The University of Coimbra, through its Rector's team, has decided to eliminate beef from the weekly menu of meals served at the institution. We presume that everything else will remain the same, that is, serving fish, eggs, chicken, turkey, pork, plus vegetarian and diet options. These are varied menus, some of which are of considerable quality, and for years have made the University of Coimbra an institution considered above average in its university food offerings, both for quality and innovation, although comparative studies in this area are not yet available. For example, the University of Coimbra's social services offer takeaway and even dedicated dining areas with pizzas and pasta, following Mediterranean flavors. In this model of diversity offered by the University of Coimbra, beef seems to have little place on current menus. Analyzing the menus of the canteens of the Social Action Services of the University of Coimbra for the month of September 2019, in 60 meals (lunch and dinner), beef only appears 6 times. If beef were not present at all in these menus, maintaining the balance and diversity of the meals, the health of its adult users would not be affected in any way. And if beef were present occasionally, as it is currently (present in about 10% of the total meals served in a one-month period), the situation would probably remain the same. Unfortunately, the situation of meat consumption at the national level is not the same as these planned meals in public restaurants, as we will see later.
This measure is not new. Other major universities worldwide are following this path. A similar measure was implemented in 2016 by the University of Cambridge, with the results of its impact being published earlier this September. These results, available in the report Our Sustainable Food Journey , show that, as a result of this measure, carbon dioxide emissions decreased by 10.5% between 2015 and 2018, despite an increase in the volume of meals produced. There was a 33% decrease in carbon dioxide emissions per kg of food purchased and a 28% reduction in land use per kg of food purchased. The elimination of red meat is one of the measures of Cambridge's Sustainable Food Policy , which in turn is an integral part of the University of Cambridge's global sustainability strategy – Environmental Sustainability Vision, Policy and Strategy .
Meat: nutritional value and consumption recommendations
Beef is a food of great nutritional richness, whose nutritional composition is very similar to other foods of animal origin included in the same group of the "Food Wheel," the reference food guide for the Portuguese population. Within this group, which includes meat, fish, and eggs, we have several food options that are good sources of protein, iron, zinc, and vitamin B12, some of the nutrients that are intended to be obtained through the consumption of foods from this food group.
The Portuguese Food Wheel does not provide specific recommendations for the consumption of red meat, as this food is included in the "Meat, fish and eggs" group. These foods are grouped together because they have a similar nutritional composition and can be substituted for each other in a balanced and varied diet, as can be seen in the comparative image below.
Although there are no specific national recommendations for red meat consumption, international organizations have issued guidelines in this regard, such as the IARC ( International Agency for Research on Cancer ), and current scientific evidence also allows us to make some considerations. But we will discuss red meat consumption specifically in a moment.
Excessive consumption of red meat and individual and planetary health
From a health perspective, scientific evidence tells us that high consumption of red meat may be associated with several negative health outcomes cardiovascular disease , type 2 diabetes mellitus , and colon cancer . Very recently, another study published in the BMJ journal (June 2019) also suggests that increased red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of mortality (increasing red meat consumption by just ½ portion per day is associated with a 10% higher risk of mortality).
However, it is worth noting that the level of evidence for the association between red meat consumption and cardiovascular disease is weak, with growing evidence pointing to a neutral effect of saturated fatty acids on cardiovascular health.
In the case of oncological pathology, the accumulated evidence regarding the association between red meat consumption and cancer risk led the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) in 2015 to classify red meat consumption as carcinogenic (Group 2A). This decision is supported by the association between the consumption of 100 g of red meat and an increased risk of colon cancer (by 17%).
Dariush Mozaffarian, in his excellent article "Dietary and Policy Priorities for Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, and Obesity – A Comprehensive Review," published in 2016 in the journal Circulation, presents dietary guidelines based on the most current scientific evidence and with the aim of improving cardiometabolic health, suggesting that the frequency of red meat consumption should not exceed 1 to 2 servings per week (1 serving equals 100 g).
For the health of the planet, recommendations for red meat consumption, particularly for ruminant meat, are still too low. According to the EAT-Lancet report , daily red meat intake should not exceed 28 g per day (ideally 14 g per day). On average, Portuguese adults consume 97.3 g daily. These guidelines in this report were supported by the World Health Organization (WHO). The guidelines for red meat consumption in the article "Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems" are based on scientific evidence suggesting that red meat consumption is not essential and evidence showing a linear relationship between its consumption and total mortality, as well as the relationship between its consumption and other health risks observed in populations that regularly consume red meat. The authors suggest that this recommendation could even be 0 g per day, provided that its consumption is adequately replaced by other sources of animal or vegetable protein. However, considering that the scientific evidence is still inconsistent regarding the risks associated with consuming small amounts of red meat, the EAT-Lancet Commission concludes that a healthy diet can include the consumption of up to 28 g of red meat per day.
Regarding the environmental impact associated with red meat consumption, we don't dare say much on the subject. The FAO has attributed 14.5% of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions to the agricultural sector. And reducing meat consumption , particularly of ruminant animals, has been identified as the main dietary change to reduce greenhouse gases. In the case of beef, its production (average values that may vary depending on intensive or extensive farming, transport and processing) consumes the most water and energy compared to other foods included in the Food Wheel category (Meat, Fish and Eggs Group). It is estimated that producing one kg of beef requires 15,415 liters of water, considerably more than for the same quantity of pork (5,988 liters) or chicken (4,325 liters) ( Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 2018).
Portuguese consumers exceed the recommended consumption of meat
The National Food Survey (2015-2016) shows that 25.5% of Portuguese adults consume more than 100g of red meat daily, a figure considerably higher for males. Approximately 47% of Portuguese men consume more than 100g of red meat daily (beef, veal, kid, lamb, mutton, pork, wild boar, horse, goat). But it's not only red meat that the Portuguese deviate from recommended values. Comparing the dietary habits of the Portuguese, obtained through the latest National Food Survey, with the recommendations of the Portuguese Food Wheel , the food guide for the Portuguese population, it is clear that the Portuguese are consuming considerably more foods from the "Meat, fish and eggs" group than recommended.
According to the recommendations of the Portuguese dietary guidelines, the daily consumption of meat, fish, and eggs should not exceed 113g, but the Portuguese consume an average of approximately 174.3g, with this value being higher for males (215.0g vs. 140.4g for women). The results of this survey also show that the consumption of red meat is higher than that of white meat (51.6g vs. 42.9g), as is the consumption of meat compared to fish (116.6g vs. 41.8g). The food consumption data presented here show that the Portuguese need to reduce their consumption of red meat and also their overall consumption of foods from the meat, fish, and egg group.
These data show us that we are far from achieving the goals proposed by the EAT-Lancet Commission . Our colleague and lecturer at FCNAUP, Professor Duarte Torres, in an interview with the Público newspaper in March of this year (2019), explains what changes are needed in the Portuguese diet to reduce the ecological footprint. If we consider the goals defined by the EAT-Lancet report, the daily intake of red meat should not exceed 28 g per day (ideally 14 g per day). "This means going from consuming red meat daily to once, or at most twice, per week." Recommendations that are fully aligned with the guidelines already suggested by Dariush Mozaffarian in his article " Dietary and Policy Priorities for Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, and Obesity – A Comprehensive Review ," published in 2016 in the journal Circulation.
But these numbers are actually difficult to achieve because they imply a very profound change in the most recent consumption habits of most Portuguese people, where meat is a daily staple. And where there is still little culinary knowledge and skills, both at the domestic level and in the catering industry, to adequately replace an animal-based diet with a plant-based diet (as was our Mediterranean diet).
Thus, the ban on beef at a university (which already offered little beef) is symbolic. It might even be seen as populist and the easiest course of action when other measures should already exist and be implemented in public institutions to improve nutritional and environmental quality, such as making it mandatory to buy more locally produced, organic, or seasonal food products. Or restricting poor-quality food from vending machines, or even mandating the presence of water fountains in public educational institutions. But isn't that what a university should be? A symbolic space, a space that inspires the protection of the planet and breaks with societal atavisms? Or should it instead be a space for reflection and wisdom that avoids easy solutions? A multifaceted discussion that demands thought and action.
The University is above all a space for reflection, just like "Thinking Nutrition." At least, the gesture of the Rector of the University of Coimbra served this purpose, allowing us to be here today discussing this important topic that will be a major point of discussion in the future, even in the area of food, where environmental issues will increasingly influence individual and collective actions in food choices and consumption. Each person's food choices will not only affect their own health. Individual actions have repercussions on other living beings, both now and in the future. Therefore, they are subject to regulation and legislation by states. This is an important matter for all nutrition professionals and for society.
Finally, and by way of conclusion regarding food and nutrition, some nutritionally adequate dietary patterns, respecting dietary diversity and including a small amount of meat (including red meat) throughout the week, allow for compatibility between nutritional adequacy, environmental preservation, accessibility, and cultural acceptability—critical dimensions for a sustainable dietary pattern.
Final notes:
1. Because many of the opinion articles that have been published on this subject have been inaccurate when addressing the possible impact of this measure on health, our text provides a more in-depth analysis of this measure from the perspective of its impact on health, without such an exhaustive reflection on its environmental impact.
2. The opinion expressed here does not reflect the opinion of the institutions where the authors carry out their work.
Written by
Pedro Graça, Director of the Faculty of Nutrition and Food Sciences at the University of Porto
