 Our eating habits are making us and the planet increasingly unhealthy. Ours is a lose-lose situation. Global transformation of the food systems urgently needed in consideration of the mounting evidence regarding the environmental effects of foods for the 2015 to 2020 U.S. Dietary Guidelines, the Scientific Advisory Committee, included for the first time a chapter focused on food safety and sustainability, concluding, quote, a dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, and lower in animal-based foods is not only more health-promoting, but also associated with lesser environmental impact, unquote. Despite unprecedented public support, this and other sustainability language was not surprisingly vanished from the Dietary Guidelines published jointly by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. They're not even sufficiently sticking to the science on healthy eating, either including no or two lax limits for animal-sourced foods despite the available evidence. Even if they ignored planetary health altogether and just stuck to the latest evidence on healthy eating, it would have knock-on environmental benefits. Replacing animal-sourced foods with plant-based ones would only improve nutrition and help people live longer, but could reduce greenhouse gas emissions up to 84%. In general, plant-based foods cause fewer adverse environmental effects by nearly any measure. In terms of carbon footprint, all the foods that are the equivalent of driving more than a mile per serving are animal products. Here's to greenhouse gas emissions from various foods. Even though something like a lamb chop or farmed fish may be the worst, eating chicken still causes like five times the global warming than even something like tropical fruit. Though the climate superstars are legumes, or beans of a piece, or peas and lentils. For example, the United States substituting beans for beef at the national level could alone deliver up to 75% of the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target and spare an area of land 1.5 times the size of California, not to mention the health benefits. And it's not just greenhouse gases. Candy beans required approximately 18 times less land, 10 times less water, 9 times less fuel, 12 times less fertilizer, and 10 times less pesticides. So yeah, according to the prestigious Eat Lancet Commission, more plant-based may be better, but even a shift towards a healthier dietary pattern emphasizing whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes without necessarily eating strictly plant-based would be beneficial. In Europe, for example, just halving the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs would achieve up to 40% reduction in nitrogen emissions and greenhouse gas emissions and require about a fifth less land. In addition, the dietary changes would also lower health risk, reducing cardiovascular mortality, their leading cause of death. Note, however, that minimizing environmental impacts does not necessarily maximize human health. I mean, yes, animal products, dairy, eggs, fish, and other meat releases significantly more greenhouse gas per serving than foods from plants. Eating added sugar and oil isn't going to do your own body any favors. In California, including more animal products than your diet requires an additional 10,000 quarts of water a week. So that's like taking 150 more showers a week. Even just skipping meat on weekdays could conserve thousands of gallons a week compared to eating meat every day and cut your daily carbon footprint and total ecological footprint by about 40%. Some countries are actually doing something about it. The Chinese government, for example, has outlined a plan to reduce its citizens' meat consumption by 50%, whereas much of the rest of the world appears to be doing the complete opposite, pumping billions of taxpayer dollars into subsidizing the meat, dairy, and egg industries. I mean, we can certainly all try to do our part. However, an obstacle to dietary change may be consumers' underestimation of the environmental impacts of different types of food, but may be aided by labeling. For example, imagine picking up a can of beef noodle soup and seeing this. The carbon footprint of a single half-cup serving is like leaving a light on for 39 hours straight, and that's an equal bulb, an old-school 100-watt hot incandescent, compared to a meat-free vegetable soup, a difference of 34 light bulb hours. You can imagine someone getting on your case for unnecessarily leaving on a light for 34 minutes, but this is a 34 hours, just eating a different half-cup of soup.