Matthew Hayek

‘Planetary health diet’ could save 40,000 deaths a day, landmark report finds Diet allows modest meat consumption and would also slash food-related climate emissions by half, says report by 70 leading experts from 35 countries

Diets are currently crossing many planetary boundaries simultaneously and leading to millions of death, with healthcare costs soon exceeding over a trillion. Eating lower on the food chain can help address all of this. www.theguardian.com/environment/...

The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy, sustainable, and just food systems The global context has shifted dramatically since publication of the first EAT–Lancet Commission in 2019, with increased geopolitical instability, soaring food prices, and the COVID-19 pandemic exacer...

The new diet recs still see major reductions in land based animal food, far greater consumption of whole plant foods, and little changes in seafood consumption relative to present day, despite or massively unsustainable resource exploitation of oceans. www.thelancet.com/journals/lan...

The new Planetary Health Diet has been released by the EAT-Lancet commissions. Despite hearing years of talk about major methodological changes, the new recommendations look...basically the same as first one! Image from the Guardian. Links below

Love this

Can you tell followers how to attain neckerchief and bandana neck ties that drape naturally, don't stick out in odd directions, etc.? All of the advice out there is awful!

I know a few New England homeowners who badly wanted *all the things* that a heat pump provided but they were dissuaded over bad advice from neighbors and HVAC specialists. I don't think anyone was greedy or nefarious. There's just such a knowledge gap around costs vs upsides.

These missions' weakness is that many struggle to articulate how strategies for tackling societal issues will directly translate into urgent, immediate GHG reduction, or how they'll double the effect tomorrow. GHGs have a time value: 1 ton/year displaced today is far better than next year.

I'm not saying that these aren't worthy focuses; any can be a piece of a robust and systemic theory of change. I'm just concerned that overly focusing on "root" (really systemic) causes can distract from the tangible, direct cause: continuously releasing GHGs into the atmosphere.

Similar takeaway here. A common thread was "we're tackling the root causes of climate change", which ranged across structural inequity, military industrial complex, forced labor, or using any agrochemicals. The phrase is a stand-in for funder perceptions & priorities, potentially biases.

It was a great pleasure working with @scmcclelland.bsky.social at NYU for the past year and a half, and I recommend folks follow her here and on LinkedIn for great research on ag and nature-based solutions to climate change!

Don’t get my points mixed up. I’m not pro gas, I even think we should eliminate gas in homes, including stoves. But the superior quality of induction is not clear-cut to me.

YouTube video by Helen Rennie Induction Stoves -- Watch Before You Buy One!

It’s largely about the quality and diameter of the magnetic elements used to induce heat. More here: youtu.be/_CrI33N-Sjg?...

This is a thread about accessible options for people who are close to not cooking at home if further inconveniences are introduced. Not about people who spend $8,000+ on a range.

I have smooth cast iron from my grandmother. Cook regularly on it, including very “sticky” things. I still don’t use it for tofu. Nor ceramic nonstick. My carbon steel wok on blazing heat fares better, but that + constant re-seasoning isn’t a bar I’m going to hold the average American to rn.

Sure. I can do lots on cast iron. But avg bar for many young adults is incredibly low. There is often no “getting the trick of it”. Just giving up and ordering grubhub.

No doubt. Just a few observations, but not disagreeing:
- chefs aren’t public health experts
- celebrity news ≠ health/enviro news
- induction stoves are still bad at even heat (see Helen Rennie’s youtube)
- many high-end restaurants now use induction anyway bc it keeps kitchens cooler & calmer.

They do! But it seems to me like the highest priority should be on forever + reactive + readily-replaceable and not forever + more-stable + less-replaceable

I'm not saying I think a legal ban or restriction is a bad idea. But painting this as pro-environmental voters versus greedy celebrity chefs completely misses the tradeoffs, and burns opportunities for legislative win-wins with enviro health + cooking convenience.

I just follow a number of home cooking youtubers like Adam Ragusea and Helen Rennie. They don't make millions also they just don't use ceramic alternatives; just teflon-lined aluminum for some applications and steel/iron for others

I doubt it exists. Study would be costly and there's been zero incentives till now. There's a whole ton of smaller consumer behavior research on google scholar though on nonstick pans, ceramic alternatives, and eating in/out on google scholar though. Much of it seems to point to tradeoffs

The manufacture of these pans likely creates more enviro exposure to harmful chemicals than normal imperfect home use. That needs to be looked at & dealt with. More effective & safer alternatives still need to be developed.

California Wants to Ban ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Pans. These Chefs Say Don’t Do It.

This article doesn't cover real stakes of this ban. Yes, celebrity chefs hawk products. But PFAS aren't all equal. PTFE in pans is relatively inert & foolproof for home cooking provided you use wood utensils. Ceramic just isn't as effective. A ban could backfire & cause more takeout & snacking

Also teflon PTFE and chemicals used for binding them are much larger an more inert than the active chemicals that we're finding in water supplies. The nuance needed here is that manufacture of these pans likely creates more enviro exposure to harmful chemicals than normal imperfect home use.

I genuinely think that this ban could affect how people to cook less at home. Non-fluoride compounds like ceramic linings just are not up to snuff and lose nonstick ability on repeated heatings. Risks of home exposure need to be compared risks of potentially increasing snacking & fast food

How one country’s potential climate backslide could block others from feeding themselves, and… The Dangerous Allure of ‘No Additional Warming’.

What if wealthy nations could lock in high methane emissions and still claim climate neutrality?

That’s the risk with “temperature neutrality”.

Here’s the plain-English version of our new study:

medium.com/@colmduffy/h...

Definitely

Why you should eat more plant-based protein The evidence for big health benefits has never been clearer. Here’s how to get the right amount.

This is encouraging to see amidst a slew of "the rise of meat" articles. www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/202...

This seems different though. The inclusivity language strikes me as disingenuous & mirrors omnivorous pivots I've seen plant-based restaurants make throughout ~20 years, all shortly before serving even more meat then going out of business. Profits dragging? Pivot, valorize meat, struggle anyway.

This is a generous and fair take. There is some merit to offering a bit of animal products to get people to try plant-based things they wouldn't otherwise. I visited a mostly vegan hotel in the dolomites that offered *some* local cheeses that people in the region expect. Seemed largely successful.

That's right; the decision was the patron's to opt out of going if they're craving meat for a night. EMP wasn't opting to exclude anyone. Nor is any current vegan restaurant. The definition of Inclusive does not mean giving everyone everything they want. No restaurant does this anyway.