What can americans learn from the new Dutch dietary guidelines?
Last month Voedingscentrum, a Dutch state-funded nutrition regulator, published a new set of positive national dietary guidelines. This is the first time the country’s official food program has been updated since 2004, and many Dutch health providers and nutritionists will use the plan. They are very similar to the dietary guidelines in most other countries, but by setting tough consumer restrictions on meat and animal products, the path to health is different.
They say the Dutch should reduce their meat consumption by two portions a week, not more than 60 percent of the red meat. Moreover, the red meat should not be processed. Other common animal-based proteins are also reduced: no more than one fish, no more than three eggs, and, if possible, no cheese, which is good for nuts and beans.
This is the first time Voedingscentrum has strictly restricted meat consumption. These new recommendations are not simply due to their clear stance on popular animal products, but because they are on environmental sustainability and health issues. That is to say, meat guidelines are directly related to overfishing, with low efficiency and high carbon emissions associated with red meat production.
For americans, the environmental impact of meat processing is a particularly important question – not just because we accounted for 10% of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with agriculture, but also because we struggled recently (and failed) dietary guidelines. Similar concerns in the us, but a lack of action, could tempt some to turn to the Dutch guidelines as an alternative to the us. However, dieticians claim that while these guidelines point to the right world, their details may not be universally applicable. But they can help us reassess how we think about sustainability in our own food supply chain.
The nutritionists behind America’s own new guidelines, released three months ago, are actually working hard to incorporate sustainability into new documents. Members of the dietary guidelines advisory committee made a clear statement on the matter in a report to the final author of the report in 2015. But government officials declined to include those concerns. Congress launched a measure to review the new directive, and when the group was released, it argued that the document should be purely about health. This hostility to ignore such a fact that the sustainability of the 2010 has really got the one-off mention, previous report on food security is another overlapping problem of public health.
Not America’s final guidelines are dire. As they have since the 1980s, they have focused on the basics (eating more vegetables and eating less junk food), but they are also digging into the details. They reduced the recommended amount of added sugar, and generally recommended a diet like the Dutch norm. Although they angry by health professionals of various liberal allowance meat, even possibly carcinogenic items, memorize old fears about eggs and cholesterol consumption, direct and supervise and urge men and teenage boys, in order to reduce their intake of protein, this is the first.
“In the United States, about 95%, final rule out in the best interests of the public,” yili nelson, who promoted the right nutrition expert at the university of New Hampshire sustainability considering dietary guidelines advisory committee said recently. “But some things just don’t work.”
Mr. Nelson and others say the mild sense is the result of a massive U.S. meat industry lobbying against the health and environmental impact of eating meat. (apparently, these agencies have taken a positive attitude toward sustainability and even started a change.org petition called “cancel my hot dog”). They point out that even the limited precautionary measures for the guidelines on meat consumption are written in hedges, which seems to be an attempt by the author to balance scientific and industrial pressures.
In contrast to the American guidelines, nelson praised the Dutch proposal as “the right target” and laudable. But Voedingscentrum sustainable food experts Cornevan Dooren, warned that while the Dutch have a common element in the dietary guidelines, but some of the part is for the Dutch culture, especially the shepherd elaborate towards a better future. He noted that he recently published an academic paper on the applicability of cultural differences and guidelines, with the following new instructions:
“These results are relevant because the adapt to the diet history, better adapt to the current eating habits, climate and agricultural traditions (Netherlands), the conclusion is easier to achieve than to more foreign southern or northern European diet”.
In other words, according to nelson, food guidelines need to take a gradual, positive change in the culture’s dietary norms and respond to availability and other unique conditions. You can’t always move forward, and you’re not always wise to rely on another cultural norm.
However, the Dutch guidelines can still indirectly promote American norms. They are part of a growing list of national guidelines that are sustainable. In recent years, some countries have built these into their own documents. Mr Van doren argues that some countries, such as Britain, have gone further than their own countries. Most of these countries do not like the United States is bound by meat industry, but in 2012, Brazil has denied such a concept: a country with a large cattle lobbying forced to go to the meat industry lobby. Their proposal to help the environment, free trade and a culture of indigenous cuisine has set a powerful precedent for America’s possibilities.
“In fact, Brazil [is] able to move this needle,” Nielsen said. “it shows that it really matters to the political will.”
Ideally, the Dutch language in the guidelines, precedent in Brazil and other countries in the next few years to take similar steps to create a perfect precedent for the sustainable development to consider, in America’s new diet ideal within five years. Nelson believes the United States has strong supporters to support this development. All they need is a good business case, a precedent and a quasi-functional regulatory system that really takes it home.
“This is a [only] time issue,” until we are on track with the Netherlands and other sustainable development guidelines. “It will happen.”
