Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Harvard Study Reveals: Planetary Health Diet Can Extend Your Life and Save Earth Too

News Feed
Friday, June 14, 2024

A study by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health highlights the dual benefits of the Planetary Health Diet (PHD), which not only reduces the risk of premature death by up to 30% but also significantly decreases environmental impacts. The PHD, which advocates for a varied diet of minimally processed plant foods with limited meat and dairy, is shown to lower greenhouse gas emissions, fertilizer needs, and cropland use, demonstrating the deep connection between dietary choices and both human and planetary health.Adhering to the Planetary Health Diet significantly reduces the risk of premature death and environmental impact, including lowered rates of major diseases and reduced greenhouse gas emissions and land use.According to a new study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, adopting a healthy, sustainable diet, as outlined in the 2019 EAT-Lancet report, can significantly reduce both the risk of premature death and environmental impact. This landmark study is the first to directly assess the effects of following the dietary guidelines proposed in the report, which recommends a diverse intake of minimally processed plant foods while permitting limited amounts of meat and dairy. The researchers refer to this recommended diet as the Planetary Health Diet (PHD).The study was recently published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.“Climate change has our planet on track for ecological disaster, and our food system plays a major role,” said corresponding author Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition. “Shifting how we eat can help slow the process of climate change. And what’s healthiest for the planet is also healthiest for humans.” While other studies have found that diets emphasizing plant-based foods over animal-sourced foods could have benefits for human and planetary health, most have used one-time dietary assessments, which produce weaker results than looking at diets over a long period of time.The researchers used health data from more than 200,000 women and men enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study I and II and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. Participants were free of major chronic diseases at the start of the study and completed dietary questionnaires every four years for up to 34 years. Participants’ diets were scored based on intake of 15 food groups—including whole grains, vegetables, poultry, and nuts—to quantify adherence to the PHD.Health and Environmental Benefits of the PHDThe study found that the risk of premature death was 30% lower in the top 10% of participants most closely adhering to PHD compared to those in the lowest 10%. Every major cause of death, including cancer, heart disease, and lung disease, was lower with greater adherence to this dietary pattern.In addition, the researchers found that those with the highest adherence to the PHD had a substantially lower environmental impact than those with the lowest adherence, including 29% lower greenhouse gas emissions, 21% lower fertilizer needs, and 51% lower cropland use.The researchers noted that land use reduction is particularly important as a facilitator of re-forestation, which is seen as an effective way to further reduce levels of greenhouse gases that are driving climate change.“Our study is noteworthy given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has refused to consider the environmental impacts of dietary choices, and any reference to the environmental effects of diet will not be allowed in the upcoming revision of the U.S. Dietary Guidelines,” said Willett. “The findings show just how linked human and planetary health are. Eating healthfully boosts environmental sustainability—which in turn is essential for the health and wellbeing of every person on earth.”Reference: “Planetary Health Diet Index and risk of total and cause-specific mortality in three prospective cohorts” by Linh P Bui, Tung T Pham, Fenglei Wang, Boyang Chai, Qi Sun, Frank B Hu, Kyu Ha Lee, Marta Guasch-Ferre and Walter C Willett, 10 June 2024, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.DOI: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.03.019Other Harvard Chan School authors included Linh Bui, Fenglei Wang, Qi Sun, Frank Hu, Kyu Ha Lee, and Marta Guasch-Ferre.The study was funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants UM1 CA186107, P01 CA87969, R01 HL034594, U01 CA176726, U01 CA167552, R01 HL035464, R01 DK120870, and R01 DK126698.

Adhering to the Planetary Health Diet significantly reduces the risk of premature death and environmental impact, including lowered rates of major diseases and reduced greenhouse...

Energy Vitality Human Health Lifespan

A study by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health highlights the dual benefits of the Planetary Health Diet (PHD), which not only reduces the risk of premature death by up to 30% but also significantly decreases environmental impacts. The PHD, which advocates for a varied diet of minimally processed plant foods with limited meat and dairy, is shown to lower greenhouse gas emissions, fertilizer needs, and cropland use, demonstrating the deep connection between dietary choices and both human and planetary health.

Adhering to the Planetary Health Diet significantly reduces the risk of premature death and environmental impact, including lowered rates of major diseases and reduced greenhouse gas emissions and land use.

According to a new study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, adopting a healthy, sustainable diet, as outlined in the 2019 EAT-Lancet report, can significantly reduce both the risk of premature death and environmental impact. This landmark study is the first to directly assess the effects of following the dietary guidelines proposed in the report, which recommends a diverse intake of minimally processed plant foods while permitting limited amounts of meat and dairy. The researchers refer to this recommended diet as the Planetary Health Diet (PHD).

The study was recently published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

“Climate change has our planet on track for ecological disaster, and our food system plays a major role,” said corresponding author Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition. “Shifting how we eat can help slow the process of climate change. And what’s healthiest for the planet is also healthiest for humans.”

While other studies have found that diets emphasizing plant-based foods over animal-sourced foods could have benefits for human and planetary health, most have used one-time dietary assessments, which produce weaker results than looking at diets over a long period of time.

The researchers used health data from more than 200,000 women and men enrolled in the Nurses’ Health Study I and II and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. Participants were free of major chronic diseases at the start of the study and completed dietary questionnaires every four years for up to 34 years. Participants’ diets were scored based on intake of 15 food groups—including whole grains, vegetables, poultry, and nuts—to quantify adherence to the PHD.

Health and Environmental Benefits of the PHD

The study found that the risk of premature death was 30% lower in the top 10% of participants most closely adhering to PHD compared to those in the lowest 10%. Every major cause of death, including cancer, heart disease, and lung disease, was lower with greater adherence to this dietary pattern.

In addition, the researchers found that those with the highest adherence to the PHD had a substantially lower environmental impact than those with the lowest adherence, including 29% lower greenhouse gas emissions, 21% lower fertilizer needs, and 51% lower cropland use.

The researchers noted that land use reduction is particularly important as a facilitator of re-forestation, which is seen as an effective way to further reduce levels of greenhouse gases that are driving climate change.

“Our study is noteworthy given that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has refused to consider the environmental impacts of dietary choices, and any reference to the environmental effects of diet will not be allowed in the upcoming revision of the U.S. Dietary Guidelines,” said Willett. “The findings show just how linked human and planetary health are. Eating healthfully boosts environmental sustainability—which in turn is essential for the health and wellbeing of every person on earth.”

Reference: “Planetary Health Diet Index and risk of total and cause-specific mortality in three prospective cohorts” by Linh P Bui, Tung T Pham, Fenglei Wang, Boyang Chai, Qi Sun, Frank B Hu, Kyu Ha Lee, Marta Guasch-Ferre and Walter C Willett, 10 June 2024, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2024.03.019

Other Harvard Chan School authors included Linh Bui, Fenglei Wang, Qi Sun, Frank Hu, Kyu Ha Lee, and Marta Guasch-Ferre.

The study was funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants UM1 CA186107, P01 CA87969, R01 HL034594, U01 CA176726, U01 CA167552, R01 HL035464, R01 DK120870, and R01 DK126698.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Eating less sugar would be great for the planet as well as our health

"Globally, sugar intake has quadrupled over the last 60 years . . ."

Sugar addiction is on the rise. Globally, sugar intake has quadrupled over the last 60 years, and it now makes up around 8% of all our calories. This sounds like sugar's keeping us fed, but added sugars are actually empty calories – they are bereft of any nutrients like vitamins or fibers. The result is massive health costs, with sugars linked to obesity around the world. Some estimates suggest that half the global population could be obese by 2035. A limited 20% reduction in sugar is estimated to save US$10.3 billion (£8.1 billion) of health costs in the US alone. Yet, sugar's impacts go far beyond just health and money. There are also many environmental problems from growing the sugar, like habitat and biodiversity loss and water pollution from fertilizers and mills. But overall, sugar hasn't received a lot of attention from the scientific community despite being the largest cultivated crop by mass on the planet. In a recent article, we evaluated sugar's environmental impacts and explored avenues for reducing sugar in the diet to recommended levels either through reducing production or using the saved sugar in environmentally beneficial ways. By phasing out sugar, we could spare land that could be rewilded and stock up on carbon. This is especially important in biodiverse tropical regions where sugar production is concentrated such as Brazil and India. But a different, more politically palatable option might be redirecting sugar away from diets to other environmentally-beneficial uses such as bioplastics or biofuels. Our study shows that the biggest opportunity is using sugar to feed microbes that make protein. Using saved sugar for this microbial protein could produce enough plant-based, protein-rich food products to regularly feed 521 million people. And if this replaced animal protein it could also have huge emission and water benefits. We estimate that if this protein replaced chicken, it could reduce emissions by almost 250 million tons, and we'd see even bigger savings for replacing beef (for reference, the UK's national fossil fuel emissions are around 300 million tons). Given sugar has a far lower climate impact than meat, this makes a lot of sense. Another alternative is to use the redirected sugar to produce bioplastics, which would replace around 20% of the total market for polyethelyne, one of the most common forms of plastic and used to produce anything from packaging to pipes. Or to produce biofuels, producing around 198 million barrels of ethanol for transportation. Brazil already produces around 85% of the world's ethanol and they produce it from sugar, but instead of having to grow more sugar for ethanol we could redirect the sugar from diets instead. This estimation is based on a world where we reduce dietary sugar to the maximum in dietary recommendations (5% of daily calories). The benefits would be even larger if we reduced sugar consumption even further. Supply chain challenges This sounds like a big win-win: cut sugar to reduce obesity and help the environment. But these changes present a huge challenge in a sugar supply chain spanning more than 100 countries and the millions of people that depend on sugar's income. National policies like sugar taxes are vital, but having international coordination is also important in such a sprawling supply chain. Sustainable agriculture is being discussed at the UN's climate summit, Cop29, in Azerbaijan this week. Sustainable sugar production should factor into these global talks given the many environmental problems and opportunities from changing the way we grow and consume sugar. We also suggest that groups of countries could come together in sugar transition partnerships between producers and consumers that encourage a diversion of sugar away from peoples' diets to more beneficial uses. This could be coordinated by the World Health Organization which has called for a reduction in sugar consumption. Some of the money to fund these efforts could even come from part of the health savings in national budgets. We can't hope to transition the way we produce and eat sugar overnight. But by exploring other uses of sugar, we can highlight what environmental benefits we are missing out on and help policymakers map a resource-efficient path forward to the industry while improving public health.   Don't have time to read about climate change as much as you'd like? Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation's environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who've subscribed so far. Paul Behrens, British Academy Global Professor, Future of Food, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford and Alon Shepon, Principal Investigator, Department of Environmental Studies, Tel Aviv University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

CDC warns cruise passengers of hot tub disease outbreak

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has alerted cruise-goers of the dangers of hot tub usage on ships. The post CDC warns cruise passengers of hot tub disease outbreak appeared first on SA People.

CDC issues warning of hot tub-caused Legionnaires’ Disease The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released a health warning following an outbreak of Legionnaires’ Disease among passengers who had been on cruises.  As reported by Travel News, the CDC found that a number of cases of Legionnaires’ Disease were connected by an unnamed cruise ship, between November 2022 and April 2024 of this year. Private outdoor hot tubs on the balconies of two cruise ships were pinpointed as the source of the bacteria for multiple infections between the period, as stated in a report last month from the CDC. “Epidemiologic, environmental and laboratory evidence suggests that private balcony hot tubs were the likely source of exposure in two outbreaks of Legionnaires’ disease among cruise ship passengers,” the CDC said in the report.   “These devices are subject to less stringent operating requirements than public hot tubs, and operating protocols were insufficient to prevent Legionella growth.” they added. What is Legionnaires’ Disease? According to Cleveland Clinic: “Legionnaires’ disease is a serious type of pneumonia you get when Legionella bacteria infect your lungs. Symptoms include high fever, cough, diarrhea and confusion. You can get Legionnaires’ disease from water or cooling systems in large buildings, like hospitals or hotels.” Legionella is found naturally in lakes, streams and soil, but it can also contaminate drinking water and air systems, especially in large buildings. You can breathe small droplets of water directly into your lungs, or water in your mouth can get into your lungs accidentally You also have an increased risk of getting Legionnaires’ disease if you: Are older than 50. Smoke or used to smoke cigarettes. Have a weakened immune system. Certain medical conditions (like HIV, diabetes, cancer and kidney or liver disease) and medications can compromise your immune system. Have a long-term respiratory illness, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or emphysema. Live in a long-term care facility. Have stayed in a hospital recently. Have had surgery requiring anesthesia recently. Have received an organ transplant recently. The post CDC warns cruise passengers of hot tub disease outbreak appeared first on SA People.

TCEQ to hold public permit renewal meeting for Houston concrete plant with past compliance issues

The Torres Brothers Ready Mix plant has “a history of violations,” according to the Harris County Attorney’s Office. Air Alliance Houston is urging community members to attend the Monday night meeting.

Katie Watkins/Houston Public MediaMany concrete batch plant facilities have permits to operate 24 hours a day. Residents will often complain of the bright lights and noise at night.The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality will hear public comments on the permit renewal of a concrete plant with a history of water and air pollution issues. "They have a history of noncompliance," said Crystal Ngo, environmental justice outreach coordinator with Air Alliance Houston. Over the course of three visits from 2021 through 2024, Harris County Pollution Control Services documented "significant violations" of the state's clean air and water laws at the Torres Brothers Ready Mix plant in South Houston. The Harris County Attorney's Office argued the plant is "unable to comply" with the conditions of its permit and state laws. The county is involved in ongoing litigation with the company and seeks more than $1 million in relief. Torres Brothers did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The plant is one of five in the area. TCEQ doesn't consider the cumulative impact of separate facilities in its permitting process. Instead, it examines the compliance of individual sites. Ngo pointed to public health concerns related to air, water, noise and particulate matter pollution, as well as noise and light nuisances. "With so many concrete batch planets within environmental justice communities, predominantly communities of color, this higher exposure is just disproportionate to more affluent neighborhoods in Houston," Ngo said. The meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m. Monday, Nov. 18, at the Hiram Clarke Multi-Service Center.

Standing Desks Are Better for Your Health—but Still Not Enough

Two recent studies offer some of the most nuanced evidence yet about the potential benefits and risks of working on your feet.

Without question, inactivity is bad for us. Prolonged sitting is consistently linked to higher risks of cardiovascular disease and death. The obvious response to this frightful fate is to not sit—move. Even a few moments of exercise can have benefits, studies suggest. But in our modern times, sitting is hard to avoid, especially at the office. This has led to a range of strategies to get ourselves up, including the rise of standing desks. If you have to be tethered to a desk, at least you can do it while on your feet, the thinking goes.However, studies on whether standing desks are beneficial have been sparse and sometimes inconclusive. Furthermore, prolonged standing can have its own risks, and data on work-related sitting has also been mixed. While the final verdict on standing desks is still unclear, two studies out this year offer some of the most nuanced evidence yet about the potential benefits and risks of working on your feet.Take a SeatScience NewsletterYour weekly roundup of the best stories on health care, the climate crisis, new scientific discoveries, and more. Delivered on Wednesdays.For years, studies have pointed to standing desks improving markers for cardiovascular and metabolic health, such as lipid levels, insulin resistance, and arterial flow-mediated dilation (the ability of arteries to widen in response to increased blood flow). But it's unclear how significant those improvements are to averting bad health outcomes, such as heart attacks. One 2018 analysis suggested the benefits might be minor.And there are fair reasons to be skeptical about standing desks. For one, standing—like sitting—is not moving. If a lack of movement and exercise is the root problem, standing still wouldn't be a solution.Yet, while sitting and standing can arguably be combined into the single category of “stationary,” some researchers have argued that not all sitting is the same. In a 2018 position paper published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, two health experts argued that the link between poor health and sitting could come down to the specific populations being examined and “the special contribution” of “sitting time at home, for example, the ‘couch potato effect.’”The two researchers—emeritus professors David Rempel, formerly at the University of California, San Francisco, and Niklas Krause, formerly of UCLA—pointed to several studies looking specifically at occupational sitting time and poor health outcomes, which have arrived at mixed results. For instance, a 2013 analysis did not find a link between sitting at work and cardiovascular disease. Though the study did suggest a link to mortality, the link was only among women. There was also a 2015 study on about 36,500 workers in Japan who were followed for an average of 10 years. That study found that there was no link between mortality and sitting time among salaried workers, professionals, and people who worked at home businesses. However, there was a link between mortality and sitting among people who worked in farming, forestry, and fishing industries.Still, despite some murkiness in the specifics, more recent studies continue to turn up a link between total prolonged sitting—wherever that sitting occurs—and poor health outcomes, particularly cardiovascular disease. This has kept up interest in standing desks in offices, where people don't always have the luxury of frequent movement breaks. And this, in turn, has kept researchers on their toes to try to answer whether there is any benefit to standing desks.

Breathing Dirty Air Might Raise Eczema Risks

By Ernie Mundell HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, Nov. 15, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Cases of the autoimmune skin condition eczema appear to rise in areas...

By Ernie Mundell HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, Nov. 15, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Cases of the autoimmune skin condition eczema appear to rise in areas most plagued by air pollution, new research shows.Since data has long shown that rates of eczema -- clinically known as atopic dermatitis -- increase along with industrialization, dirty air might be a connecting link, according to the team from Yale University.“Showing that individuals in the United States who are exposed to particulate matter [in air] are more likely to have eczema deepens our understanding of the important health implications of ambient air pollution," wrote researchers led by Yale School of Medicine investigator Gloria Chen.Her team published its findings Nov. 13 in the journal PLOS ONE.According to the National Eczema Association, over 31 million Americans have the skin disorder, "a group of inflammatory skin conditions that cause itchiness, dry skin, rashes, scaly patches, blisters and skin infections."The exact causes of eczema aren't clear, but it's thought to originate in an an overactive immune system that responds to certain environmental triggers.Could air pollution be one of those triggers?To find out, the Yale team looked at data on almost 287,000 Americans, about 12,700 of who (4.4%) had an eczema diagnosis.They compared local eczema rates against levels of air pollution in zip codes across the United States.Chen's team focused especially on what's known as "fine particulate matter" -- microscopic bits of pollution that can get deep into the lungs with each breath.The result: With every increase of 10 micrograms of fine particulate matter per square meter of air that was recorded in a zip code, residents' odds for eczema doubled, the Yale group found.That risk assessment held even after the researchers factored in other possible triggers, including smoking.The study couldn't prove a cause and effect relationship, only associations. But the team pointed to similar findings from studies conducted in places as varied as Australia, Germany and Taiwan.Besides playing a role in the development of eczema, "individuals [already diagnosed] with eczema may be at elevated risk for disease exacerbation or acute flares" when local air quality declines, the researchers wrote.On very smoggy days, "patients may be advised to stay indoors, filter indoor air or cover exposed skin outdoors," Chen and colleagues added.SOURCE: PLOS ONE, Nov. 14, 2024Copyright © 2024 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.