Opinion: Why fresh meat is better than processed foods
© Tim Scrivener In a world where one-third of the global population lacks access to a nutritionally adequate diet, questions about how to eat “correctly” can feel like a privilege.
Yet even in wealthier nations, many diets rely heavily on ultra-processed foods that contribute to obesity and metabolic disease.
These paradoxes point to the need for fresh perspectives that go beyond standard “healthy diet” recommendations and address modern nutritional and environmental realities.
See also: Farmers reject CCC’s call for livestock reduction targets
About the author
Frédéric Leroy is a professor of food science and biotechnology at Vrije University, Brussels.
Here he sets out why simple reductions in meat consumption are simplistic and may even be damaging to consumers and the environment.
Despite long-standing guidelines, obesity rates and related diseases continue to rise.
In England, for example, 28% of adults are obese and another 36% overweight; globally, nearly 10% of children are clinically obese.
Such numbers highlight how current advice often fails to account for individual needs, cultural traditions, and the significance of food processing and nutrient density.
Historically, reform movements have called for science-driven diets, criticising red meat and certain processed foods while promoting whole grains, fruits and nuts.
However, external factors – such as marketing, ideology and the push for cheap convenience – also shape what society deems “healthy”.
As a result, many people with abundant choices still fall into suboptimal dietary habits, often swayed by aggressive marketing.
Framework
Central to rethinking dietary guidelines is the Nourishment Table, a new framework developed by a coalition of scientists that shifts the focus from “healthy diets” to “adequate nourishment”.
It underscores two key indicators of food quality; first, “nutrient density” – the overall richness of essential nutrients in a diet – and second, “processing level” – how extensively foods are transformed.
This takes into account that minimal processing can enhance nutrient availability and safety, while ultra-processing may be detrimental if over-consumed.
The Nourishment Table suggests that diets with at least one third of calories from animal sources can be highly beneficial – especially for high-quality protein and critical micronutrients.
This flexible approach prioritises meaningful nutritional intake, rather than rigid meal plans or narrow definitions of “healthy eating.”
Oversight
Some current recommendations, such as those from the UK’s Climate Change Committee, propose cutting meat consumption by 260g a head weekly to meet net-zero targets.
However, this may overlook vital nutritional needs – particularly for vulnerable groups like children and the elderly.
Furthermore, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation points out that dietary changes alone may have only modest impacts on emissions.
This raises questions about singling out meat, based on methane metrics taken in isolation, while highly processed foods escape similar scrutiny despite their various harmful contributions to both human and environmental health.
A more nuanced framework must acknowledge the value of nutrient-dense foods in avoiding deficiencies and chronic diseases, while critiquing overconsumption of ultra-processed options.
The Nourishment Table fits this need, blending nutrition security with insights into how various degrees of processing affect health.
By shifting focus to nutrient density and minimal processing, we can enable more informed and sustainable dietary decisions.
Misconception
It is a widespread misconception that all livestock production is inherently harmful to the environment.
Carefully managed, efficient agriculture can produce more food using fewer inputs, while providing ecosystem services.
Overcoming socio-economic hurdles, establishing robust property rights, and providing farmers with both advanced technologies (such as precision farming, robotics, and agri-data science) and evidence-based agro-ecological knowledge are key.
Under these conditions, livestock agriculture can meet global demand and respect ecological limits, even with intensified production systems.
Policymakers must therefore consider frameworks like the Nourishment Table to provide adaptable, evidence-based guidance.
By focusing on nutrient density and processing level, they can ensure adequate nourishment, better public health, and greater sustainability.