The diet of the Brazilian population has changed in the last 30 years: the consumption of minimally processed foods or culinary ingredients has fallen or remained stable, while the intake of processed or ultra-processed foods has increased up to twice as much.
As a result, between 1987 and 2018, the environmental impacts of food in the country also increased, increasing the emission of greenhouse gases by 21%, the water footprint by 22% and the ecological footprint by 17%.
These are the results of a survey that assessed the effect of changes in Brazilian food choices over the past three decades. The study was published in this Wednesday (10) issue of The Lancet Planetary Health.
In the historical series, Brazilian consumption rose from 52% of fresh or minimally processed foods (such as meat and eggs) to 46% in the last three years. The consumption of ultra-processed foods, which was 10% at the end of the 1970s, now accounts for about a quarter of all Brazilians’ daily caloric intake.
Although the production of minimally processed foods such as red meat is responsible for almost half of all greenhouse gas emissions, this rate has remained practically the same over the last 30 years. The contribution of ultra-processed food production increased by 245% in the same period.
The survey measured the impact generated by an intake equivalent to 1,000 calories of more than 334 types of foods and beverages in 11 metropolitan areas. Data were collected from the IBGE Family Budget Survey, a questionnaire on all items consumed annually by families.
In addition, the research looked at the environmental impacts generated by each of the most consumed types of food in the country (such as beans, rice, eggs) both in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and the amount of water resources used and natural resources —by example, deforested areas. Thus, it was possible to arrive at a calculation by food group.
The study is the result of a partnership between researchers at USP (University of São Paulo) and the universities of Manchester and Sheffield, in the United Kingdom.
For Jacqueline Silva, nutritionist and master in Public Health from USP, the study is the only one to consider the environmental impacts generated by food throughout the entire chain, from production to consumption.
“Several studies have already sought to assess the environmental impact, for example, of a carnivorous diet against a vegetarian diet, but ours is the first to assess how a population’s diet [no caso, a brasileira] has changed over time and what are the impacts of that”, he explains.
In addition, the research allowed us to quantify the ecological footprint of each food individually over 30 years. The classification of items followed the Brazilian Food Guide, which divides them into four groups: fresh or minimally processed, culinary ingredients, processed and ultra-processed.
“In our analysis, we consider that the impact generated to produce a kilo of meat in 2018 is the same as in 1978, in order to be able to compare the factors that lead to that emission of greenhouse gases. So, even though the environmental impact of producing the same food is the same in our research, the diet of the Brazilian population has changed and this is what we see in the final results”, says Silva.
Agricultural production is currently responsible for about a third of the global emission of greenhouse gases, according to a survey by the WHO (World Health Organization). In Brazil, this value reaches almost 70% when added to the release of gases from deforestation.
If the consumption of fresh meat in the 80s was lower, it grew throughout the 90s, reaching 10.7% of the daily consumption of calories in 1996. There was a drop between the years 1996 to 2003 and despite having risen again after the 2000s, it is now lower than in 1996, at around 9.1%.
“But the consumption of ultra-processed meats, such as sausage and sausages, has more than doubled in the last 30 years. And, in addition to the environmental impacts generated by this type of food, we also know that they are harmful to health”, says the nutritionist.
There is, however, a positive side: the consumption of ultra-processed foods here, although it has grown, is still not the same as in rich countries like the United States and Australia, where it corresponds to more than 40% of daily consumption.
“The big challenge would be not to let this growth trend continue. That’s why when we talk about a syndemic of chronic diseases and climate change we are talking about interconnected things: the damage to health from obesity, hypertension and other chronic diseases generated by the consumption of these food is also added to the greater food insecurity of small producers and the environmental impacts. It is a complex system that cannot be looked at in isolation”, he adds.
.
