The origins and growth of the Meatless Monday movement.

Meatless Monday is a global movement that encourages people to reduce meat in their diets for their own health and the health of the planet. We conducted a comprehensive review of primary and secondary sources and archival material documenting the origins, historical roots, and growth of Meatless Monday and simultaneous developments in public health. Sources for the paper included publications of the US Food Administration and articles and media identified using searches of ProQuest Historical Newspapers, Newspapers.com Academic, ProQuest US Newsstream, ProQuest Canadian Newstream, ProQuest International Newsstream databases, and Google.com. Meatless Monday was conceived by the advertising executive and public health advocate Sid Lerner in 2003, inspired by the meatless days observed during World War I and II. Meatless Monday grew steadily from 2003 to 2023 through advocacy by food writers, talk show hosts, and celebrity chefs, and through participation by schools, cities, restaurants, corporations, and institutions worldwide. School systems began to observe Meatless Monday, such as Baltimore City Public Schools in 2009 and New York City Public Schools in 2019. Meat-Free Monday campaign was launched by Paul McCartney and his daughters in 2009 in the United Kingdom. The Humane Society of the United States became an advocate for Meatless Monday and helped institute it in >200 US school systems. From 2003 to 2023, Meatless Monday spread to over 40 countries and was observed in public schools in countries such as Brazil, Ireland, and Belgium. Findings regarding high meat consumption and its adverse effects on health, high greenhouse gas production and environment degradation, and problems with animal welfare under conditions of industrial food animal production emerged during the same period and influenced many to advocate Meatless Monday. Meatless days of World War I and II were driven by patriotic motivations to provide food for the US troops and the Allies in Europe, whereas motivations for observing Meatless Monday were largely related to concerns regarding personal health, the environment, and animal welfare. Meatless Monday grew from relatively humble origins to a highly recognized worldwide movement with wide appeal as a way to begin reducing meat consumption for personal and planetary health.

Commercial weight-loss diets, greenhouse gas emissions and freshwater consumption.

BACKGROUND: Weight-loss attempts are widespread in the United States, with many using commercial weight-loss diet plans for guidance and support. Accordingly, dietary suggestions within these plans influence the nation's food-related environmental footprint. METHODS: We modelled United States (US) per capita greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) and water footprints associated with seven commercial weight-loss diets, the US baseline, and selected other dietary patterns. We characterised consumption in commercial weight-loss diets both via modelling from provided guidelines and based on specific foods in 1-week meal plans. Cradle-to-farmgate GHGe and water footprints were assessed using a previously developed model. GHGe results were compared to the EAT-Lancet 2050 target. Water footprints were compared to the US baseline. RESULTS: Weight-loss diets had GHGe footprints on average 4.4 times the EAT-Lancet target recommended for planetary health (range: 2.4-8.5 times). Bovine meat was by far the largest contributor of GHGe in most diets that included it. Three commercial diets had water footprints above the US baseline. Low caloric intake in some diets compensated for the relative increases in GHGe- and water-intensive foods. CONCLUSIONS: Dietary patterns suggested by marketing materials and guidelines from commercial weight-loss diets can have high GHGe and water footprints, particularly if caloric limits are exceeded. Commercial diet plan guidance can be altered to support planetary and individual health, including describing what dietary patterns can jointly support environmental sustainability and weight loss.

Dairy and Plant-Based Milks: Implications for Nutrition and Planetary Health.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Dairy milk products are dominant in the market; however, plant-based milks are gaining prominence among USA consumers. Many questions remain about how plant-based milk products compare to dairy milk from a nutrition, public health, and planetary health perspective. Here, we compare the retail sales, nutrient profiles, and known health and environmental impacts of the production and consumption of dairy and plant-based milks and identify knowledge gaps for future studies. For our plant-based milk comparisons, we reviewed almond, soy, oat, coconut, rice, pea, cashew, and other plant-based milks as data were available. RECENT FINDINGS: The retail unit price of plant-based milks was generally higher than that of cow's milk, making it less accessible to lower-income groups. Many plant-based milks are fortified to match the micronutrient profile of dairy milk more closely. Notable differences remained, especially in protein, zinc, and potassium, depending on the base ingredient and individual product. Some plant-based milks contain added sugar to improve flavor. Plant-based milks were generally associated with lower environmental impacts (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, water use) than cow's milk, with the notable exception of the higher water footprint of almond milk. This review of recent studies and consumer purchases confirmed that retail sales of plant-based milks are increasing and shifting among products. Further research is needed to better characterize the environmental impacts of newer plant-based milks, such as cashew, hemp, and pea milks; consumer attitudes and behavior towards plant-based milks; and the safety and potential health effects related to their long-term and more frequent consumption.

Retail Purchases of Red and Processed Meat by State in the United States.

The specific aim was to characterize retail purchases of red and processed meat and other major protein-rich foods in the U.S. and by state. Supermarket scanner data from grocery stores, supermarkets, and big box stores collected from 2017-2019 (NielsenIQ, New York, NY) was used to characterize retail purchases of red meat, processed meat, and other protein-rich foods in thirty-one states representative of US retail food sales. Red meat, processed meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, other meats, and non-meat foods (beans, nuts, seeds, meat alternatives) by weight accounted for 25.9%, 20.4%, 25.8%, 5.9%, 12.6%, 1.3%, and 10.1%, respectively of total sales in 2017-2019. Mean per capita purchases of red meat by weight was 30.1 g/d, ranging from 45.4 g/d in Mississippi to 21.9 g/d in New York. Mean per capita purchases of processed meat by weight was 23.8 g/d, ranging from 36.6 g/d in Mississippi to 15.2 g/d in California. We observed statistically significant correlations between red and processed meat purchases with cardiovascular mortality and colorectal cancer by state. Per capita retail purchases of red and processed meat appear to reflect a dietary pattern that is not consistent with current national and international dietary recommendations.

Patterns of Legume Purchases and Consumption in the United States.

Background: Legumes are an inexpensive, healthy source of protein, fiber, and micronutrients, have low greenhouse gas and water footprints, and enrich soil through nitrogen fixation. Although higher legume consumption is recommended under US dietary guidelines, legumes currently comprise only a minor part of the US diet. Objectives: To characterize the types of legumes most commonly purchased by US consumers and patterns of legume purchases by state and region, seasonality of legume purchases, and to characterize adults that have a higher intake of legumes. Methods: We examined grocery market, chain supermarket, big box and club stores, Walmart, military commissary, and dollar store retail scanner data from Nielsen collected 2017-2019 and dietary intake from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2017-2018. Results: The five leading types of legumes purchased in the US were pinto bean, black bean, kidney bean, lima bean, and chickpea. The mean annual per capita expenditure on legumes based on grocery purchases was $4.76 during 2017-2019. The annual per capita expenditure on legumes varied greatly by state with highest expenditure in Louisiana, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and lowest expenditure in Washington, New York, and Wisconsin. There were large regional differences in the most commonly purchased legumes. Of 4,741 adults who participated in the 24-h dietary recall in NHANES, 2017-2018, 20.5% reported eating any legumes in the previous 24 h. Those who consumed legumes were more likely to be Hispanic, with a higher education level, with a larger household size (all P < 0.05), but were not different by age, gender, or income level compared to those who did not consume legumes. Conclusion: Although legumes are inexpensive, healthy, and a sustainable source of protein, per capita legume intake remains low in the US and below US dietary guidelines. Further insight is needed into barriers to legume consumption in the US.

Balancing a sustained pursuit of nutrition, health, affordability and climate goals: exploring the case of Indonesia.

BACKGROUND: To guide the transformation of food systems to provide for healthy and sustainable diets, countries need to assess their current diet and food supply in comparison to nutrition, health, affordability, and environmental goals. OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare Indonesia's food utilization to diets optimized for nutritional value and cost and to diets that are increasingly plant-based in order to meet further health and environmental goals, including the EAT-Lancet planetary health diet, to explore whether multiple goals could be achieved simultaneously. METHODS: We compared 13 dietary scenarios (2 current, 7 optimized, 3 increasingly plant-based, 1 EAT-Lancet) for nutrient content, cost, greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe), and water footprints, using the FAO food balance sheet, Indonesia Household Income and Expenditure Survey household food expenditure, food composition, life cycle assessment, food losses, and trade data. RESULTS: The diversity of modeled scenarios was higher than that of current consumption, reflecting nutritional deficiencies underlying Indonesia's burden of different forms of malnutrition. Nutrient intake targets were met best by nutrient- and cost-optimized diets, followed by the EAT-Lancet diet. Those diets also had high GHGe, although less than 40% of a scenario in which Indonesia would adopt a typical high-income country's diet. Only the low food chain diet had a GHGe below the 2050 target set by the EAT-Lancet commission. Its nutrient content was comparable to that of a no-dairy diet, slightly above those of fish-and-poultry and current diets, and somewhat below those of the EAT-Lancet diets. To meet nutrient needs, some animal-source foods had to be included. Costs of all except the optimized diets were above the current national average food expenditure. No scenario met all goals simultaneously. CONCLUSIONS: Indonesia's consumption of rice and unhealthy foods should decrease; food production, trade, and processing should prioritize diversification, (bio)fortification, and limiting environmental impacts; and consumer and institutional demands for healthy, nutritious, and sustainable foods should be stimulated. More granular data and tools are required to develop and assess more detailed scenarios to achieve multiple goals simultaneously.

Nutrition and origin of US chain restaurant seafood.

BACKGROUND: Seafood has a nutritional profile that can be beneficial to human health, which gives it a role to play in healthy diets. In addition, because its production and harvesting can have fewer environmental impacts than some forms of animal protein, it can contribute to sustainable diets. However, the positive health and environmental outcomes are not guaranteed-they depend on how seafood is prepared and served and whether it is sourced from sustainable fisheries and aquaculture industries. OBJECTIVES: We examined the availability and nutritional attributes of seafood meals at chain restaurants in the United States. We assessed nutritional attributes by store type and geography. We also assessed menu labeling for species, production methods, and origin. METHODS: The study population was 159 chain restaurants with 100,948 branch locations in the United States. Data were harvested from online restaurant menus, and the nutritional profile of seafood meals was calculated. RESULTS: The average seafood menu item provides up to 49-61% of the total daily limit of saturated fat, 65% of the total daily limit of sodium, and 58-71% of total daily protein requirement for adult men and women. Restaurant chains located in the Deep South and Ohio River Valley, and casual dining chains nationally, carry seafood meals with more total calories and saturated fat per 100 g than other regions or chain types. Most menu items did not list origin or production methods, which is information that would help consumers make informed decisions. CONCLUSIONS: The added ingredients and cooking methods used at chain restaurants can attenuate the health benefits of seafood. We recommend reformulating menus to reduce portion sizes, total calories, added fat, and sodium content per meal and to improve consumer-facing information about origin and production methods.

Trends in types of protein in US adolescents and children: Results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2010.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if the intakes of different types of protein have changed over time. OBJECTIVE: We delineated trends in types of protein (beef, pork, lamb or goat, chicken, turkey, fish, dairy, eggs, legumes, and nuts and seeds) in US children (2-<12 years) and adolescents (12-19 years) from 1999 to 2010. METHODS: We used 6 repeated cross-sectional surveys (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2010, n≥1,665 for children; n≥1,156 for adolescents) to test for linear trends in the intake of types of protein (grams per kilogram of body weight) among children and adolescents, and according to sociodemographic groups and participation in food assistance programs. RESULTS: Among children, pork intake (0.76 to 0.51 g/kg) decreased, but chicken (0.98 to 1.28 g/kg), all poultry (1.18 to 1.55 g/kg), egg (0.63 to 0.69 g/kg), and legume (0.35 to 0.54 g/kg) intake increased (all P<0.05). Among adolescents, beef intake decreased (0.92 to 0.67 g/kg) whereas chicken (0.59 to 0.74 g/kg) and all poultry (0.72 to 0.86 g/kg) intake increased from 1999 to 2010 (all P<0.01). Participants of the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) increased the intake of chicken and dairy (all P<0.05) over time whereas no significant trend was observed for income-eligible non-participants. Fish intake did not change in any age group, and recommended types of protein (poultry, fish, nuts and seeds) declined among children of lower socioeconomic status. CONCLUSIONS: Intake of recommended types of protein increased among children, adolescents and WIC participants. However, subgroup analyses suggest socioeconomic disparities.

Barriers to healthy food access: Associations with household income and cooking behavior.

To examine how barriers to healthy food access and household income are associated with cooking and eating behaviors we fielded a nationally representative survey among 1112 adults in the United States in 2015. The survey included measures of barriers to accessing healthy food, household income, and frequency of cooking and eating meals, cooking practices, and other eating behaviors. We used multivariable poisson regression to examine the association of household income and barriers to healthy food access with cooking and eating behavior outcomes. We find that low income was associated with higher barriers to accessing healthy food (barriers) and that both income and barriers were associated with differences in cooking frequency/practices, and consumption behaviors. In interaction models, cooking and eating behaviors did not vary based on barriers for the lowest income level (<$25,000). In the middle income level ($25,000-$59,000), barriers were associated with cooking breakfast (3.35 vs. 2.64 times/week, p = 0.03) and lunch (3.32 vs. 2.56 times/week, p = 0.02) more frequently compared to those who never/rarely encountered barriers. At the highest income level (≥$60,000), barriers were associated with less frequently eating breakfast (4.29 vs. 5.11 times/week, p < 0.001) and lunch (4.77 vs. 5.56, times/week, p < 0.001) compared to those who never/rarely encountered barriers. Barriers to healthy food access are related to both household income and cooking and eating behaviors important for diet quality and healthy eating. Targeted interventions to address time available to shop, and the price, selection and quality of healthy foods, are necessary.

Trends in types of protein in US adults: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2010.

OBJECTIVE: To delineate trends in types of protein in US adults from 1999 to 2010, we examined the mean intake of beef, pork, lamb or goat, chicken, turkey, fish, dairy, eggs, legumes, and nuts and seeds (grams per kilogram of body weight) among adults and according to subgroups, including chronic disease status. DESIGN: Six cycles of the repeated cross-sectional surveys. SETTING: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999 to 2010. PARTICIPANTS: US adults aged ≥20 years (n 29 145, range: 4252-5762 per cycle). RESULTS: Overall, mean chicken (0·47 to 0·52 g/kg), turkey (0·09 to 0·13 g/kg), fish (0·21 to 0·27 g/kg) and legume (0·21 to 0·26 g/kg) intake increased, whereas dairy decreased (3·56 to 3·22 g/kg) in US adults (P <0·03). Beef, lamb or goat intake did not change in adults or among those with a chronic disease. Over time, beef intake declined less, and lamb or goat intake increased more, for those of lower socio-economic status compared with those of higher socio-economic status. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recommendations to reduce red meat, beef, lamb or goat intake did not change in adults, among those with a chronic disease or with lower socio-economic status.

Reducing meat consumption in the USA: a nationally representative survey of attitudes and behaviours.

OBJECTIVE: Excess meat consumption, particularly of red and processed meats, is associated with nutritional and environmental health harms. While only a small portion of the population is vegetarian, surveys suggest many Americans may be reducing their meat consumption. To inform education campaigns, more information is needed about attitudes, perceptions, behaviours and foods eaten in meatless meals. DESIGN: A web-based survey administered in April 2015 assessed meat reduction behaviours, attitudes, what respondents ate in meatless meals and sociodemographic characteristics. SETTING: Nationally representative, web-based survey in the USA. SUBJECTS: US adults (n 1112) selected from GfK Knowledgeworks' 50 000-member online panel. Survey weights were used to assure representativeness. RESULTS: Two-thirds reported reducing meat consumption in at least one category over three years, with reductions of red and processed meat most frequent. The most common reasons for reduction were cost and health; environment and animal welfare lagged. Non-meat reducers commonly agreed with statements suggesting that meat was healthy and 'belonged' in the diet. Vegetables were most often consumed 'always' in meatless meals, but cheese/dairy was also common. Reported meat reduction was most common among those aged 45-59 years and among those with lower incomes. CONCLUSIONS: The public and environmental health benefits of reducing meat consumption create a need for campaigns to raise awareness and contribute to motivation for change. These findings provide rich information to guide intervention development, both for the USA and other high-income countries that consume meat in high quantities.