Abstract
Crises related to extreme weather events, COVID-19 and the Russia–Ukraine conflict have revealed serious problems in global food (inter)dependency. Here we demonstrate that a transition towards the EAT-Lancet’s planetary health diet in the European Union and the United Kingdom alone would almost compensate for all production deficits from Russia and Ukraine while yielding improvements in blue water use (4.1 Gm3 yr−1), greenhouse gas emissions (0.22 GtCO2e yr−1) and carbon sequestration (17.4 GtCO2e).
Generated Summary
This research study investigates the potential for dietary changes in the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK) to enhance food resilience in the face of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The study employs a physical environmentally extended multiregional input-output (EEMRIO) model to assess the environmental impacts of shifting from current national average diets to a planetary health diet, as proposed by the EAT-Lancet Commission. The research analyzes the impact on saved crops, fertilizer use, blue water consumption, carbon emissions, and carbon sequestration. The scope of the study is to evaluate how dietary shifts can help fill the gap in crop production caused by the Russia-Ukraine conflict, while also examining environmental benefits. The study provides a spatially explicit analysis to better understand the effects of dietary change on various crops, fertilizer use, water consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions across different countries.
Key Findings & Statistics
- The study found that shifting to a planetary health diet in the EU and UK would save a large proportion of crops, particularly by reducing the overconsumption of sugar and animal products.
- The reduction in EU+UK sugar intake alone fully accounts for the loss of UA+RU production.
- The savings in wheat due to reduced animal feed were significant, however, dietary change alone does not result in sufficient savings to offset all UA + RU wheat production (S2): 65.2% of wheat (38.1 Mt) would have to be produced on spared land.
- The saved wheat from the EU + UK dietary shift (20.2 Mt) would be sufficient to cover the 19.4 Mt of wheat exports lost from UA + RU (S1) and some of this saved wheat, when redirected to international markets, would make up for the shortfall (S2).
- The study determined that a shift towards a planetary health diet in the EU and UK could save approximately 70.7 Mha of agricultural land, which is close to the combined size of France and the UK (SO).
- The study estimates that, in order to replace all UA + RU crops (S2), 25.2% of this spared land would be needed.
- The study estimates that to replace the exports only (S1) about 12.9% of the spared land would be needed.
- The study estimated that, if all spared land was restored to antecedent natural vegetation, this would result in reductions in emissions (0.25 GtCO₂e yr¯¹) and blue water consumption (7.9bn m³ yr¯¹) (SO)
- The study estimated an additional carbon sequestration opportunity of 38.3 GtCO2e (23.1 GtCO₂e aboveground (AGBC), 10.8 GtCO₂e belowground (BGBC) and 4.4 GtCO₂e soil organic carbon (SOC)) (SO)
- Replacing exported crops only (S1) would offset these total benefits by 1% of blue water, 16.3% of carbon sequestration and 4.1% of green-house gas (GHG) emission savings (Supplementary Fig. 3).
- Replacing all UA + RU crops (S2) would offset more benefits, reducing the total savings by 48.4% for blue water, 54.5% for carbon sequestration and 10.0% for GHG emissions (Supplementary Fig. 4).
- EU + UK dietary change would reduce 2.1% of global agricultural fertilizer use and 23.4% of EU + UK fertilizer use, split by 2.5 Mt nitrogen (N), 0.7 Mt potash (K2O) and 0.5 Mt phosphate (P2O5) (SO).
- Replacing just the exports (S1) would offset these savings by 39.7% of N, 42.3% of P2O5 and 10.9% of K₂O (Supplementary Fig. 6). Replacing all UA + RU crops (S2) would offset total savings by 85.8% for N, 86.6% for P2O5 and 72.7% for K₂O (Supplementary Fig. 7).
- From a per-capita perspective, EU + UK countries and countries which see regular EU + UK agricultural trade with lower population densities see the largest benefits (Fig. 2).
- For instance, Ireland would see the largest mitigation of GHGs, with 2691 kgCO2e yr¯¹ per capita (SO).
- Botswana would increase the most carbon sequestration, with 466 tCO₂e per capita (SO).
Other Important Findings
- The study emphasizes that a dietary shift could potentially mitigate food insecurity driven by the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
- It identifies that dietary change in the EU and UK could help reduce fertilizer use, water consumption, and GHG emissions, and increase carbon sequestration.
- The research suggests that a planetary health diet with a high proportion of nutrient-dense crops could contribute to more resilient and sustainable agrifood systems.
- The research determined that dietary shifts would lead to significant changes in agricultural employment worldwide.
- The study shows that the saved crops could replace most crops exported by Ukraine and Russia, except for sunflower (11% of UA + RU exports), wheat (33%), and barley (72%).
- If 50% of the population adopted a planetary diet, the saved crops would account for almost all crops exported by Ukraine and Russia, except for wheat and sunflower.
- The study suggests that maintaining some of the saved land as available cropland for future production could enhance the ability to respond to food shocks.
- The study highlights that plant-based shifts could lead to lower probabilities of pandemics, reduced antimicrobial resistance, and improved air quality.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The study acknowledges social barriers to widespread adoption of plant-rich diets, including expense, cultural norms, and knowledge gaps.
- The study does not assess price effects, using a physical input-output model, thereby limiting its economic analysis.
- The study’s reliance on average national diets and the EAT-Lancet diet might not fully capture the nuances of individual dietary choices and regional variations.
- The study acknowledges the limitations in land availability in the EU and UK for increasing agricultural production.
- The study acknowledges that the dietary shift could lead to substantial changes in agricultural employment worldwide, which are not fully explored.
- The study does not include the UK in the land use calculation.
Conclusion
The research demonstrates that adopting plant-based diets across the EU and UK has the potential to significantly improve food resilience against the backdrop of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The transition towards a planetary health diet could almost entirely offset production deficits from Russia and Ukraine, thereby addressing food security concerns. This dietary shift is not only viable in terms of crop production, but also yields substantial environmental benefits, including reduced blue water use, decreased greenhouse gas emissions, and increased carbon sequestration. The study highlights specific crop savings, such as sugar and wheat, and quantifies the potential land savings, equivalent to the combined area of France and the UK. The study underscores the need for a just transition, ensuring that the shift to plant-based diets is economically accessible and culturally appropriate for diverse groups within the EU and UK. “Such shifts imply large changes in agricultural employment worldwide,” the authors note, suggesting that further research should explore these employment transformations. The study offers a compelling argument for the adoption of plant-based diets as a key strategy to mitigate the impacts of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and contribute to a more sustainable and resilient food system. The authors’ call for further research that examines planetary health diets and their impact on agricultural employment, and emphasize the need for targeted policies to ensure the equitable implementation of these dietary changes. The study’s findings provide crucial insights for policymakers and stakeholders in the food industry, urging them to consider the potential of plant-based diets in strengthening food security, reducing environmental impacts, and building more sustainable agrifood systems in the long term.