally protected. But some members of Congress and Western governors want to eliminate these federal protections and open trophy hunting seasons on bears who live in the Northern Rocky Mountains. This puts the fewer than 2,000 bears who live in the Greater Yellowstone (Yellowstone National Park) and Northern Continental Divide (Glacier National Park) ecosystems at risk. Earlier this month, we submitted substantive comments opposing the delisting of these grizzly bear populations, along with the support of nearly 100,000 of our members and supporters who signed letters to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Despite their gross mismanagement, Alaska’s wildlife operations benefit from federal funding. Under the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, also known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gives states federal wildlife conservation monies that are intended to support wildlife restoration, conservation and hunter education and safety programs. A document we obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request shows that the Alaska Department of Fish and Game received more than $465,000 in support from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for “wildlife restoration.” A state official claims that the department did not use this particular federal funding to kill grizzlies, wolves and black bears. Still, it is concerning that another document on the federal grant we obtained through FOIA notes that despite findings that notable challenges to the herd include starvation, illegal hunting and disease, the Alaska Board of Game still directed the state to destroy brown bears, black bears and wolves. And it is extremely disheartening that a state agency with such careless and extreme wildlife management methods received so much federal support. Not only have indigenous community members, biologists and wildlife advocates have raised concerns that funds like these can be misappropriated to conduct controversial predator control programs, but the federal government is missing an opportunity to use federal funds as a tool to incentivize states to abandon inhumane, pointless predator control efforts in favor of science-based conservation programs.

Brown bears are a conservation-reliant species. That means their welfare and conservation must prioritized if they are to survive for future generations. So many Americans love bears and wolves, and these animals are incredibly valuable from ecological and economic perspectives. In Alaska’s Katmai National Park, opportunities to view brown bears are so popular that these excursions are limited by lottery. More than 10 million viewers each year tune in to online bear cams to watch the animals fish for salmon, and people around the world participate in and vote during the immensely popular Fat Bear Week. And yet the long-term survival of grizzly bears is uncertain. In addition to Alaskan-sponsored shooting and trapping of brown bears, trophy hunters have doubled their kill numbers for bears over the past 30 years in 76% of Alaska. In a 2018 letter to the U.S. Department of the Interior, multiple biologists warned that officials need to protect Alaska’s bears, as well as wolves, from over-hunting for trophies and killings in the name of “predator control.”

The bottom line is that Alaska’s predator-killing program—and indeed, the broader concept of state- or federally funded predator control—makes no sense from any sound standpoint. Alaska should not treat its expansive wilderness as game farms for trophy hunters and must scrutinize its sloppy assumption that killing one kind of animal will increase the abundance of another kind. And the federal government must ensure that funds it provides to states for conserving the nation’s precious wildlife do not go toward supporting their extirpation.

Speak up for grizzly bears and tell the government these animals deserve protection. 

Sara Amundson is president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund.