Dietary guidelines incompatible with global targets

A team of researchers has found most dietary recommendations provided by national governments are incompatible with global health and environmental targets such as the Paris Climate Agreement and need reform.

In the paper University of Adelaide Honours student Luke Spajic worked alongside researchers from the University of Oxford, and Harvard and Tufts Universities in the United States.

The researchers extracted the recommendations from the dietary guidelines of 85 countries including Australia. They modelled the recommendations against global health and environmental targets, including the goal to reduce premature mortality from non-communicable diseases by a third, and the agreement to limit global warming to below two degrees Celsius.

For comparison, the impacts of adopting the World Health Organisation (WHO) global dietary recommendations, and the more comprehensive and ambitious recommendations of the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems, were also examined.

Mr Spajic said they found that, on average, adoption of national dietary guidelines was associated with a 15 per cent reduction of premature mortality, and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 13 per cent.

“However, a third of guidelines were incompatible with the global health agenda on non-communicable diseases, and between 67 per cent to 87 per cent were incompatible with the Paris Climate Agreement and other environmental targets,” Mr Spajic said.

“Taken together, 98 per cent of national guidelines were incompatible with at least one global health and environmental target, meaning that even if the whole world followed them, we would still fail to meet the targets governments have signed up to.”

Mr Spajic said that he was not all that surprised by these findings, as many national dietary guidelines in the study had not been updated for some time and did not include recommendations around environmental sustainability.

“In Australia, our dietary guidelines were last published in 2013, and absent from those are recommendations that factor in environmental sustainability,” Mr Spajic said.

Adoption of the WHO recommendations was associated with similar health and environmental changes as many national guidelines. However, adoption of those of the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems, was associated with a third greater reduction in premature mortality, more than three times greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and general attainment of the global health and environmental targets.

In Australia, adoption of the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems, could lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 86 per cent, and a reduction in premature deaths of 31,000 (compared with 61 and 29,000).

Mr Spajic says that Australia’s national guidelines could be both healthier and more sustainable.

“We urgently need to update our national dietary guidelines to reflect the latest evidence on healthy eating,” Mr Spajic said.

“The impact of recent drought and bushfires in Australia has also added to the argument for environmentally sustainable recommendations to be included in our national guidelines.”

“In Australia, we found that placing stricter limits on red meat and dairy would provide the greatest environmental benefit, and increased recommendations of whole grains, nuts and seeds, as well as further limits on processed and red meat would have the biggest impact on health,” he said.

Do you try to follow Australia’s national dietary guidelines?


Any one who was stupid enough to base their diet on the global warming Paris climate agreement scam is a bloody idiot.


The WHO has been proven to be another con job with it's failure in the Coronsvirus advice, & again only a bloody idiot, academic or ratbag greenie would ever pay any attention to their pronouncements.

As always, I'm keen to see how those who sprout or endorse this rubbish (namely royals, politicians, Hollywood elite or anyone who may think they're better than everyone else), set a good example and actually practice what they preach.

I live in hope.

This is worse than idiotic.  Expecting a Government to place limits on what we, as free citizens, can eat is worse than a dictatorship telling us how to think.  Of course they can always engineer what we are allowed to eat by creating shortage and purchase limits on food from the super market.

To try to tie in the diet of Australians to climate change shows how desperate those AGW/CC proponents are getting.  It's already been shown that even if all Australian coal burning power stations were shut down it would make no measurable difference to the global climate either now or in the future but to now try and tell us that if we ate less red meat nd dairy it would help to save the world shows these academics really don't have both oars in the water.

No I don't follow Australian guidelines, I do follow a low fat plant based diet though (mainly for health reasons). We just have too many people on the planet to feed and we will not have enough land left to feed them all in the future unless we make some drastic changes.

I just finished reading Julian Cribbs book "Surviving the 21st century" a well researched book, and I have no doubt we need to change a lot of things we are doing, I recommend people read it.

Permafrost is melting fast, and warming in the artic twice as much as anywhere else in the world. This has never happened before.


To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment