Authors

  1. Zuzelo, Patti Rager EdD, RN, ACNS-BC, ANP-BC, FAAN

Article Content

Reducing red meat consumption is a commonly used strategy implemented to improve health status. People often share that they "avoid red meat" to reduce saturated fat and cholesterol intake. This intervention is recognized as a healthy choice by many major health care organizations including the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Association.1,2 Typically, health-focused Web sites instruct readers to eschew red meat and processed foods and increase ingested protein sources that include lean meats, fish, and plants. The underlying message, often reinforced by health care professionals, focuses on the acceptability of meat products, as long as they are lean and reasonably portioned. However, this message is inadequately detailed and addresses a complex problem, the meat production industry, in simple and narrow terms related to fat, cholesterol, and ingredients such as salt and nitrites. Providers should consider a more comprehensive view of animal-based proteins, including processed meats, and be prepared to discuss these issues with colleagues, clients, and the public.

 

RELATIONSHIP OF ILLNESS TO PROCESSED MEATS

Evidence supports that some processed meats including salami, mortadella, hot dogs, and other highly salted meats are associated with a variety of cancer types as well as with all-cause mortality rates.3,4 Colon, rectal, stomach, esophagus, and lung may be particularly linked to processed meat consumption.3 Diabetes risk has also been linked to meat consumption.5 Research findings demonstrate a relationship between breast cancer in women and processed meat intake.3 These examples supplement the widely accepted view that processed meats with high sodium content and animal-based meat products high in saturated fat and cholesterol contribute to adverse health outcomes, particularly related to cardiovascular disease.

 

THE EFFECTS OF MEAT CONSUMPTION ON THE PLANET

In addition to the negative health effects and increased health risks to individuals, animal meat consumption has an adverse effect on the living planet. Reducing meat consumption could have a potentially positive effect on climate change as a result of a reduced carbon footprint. Some scientists assert that reducing animal-based food ingestion could be the single most important contributor to reduced climate change and one of the most critical sustainability efforts.6 Livestock production has a negative impact on biodiversity, grain availability, and ground water quality. Deforestation is often associated with animal farming. Water usage is much higher when producing animals than plants.6-9

 

A major concern is the contribution of greenhouse emissions, estimated at 18% to 50%, directly resulting from animal production and not taking into account the wastage associated with this industry.6,8 These practical issues and worries do not tap into the many and varied issues of animal abuses and cruelties that have fueled recent movements, including cage-free initiatives, humane slaughter processes, and organically raised practices. It is likely that meat consumers are largely naive to animal production industries' impact on the environment; however, given the anticipated effects of global warming on human health, health care providers should be well informed and prepared to educate the public when opportunities present.

 

NUTRITIOUS ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL-BASED PROTEINS

Individuals select protein intake choices based on many variables including palatability, family norms, cultural influence, and cost. There are often well-established food rituals associated with events that are important to people, and these rituals can be difficult to influence; for example, the American holiday rituals of the backyard barbeque with beef burgers, pork and beef ribs, hot dogs, and other commonly served meat and processed meat selections. The context of these animal-based protein sources needs to be considered by health care providers when strategizing a communication approach that might encourage consumers to adjust perspectives and responding behaviors. There are increasing numbers of animal protein alternatives, in addition to plant-based, that should be shared with consumers.

 

ENTOMAPHAGY: INSECT CONSUMPTION

Insects provide protein-rich nutrition and are a common food source in many countries, particularly non-Western regions. A recent conversation with a young man who had spent time volunteering in Ghana revealed that spider legs and crickets were commonly eaten and enjoyed. When asked about personal palatability, the young man described a "peanut butter" taste and a particular willingness to try an insect protein source, given concerns about the safety of available meats. Another individual shared his dining experiences while living in Mexico, including eating fried grasshoppers and tasting salsa with a larvae ingredient. Both were willing to experiment with entomaphagy because of an interest in eating foods that were local, culturally unique, nutritious, and safe.

 

Food palatability, including how food appears when plated, is a major obstacle to entomaphagy, particularly in Western and westernized countries. Insects are often viewed as pests, and this perspective contributes to a worry that they may not be safe to eat-providing one can overcome personal disgust at the idea of eating "bugs." One study conducted in Italy explored participants' attitudes toward nontraditional food sources, particularly insect ingestion.8 Consumers who had not previously eaten insects were asked to look at 5 food products that included various edible insects. These choices included a sushi-looking dish with larvae and adult insects of various insects, fried insects, skewered pupae, vegetables served with larvae and pupae, and, finally, a meat burger topped with larvae.8 The researchers were particularly keen to better appreciate whether consumers could overcome the "ick" factor often experienced by the insect-eating naive to entomaphagy.

 

Male participants were more willing than females to experiment with insect ingestion, and those who had familiarity with ethnic dining were also more inclined.8 Thirty-one percent of the participants were willing to consume insects. The meat burger with larvae topping was the least appealing food choice likely due to the impression of rancid meat. Findings supported that the insects' appearance had important influence on consumers' willingness to eat insects.8 Alternate delivery forms of insect proteins may be more palatable to large numbers of consumers. Insects may be consumed whole or mostly whole with inedible portions removed such as wings or legs.9 They may be boiled, fried, or roasted and, in some countries, are often served as food-stand snacks.9

 

Insects are also ground into a protein-rich powder that may be used for baking.9 There are opportunities to use insects as pastes as well, and the variety of recipe options is imaginative. Pets and wild animals can also benefit from insect protein supplementation, as insects can be used in feed. Some insect species offer an opportunity for fat collection that may be used for cooking processes.9 These sorts of activities are currently effective and mainstream in many non-Western countries, and the potential to create large-scaled insect protein food systems may be the next logical step.9

 

A particularly good resource for those interested in learning more about entomaphagy is available from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and titled, Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security.9 This resource is a richly informative and comprehensive report that is user-friendly. It is available as a free download.

 

IN VITRO MEAT: LABORATORY PRODUCED ANIMAL PROTEIN

Laboratory produced meat is cultured from animal muscle cells. This process eliminates the need for animal slaughter and reduces the environmental impact of the animal-based food industry. There is potential to design this meat product in ways that influence healthy fat content as opposed to saturated fats. Producing in vitro meat under controlled circumstances would also reduce the likelihood of foodborne illness.10

 

Despite these anticipated advantages, there are concerns about the public's receptivity to what is described by some as an "unnatural" product.10 One study examined public perceptions of in vitro meat by thematically analyzing narratives about in vitro meat from 7 online news agencies in the United States. Findings suggest that while there will likely be early enthusiastic consumers, there are challenges as well that may prove to be significant barriers to large-scale acceptance of this product despite its array of advantages.10

 

TAKEAWAY MESSAGES FOR HOLISTIC CARE PROVIDERS

Health care providers should be well informed about the advantages and disadvantages of animal meat consumption. While eating less meat, particularly red meat, is an important component of any balanced approach to improve food choices, this intervention should be considered within the larger context of animal meat and the effect of this industry on resource consumption and environmental damage. While some consumers may not be particularly interested in or influenced by these concerns, there are likely others who would likely consider nonmeat alternatives as protein sources. Entomaphagy, plant-based diets, and a future possibility of in vitro meat production are legitimate and healthy protein options. For those consumers who prefer animal-sourced proteins in their diet, it is important to advise them to limit highly processed meat products and to reduce their overall intake of animal products while increasing the contribution of grains and other plants and fruits to their daily diet.

 

Providing consumers/patients/clients with the information needed to feel more confident in making healthy choices is an important component of nutritional guidance. Health care providers should be aware of current and future protein possibilities so that they influence public perception in ways that are evidence based.

 

REFERENCES

 

1. American Heart Association. Healthy living. Eat more chicken. Eat more beans. http://http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLiving/HealthyEating/Nutrition/Eat-More-Chicken-Fish-and-Beans_UCM_320278_Article.jsp#.WJ53w_L2M1o. Published 2017. Accessed February 10, 2017. [Context Link]

 

2. American Cancer Society. Guidelines on nutrition and physical activity for cancer prevention. Reducing the risk of cancer with healthy food choices and physical activity. https://http://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/cancer-control/en/presentations/nutrition-and-physical-activity-presentation.pdf. Published 2016. Accessed February 8, 2017. [Context Link]

 

3. De Stefani E, Boffetta P, Ronco AI, et al Processed meat consumption and risk of cancer: a multisite case-control study in Uruguay. Br J Cancer. 2012;107:1584-1588. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.433. [Context Link]

 

4. Larsson SC, Orsini N. A red meat and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;179(3):282-289. doi:10.1093/aje/kwt261. [Context Link]

 

5. Barnard N, Levin S, Trapp C. Meat consumption as a risk factor for type 2 diabetes. Nutrients. 2014;6:897-910. doi:10.3390/nu6020897. [Context Link]

 

6. Beverland MB. Sustainable eating: mainstreaming plant-based diets in developed economies. J Macromarket. 2014;34(3):369-382. doi:10.1177/0276146714526410. [Context Link]

 

7. Bansback B. Guest Editorial. Future directions for the global meat industry? EuroChoices. 2014;13(2):4-11. [Context Link]

 

8. Cicatiello C, De Rosa B, Franco S, Lacetera N. Consumer approach to insects as food: barriers and potential for consumption in Italy. Br Food J. 2016;118(9):2271-2286. doi:10.1108/BFJ-01-.2016-0015. [Context Link]

 

9. Van Huis A, Itterbeeck JV, Klunder H, et al Edible insects: future prospects for food and feed security. http://http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3253e/i3253e.pdf. Published 2013. Accessed February 9, 2017. [Context Link]

 

10. Laestadius LI, Caldwell MA. Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions of in vitro meat as evidenced by online news comments. Public Health Nutr. 2015;18(13):2457-2467. doi:10.1017/S1368980015000622. [Context Link]