This Diet Is Better For the Planet. But Is It Better For You, Too?

What we eat – and how our food is produced – is becoming increasingly politicized.

Why? More people are connecting the dots between diet and health – not just personal health, but also the health of the planet. And the central thesis that has emerged is this: If we eat less meat, it's better for both.

So, how much less? A new, headline-grabbing report — compiled by some of the top names in nutrition science — has come up with a recommended target: Eat less than half an ounce of red meat per day. That works out to about 3.5 ounces — or a single serving of red meat — per week. And it's far less red meat than Americans currently consume on average: between an estimated 2 and 3 ounces per day.

Here's the environmental argument: Agriculture is responsible for up to 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions globally, and much of the emissions come from red meat production. A lot of land and water are needed to grow the grains to feed the livestock. (About one-third of all the grain produced globally is used as animal feed.)

And, as the World Resources Institute estimates, producing beef uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as producing beans, per gram of protein. By one estimate, if people in the U.S. switched from beef to beans, this alone could get the U.S. more than halfway to the greenhouse gas reductions goals set during the Obama administration.

"Many environmental systems and processes are pushed beyond safe boundaries by food production," concludes the new EAT-Lancet Commission report. And in order to feed the estimated 10 billion people that will inhabit the planet by 2050, "a global transformation of the food system is urgently needed." - Read More

This Diet Is Better For the Planet. But Is It Better For You, Too?

You Don't Have To Go No-Carb: Instead, Think Slow Carb