Leggi l’articolo in italiano

In the European debate on food systems, a growingly rigid idea is taking hold: cutting the consumption of animal-based products by half in order to comply with the so-called Planetary Health Diet. The intention may appear noble, but when we look at it with critical thinking, a different picture emerges. Such a drastic prescription not only fails to solve environmental and health issues, it may actually make them worse. This is when sustainability turns into an ideology, overshadowing science, nutrition, and citizens’ freedom of choice.

AN APPROACH GROUNDED IN EVIDENCE AND CRITICAL OBSERVATION

Food policies are not an academic exercise. They shape public health, farmers’ income, economic productivity, and social cohesion. If they are guided by ideological shortcuts, they end up creating new inequalities. This is why we need an approach grounded in evidence, in knowledge, and as we often underline in the book A spasso con Lucy, in a critical observation of the relationship between humans, food, and the environment. The book highlights a point that science has confirmed for years: animal-based foods provide a level of nutrient density that is extremely difficult to replace.

WHY ANIMAL PROTEINS ARE ESSENTIAL

Major global databases from FAO to Tufts University show that most of the foods richest in nutrients, vitamins, minerals, and essential amino acids come from animals.

Diets that drastically reduce meat, milk, eggs, fish, or cheese tend to especially harm the most vulnerable population groups: children, women of childbearing age, and older adults. Even simulations carried out by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission reveal multiple micronutrient deficiencies when animal food consumption is lowered to levels similar to those of the Planetary Health Diet.

Even the alternative model to animal proteins proposed by EAT-Lancet despite being presented as a universal solution acknowledges that more than half of the global population would be at risk of nutritional deficiencies if applied rigidly.

This is not about demonizing plant-based foods, which remain essential, but about remembering that a balanced diet is not born from exclusion it comes from integration.

EUROPEAN SCIENCE ON ANIMAL-BASED FOODS

European research converges on a simple point: healthy diets are varied, rich in fruit, vegetables, and legumes but not devoid of high-quality animal-based foods. Long-term European studies (EPIC), EFSA assessments, and OECD data show that moderate, regular consumption of animal-based foods is associated with better weight control, lower diabetes risk, and better cognitive function later in life.

The issue is not choosing between “all animal” and “zero animal”: such polarizations create confusion rather than health. The real issue is balance exactly the core theme of the human journey described in A spasso con Lucy, where nutrition, evolution, and individual freedom intertwine.

THE ROLE OF THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR

The European livestock sector is already among the most efficient and lowest-emission systems in the world. FAO data show that emissions per unit of product in Europe are significantly lower than the global average often by a factor of two to five. Reducing European production would not lower global emissions: it would simply shift them elsewhere, to countries with lower standards and weaker monitoring systems.

In an era marked by climate shocks, geopolitical tensions, and unstable global supply chains, maintaining a strong livestock sector is essential to safeguard food security, strategic autonomy, and the vitality of rural communities. Dismantling it would be a strategic mistake, not an act of sustainability.

EFFECTIVE POLICIES: KNOWLEDGE, NOT IMPOSITION

Pushing rigid dietary models leads to counterproductive outcomes: it worsens nutritional deficiencies, raises food prices, weakens the agri-food chain, and deprives citizens of their ability to choose. It is ironic to speak of empowerment while promoting policies that restrict food availability and impose standardized behaviors.

Instead, a modern Europe should promote knowledge, not prescription. It should support innovation in the livestock sector, invest in technologies that reduce emissions and waste, and strengthen the European agri-food model already among the safest and most advanced.

If we want effective food policies, we must return to the essentials: balance, evidence, and individual responsibility. Europe should not eliminate animal-based foods, but understand how to integrate them into diverse and personalized dietary patterns. The real frontier of public health is not engineering behavior, but nutritional personalization supported by technology, data, and knowledge.

Read Animal Proteins, Science, and Identity: Let’s find out together!>>>