A UC Davis Scientist on Why Meat Isn’t the Climate Villain

Frank: 
I had this discussion with the science director of EAT-Lancet, Fabrice DeClerck, is his name. And so, I wrote to him, and he wrote me back. And what he wrote back to me just blew me away. This was the exact opposite of what the world had heard.

Bret: 
Welcome to the Metabolic Mind Podcast. I’m your host, Dr. Bret Scher. Metabolic Mind is a nonprofit initiative of Baszucki Group where we’re providing information about the intersection of metabolic health and mental health and metabolic therapies, such as nutritional ketosis as therapies for mental illness.

Thank you for joining us. Although our podcast is for informational purposes only and we aren’t giving medical advice, we hope you will learn from our content and it will help facilitate discussions with your healthcare providers to see if you could benefit from exploring the connection between metabolic and mental health.

You’ve probably seen the  EAT-Lancet 2.0, the Planetary Health Diet, which really a push to find the diet that is best for human health and environmental health, and the diet that’s recommended all but eliminates animal-source foods. Just a tiny bit of animal-source foods allowed with a really move towards plant-based diet.

But is this really the best diet for the environment or does the report even have anything to do with environmental health? I think what you might learn in this interview will surprise you. I’m joined today by Dr. Frank Mitloehner, who’s a PhD in animal science. And he is the Director for the CLEAR Center.

So, this Clarity and Leadership for Environmental Awareness and Research at UC Davis, where he’s a professor, and he is an air quality specialist. And he’s dedicated his academic life to animals and environment and what the two mean. So, I think he’s the perfect person to join us to really help understand the nuance of animals and environmental health to understand this  EAT-Lancet report.

And also, he was labeled as one of the mis-influencers, which as you’ll hear, really has no basis whatsoever when it comes to this. In fact, he’s probably one of the leading academic experts. So, I hope you, enjoy this interview with Dr. Frank Mitloehner. Many of the interventions we discuss can have potentially dangerous effects have done without proper supervision.

Consult your healthcare provider before changing your lifestyle or medications. In addition, it’s important to note that people may respond differently to ketosis, and there isn’t one recognized universal response.

All right. Welcome, Frank. Thank you so much for joining me here at Metabolic Mind. 

Frank: 
Yeah, I’m glad to be with you. 

Bret: 
Yeah. We had the opportunity to speak many years ago, but it’s great to have you back, and very timely because of the. The release of this,  EAT-Lancet 2.0, the Planetary Health Diet that they’ve released.

We have a interview with Dr. Georgia Ede talking about the human health side of things, but there’s also a lot of talk about the environmental impact. And the name of it, Planetary Health Diet, really talking about the environmental impact of what we eat. So, I definitely want to get into that with you being an expert on how the food choices and how it affects the environment.

But first, I want to learn a little bit more about you and have our audience know about you. So, tell us the background of how you got into this field of animal agriculture, animal science, environmental science, in that intersection. 

Frank: 
Yeah. I’m a professor in the animal science department at UC Davis.

And I’ve been here for 23 years. I teach, do research, and I’m also an extension specialist, meaning I bring information from the campus into the real world. And I have studied environmental impacts of livestock all my life. And I’m particularly interested how animal agriculture affects the climate, how it affects air quality, water quality, those kind of things.

I have also studied other sustainability issues, such as animal welfare issues and so on. But over the last few years, my main focus had been on the impact livestock has on climate and other environmental impacts. Published pretty prolifically and give many talks in my life, over a thousand. So, I’m not shy of speaking to the public, speaking to stakeholders about my area of expertise because I think that not enough of that is happening.

Most academicians don’t really speak out enough about what they know. 

Bret: 
That’s a great point. And that’s something we talk a lot about at Metabolic Mind. Just as an aside, that there’s some amazing research being done that people just don’t talk about because researchers often aren’t in front of the camera.

Aren’t giving talks beyond their sort of niche in their science. So, that’s why it’s so important, I think, for experts and researchers to get out there and talk to the world more broadly. So, I appreciate you doing that .And with your background and your expertise, you’re the perfect person to bring on to talk about this Planetary Health Diet as proposed by the  EAT-Lancet 2.0.

Where if you read online, you Google it, you read about their mission being to be able to scale food supply in a way that will protect and augment human health and environmental health, is the way you read all about it. And as we talked about with Dr. Ede in our last episode on this, they, in anticipation of the release of the new one, they actually published a list of mis-influencers.

What they call mis-influencers, who they say are putting out information against this that is unsubstantiated. And you were on that list of mis-influencers. So first, how does it feel to be labeled a mis influencer by this group? 

Frank: 
So first, it’s important to declare that it was not the EAT-Lancet commissioners. 

Bret: 
Oh, good point. Good point. Thank you for clarifying that. Yeah. 

Frank: 
So, it was not EAT-Lancet saying that. It was a group of Greenpeace executives, or former Greenpeace executives. Changing Market is the name of that foundation, and I don’t take them very seriously.

Okay, I don’t take most activists very seriously because of the lack of nuance that comes out of those channels for the most part. So, it doesn’t really bother me if a bunch of activists label people, who are critical of what they do, as mis-informers. It’s just the opposing view. And if they were interested and willing in a discourse and a discussion, then I would welcome that.

But if they are coming out like this, then I’m not interested in it. So, I have not replied to it. Quite frankly, I couldn’t care less.

Bret: 
Well, and that’s what’s so remarkable about what they put out was they labeled people as mis-influencers, but didn’t provide the information of why what they were saying was wrong.

So, that was a big disconnect. But, okay, let’s rewind for a second though. And the main, I guess, the main message in this Planetary Health Diet is by dramatically reducing meat intake and dairy intake and any intake of animal products. By dramatically reducing that, we are going to improve the health of the environment and the health of individuals.

Dr. Ede and I have already debunked how that’s not true for individuals. What about for the environment? is it true that this is going to automatically help the health of the environment? 

Frank: 
So again, this requires a very nuanced discussion, okay? And EAT-Lancet 1.0, they contrasted various different diets.

A vegetarian vegan diet, a pescatarian diet, a business as usual diet versus their EAT-Lancet diet. And I looked at all of these different environmental impact categories, as we call them. So, impacts on biodiversity, on climate, on air and water and so on. And was surprised that these diets look very similar for most of the impact categories except for one on the climate side.

There were differences or so it seemed. I found that the way they described the climate impacts were inconsistent. There were mistakes being made, and I pointed out to the science director of EAT-Lancet that there was a lack of differences across the other environmental categories across these diets.

And I wrote to him. And he replied back, and, said to me, yes, this report is solely based on health and nutrition base and not on environmental, on an environmental base. To me, that was a sea change, very different from what the media had reported. Now, I have to say that I reflected very critically upon how I viewed this report, and how most of the world reviewed it because they call themselves a Planetary Health Diet.

And to me, that sounded like a diet that is better for planet and human health. But I think I heard some of those folks say, no, Planetary Health Diet refers to it being a global health diet, meaning one that’s for the whole world to share. The word planetary in the Planetary Health Diet, according to those voices, is not around planetary health, but it’s another word for, it’s a global health diet.

Bret: 
Yeah, which is amazing marketing because it has everybody thinking that this is, therefore, healthy for the environment and the world and earth just by the way they call it, by the way they name it. And certainly, the media is running with that. So, this is what was so shocking about you coming forward with that email that somebody said, somebody very high ranking and importance, said, no, it’s not about planetary health.

It’s about human health. And then ,you got a lot of pushback for that, too. But yet, now take us full circle. And what is in the glossary of 2.0? Tell us about that.

Frank: 
So, first of all, I had this discussion with the, Science Director of EAT-Lancet, Fabrice DeClerck, is his name. And so I wrote to him, and he wrote me back. And what he wrote back to me just blew me away.

So, it pretty much said this report is not about environmental. It’s about human health. By and large, that’s what it said. I don’t know the exact wording, but I could get it for you. And I share that email. And I thought about this long and hard, whether I should because normally, you don’t go ahead and share emails with the rest of the world.

But in this case, where the whole world was led to believe that this report is better for human and planet health, and that’s what all the reporting was on. This was. The exact opposite of what the world had heard. And you have the EAT-Lancet, the most recent, I think they call it the 1.1. They don’t call it the 2.0. They call it the 1.1.

I think you have that report in front of you, and I don’t. But why don’t you read at the beginning of the glossary of that 1.1 report. So, the most recent one they mentioned, what we are discussing here. Maybe you read that, Bret?

Bret: 
Yeah. And we’ll show this on the screen. it’s the glossary which, and you brought this to my attention, which is just mind boggling, says the PHD, the Planetary Health Diet is based entirely on the direct effects of different diets on human health, not on environmental criteria.

The diet’s name arose from the evidence suggesting that its adoption would reduce the environmental impacts and nutritional deficiencies of most current diets. So, it is based entirely on the direct effects of different diets on human health, not on environmental criteria, which is, like you said, exactly the opposite of what most people are led to believe.

Frank: 
Yeah. And when I go through all the international reporting around this report, I read exactly the opposite. Okay, and I am a critical reader, and I’m a trained reader. I can read not just between the lines. But when it’s as obvious as it is in this case, then it is a case of a significant number of outlets misleading the public, and bringing the public onto a wrong path in the understanding of this recommendation.

Now, I said initially, we need some nuance in this because this report also says we need to drastically change what we eat. For example, I think they speak of one or two eggs a week that we are allowed to eat, a relatively dismal amount of red meat. Not relatively, a very dismal amount of red meat.

And a minor amount of white meat, fish and so on, and chicken. In my opinion, this is a pipe dream, okay? They can come up with this all they want. And in the ivory tower, you’re allowed to come up with theoretical discussions, but will it hold water in reality? That’s what I ask myself. And the answer I give to that question is clearly no.

People will not eat according to this diet. Some people will. People who are into Mediterranean diet and so on, they will look at this and say, oh yeah, that’s great. This is what I’ve been doing already. That’s wonderful, but the vast majority of us won’t. Just think about this, in 98%, so almost all of refrigerators in the United States, you find animal-source foods, such as eggs, dairy, meat, 98%.

The vast majority of us are not eating a majority or entirely plant-based diet, which this report largely suggests. They do allow some animal-source foods but very minor. What they are saying is that once people eat a almost entirely plant-based diet, then we can get away with, I don’t know what the numbers are, but 60 or so percent, 70% less ruminate animals, such as cattle.

Drastically smaller herd of pigs and so on. So, of course, if you were to decimate livestock numbers to those percentages, 60, 70% and more, of course, you would then find a difference in environmental footprint. Clearly, that’s like saying if we were to get rid of 70% of cars and trucks, ships and planes, then we would have fewer transportation emissions.

Of course, we would because we would all sit on our bicycles and take way longer to get from A to B. Yes, that would happen, but is it practical? Is it realistic? And the answer to that is clearly no. If you do a direct comparison of one of these diets to another, you find relatively small environmental differences.

If you do, as they say, which is largely whether they publicly proclaim it or not, a divorce of most animal-source foods from our diets, then of course, you would have differences in the environmental footprint. But that’s as realistic as us all hopping on our bikes and leaving the cars in the garage 90% of the time.

Bret: 
Even, yeah, realistic or not, do they also, though, take into account what the environmental impact would be of then what do you do with that land? What happens to that land, and having to ramp up their production of corn, wheat, and soy and, all those. Other foods that would have to replace the animal-based foods?

Do they take into account what would then happen to environmental emissions, fossil fuel usage, fertilizer usage and all that? 

Frank: 
There was an attempt to do this. I don’t think the attempt was executed very well. I have seen modeling exercises going to the extreme of doing a hundred percent plant-based diet for a country like the United States.

And I can give you some of the numbers that came from that. It was published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by the authors Hall and White. And what they found was, first of all, that all animal agriculture in the United States combined, so all beef, dairy, swine, sheep, and so on, all animal agriculture in the United States combined currently contributes to 4% of all greenhouse gases produced in this country.

Four percent, that’s the total, okay? All of agriculture. So animal and plant agriculture combined is 10%, but animal agriculture alone is 4% of all emissions. Then, they modeled what a difference would entail from the current business as usual to a plant-based a 100% vegan and vegetarian diet. And what they found was that if we were to go entirely plant-based as the entire US, we would reduce the carbon footprint by 2.6%, not by 4, but by 2.6%. 

And you might ask why not four? Because we would have to replace what we currently eat, with respect to animal-source foods, with plant-based alternatives. And that’s why it’s not a 4% reduction but the 2.6% reduction. They also looked at what a, let’s say, meatless Monday would do.

Eating one day less animal-source foods per week, and they arrived at a number of 0.3% reduction of greenhouse gases if we all 330 million Americans would stop eating animal-source foods one day a week. So, now, that’s not nothing. It’s something, but it’s certainly not making a drastic change in our contribution to a changing climate.

And this is why I pipe up on these topics because I am as interested as most in reducing our carbon footprint, our impact on climate. And my area of study is the climate impacts of animal agriculture. And while it’s there and while we need to reduce it, and that’s my entire career, reducing that impact. For example, reducing methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases from oil of animal agriculture, it will not get us to a point where we have a drastic impact on our society’s impact on climate.

It’s not good. It’s not getting us there, and that is why I’m really allergic to people saying we need to focus, or what we mainly need to focus on, is what we eat, and then we’ll have a grip on our climate impacts. And that’s not true. 

Bret: 
I’m glad you brought up the percentages. So, 10% of all US emissions are from agriculture, only 4% from animal agriculture.

And compare that to the energy sector which is like 25%, transportation which is 28%, industry which is 26%. The three of those combined are nearly 80% plus of emissions. But yet, the focus is on the animal ag, which is the lowest percentage. So to me, that just seems they’re putting their bias like, oh, we don’t believe animal foods are healthy.

Therefore, that’s the one we’re going to attack. And you see the memes, and all the posts that they’re flying to these conferences in their private jets and driving in their SUVs to tell us to eat less meat, which does seem a little bit of a disconnect. So, how do you react to those percentages and that relative ratio?

Frank: 
So, first of all, the numbers you just cited are from the Environmental Protection Agency. These are the official inventory numbers for the United States. For those people who don’t believe in those numbers, they can read them up. And they’re not controversial, actually, okay? About three quarters of all greenhouse gases in the United States and in most developed countries, stem from the burning of fossil fuels.

And that’s oil, coal, and gas, and all the activities associated with it. Also true for most developed countries, are those other percentages of around 10% being agriculture and about half of that animal agriculture. So, we do have a contribution, and that’s not debatable, in my opinion, okay? As I said, we need to further reduce those contributions, but the question is, how do we get to reduction of the impact of our food system on climate?

Is it by us changing our diets or is it by working with farmers to change practices to reduce emissions? The FAO in Rome, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, recently released a report called the Pathways Report. And in that report, they looked at what would the 2050 contributions of the livestock sector be if we were to do nothing to reduce to mitigate greenhouse gases.

And they found that business as usual would be unsustainable. It would be an impact too high globally, too high. And so as they suggested an alternative scenario and much lower emissions by 2050. Pretty much a reduction by two-thirds, and then they listed all the different tools that would get us there to that much lower emission goal by 2050.

And what the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, what they found was that the main ways of reducing emissions are productivity increases of livestock, better breeding, and better healthcare of livestock. These three are the most important tools that can be used to drastically reduce the carbon footprint of livestock.

The second least effective way of reducing the carbon footprint around animal-source foods, the second least effective way they said is dietary change toward plant-based diets. 

Bret: 
Wow. The second least effective. 

Frank: 
The second least effective way of reducing the carbon footprint of animal-source foods would be dietary change in developed countries.

That’s coming straight of the Pathways Report of the FAO is a waterfall a flow diagram in that report, and it’s coming right from there. So, for those critics who don’t believe in what I say, just go to that report, and you’ll find the modeling exercise associated with it. I’m all for reducing emissions.

The way we get that done is by working with our farmers, and that’s what we do. I work with our farmers, and I work with the farming sector because that’s my job to reduce emissions. Will a dietary change get us there? Just think about it, Bret. You have seen over the last few years a lot of drumbeat around, let’s change our diets toward more plant-based diets and so on.

How much of that has actually happened? What’s the percentage of veganism? What’s the percentage of vegetarianism in the United States or in most developed countries? How has it changed over the last few years? How well have Beyond Meat, Impossible foods and so on, establish themselves? What kind of a market share do they have compared to animal-source foods from livestock?

Bret: 
Yeah. And especially if you approach it from the whole foods concept, the minimally-processed and getting the most nutrients. Satiety and protein per calorie, per carb, and probably per carbon emission, then you really are talking about the importance of animal foods. And I like how you don’t just dismiss it and say, nope, we have no contribution.

We shouldn’t even be talking about it. But instead, you’re saying, yeah, we can do this within the framework, still providing this nutritious food for people and still reducing the environmental impact. I really like how you have that message. Now, I think we need to be upfront though, right? There have been reports of you taking grants and money for your research from the beef industry, from the cattle industry, et cetera, and people have used that to try and discredit your message.

So, how do you respond to those types of comments? 

Frank: 
Yeah, so the only thing that I accept around this is that the funding that comes from industry is not enough. What I mean by that is that these are the sectors that are associated with these emissions, and these sectors need to have an interest in reducing their emissions further.

And somebody has to flip the bill to do the research around that. And if you ask the critics of animal agriculture who should do the research? Then, they say, public universities and public institutions should do the research. We are that. We are the world’s largest public university. That’s the University of California.

When you ask them who should pay for it, then they don’t really answer because they don’t think the public should pay for it. They don’t think the public should pay for it. So, that’s public agencies. So, if the public shouldn’t pay for it, who should pay for it? So, the industries that are associated with these emissions want to reduce these emissions. And in order to get that done, they work with public universities, like mine, to get the research done.

So, we publicly declare what that research funding is, and we disclose everything. Every funding that we receive is publicly disclosed, and there’s nothing fishy around that. In the United States, about 70%, seven zero, of all agricultural research is funded by the private sector, meaning by industries. And 30% is funded by agencies.

So, if these people, who are critical of me, are critical of this model, then they need to go to The Hill or to other places and rattle the cages of our legislature and loosen up public funds because they don’t exist. And as you might have seen, particularly, over the last few months, public funding around climate research has been decimated.

And the question I have to people who are critical of funding from industry around this is, do you think we should reduce emissions from the livestock sector, yes or no? If the answer is yes, if public funding is no longer available, does that mean we need to stop it now, or do we need to have the industries that are associated with it step up and pay the bill?

And in my opinion, but half of my funding comes from public sources, the other half comes from private sources, and that ratio is more toward the public funding-leaning compared to most of my colleagues. So, what we do is in no way unusual or fishy. It’s interesting that people are wondering that in agricultural scientists, and that’s what I am.

I work on agricultural emissions, that an agricultural scientists works with the agricultural sector. How can that be fishy? Bret, you are, an MD. This is like somebody blaming you for working with patients. My patients are cattle and sheep and pigs and so on. I work with agricultural companies to reduce their emissions, much like a vehicle engineer works with Ford and Mercedes and GMC to build catalytic converters to reduce emissions from cars.

I work with companies producing feed additives or manure treatments to reduce emissions from cows. I work with cows, not with cars. That’s the difference. 

Bret: 
That makes a tremendous amount of sense. And in that answer, I think you’re also being polite by not mentioning, and I will mention, that the conflict of interest for  EAT-Lancet is off the charts, too.

And there’s a slide that shows ultra-processed food companies and fertilizer companies and whatnot, being sponsors of that. So, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t expect a researcher, like you, to not accept funding, like you said, from your constituents, your patients. And then, be able to accept funding, for vested interests for your report.

I think there’s definitely a hypocrisy there. And I appreciate your answer, which makes a tremendous amount of sense. So, you’ve mentioned a couple different things, but I’m curious. So, what are some of the main advances that you are most excited about that will allow us to maintain healthy ruminants? To allow us to maintain, eating meat as part of a healthy diet and decrease emissions?

Frank: 
As I’m at the University of California in Davis, so right in the heart of the state, located 20 miles away from Sacramento. And in our state, we have the nation’s most aggressive climate legislation for methane, which is the most important greenhouse gas from animal agriculture. The goal of the state of California is to reduce 40%, four zero, of methane by the year 2030.

That is a goal that is unprecedented in the world. Nobody else is more aggressive than California in its wish to reduce methane. At first, our farmers went wild thinking, oh my gosh, what do we do now? After having been slammed with water regulation, air regulation, and so on, there comes the climate around the corner.

The news I had for them was that it might actually work out because the legislature decided to use a new kind of approach to tackle the issue. Namely, rather than the cane approach of using rules, regulations, fines, or taxes to force farmers to reduce emissions, they used the carrot-approach of financially incentivizing emission reductions.

So, much like the feds or a state might give you, Bret, $7,500 to buy an electric car in tax rebate. They incentivizing you to buy an electric car to have lower emissions. The state did the same thing, the state of California did the same thing for dairies and beef operations and so on, financially incentivizing the reduction of emissions.

So, if you reduce methane, and particularly in a sizable way, then the state will give you credits for it, and that has done the job. We are very close to achieving this very ambitious 40% methane reduction goal in the state of California. We are supposed to reduce 7.2 million metric tons of methane by 2030. 7.2 million metric tons.

So far, we at 5 million metric tons. 

Bret: 
In what timeframe? What’s the timeframe? 

Frank: 
We are now as, of 2025, we are now at 5 million metric ton reduction and by the year 2030, we need to be at 7.2. So, we are already two-thirds along the way of reaching a 40% methane reduction goal. Why is that important?

First of all, it’s important because it broke nobody’s banks. Okay, so people were able to do this in a way that didn’t break the bank. In fact, in many cases, it added an additional income stream by people building anaerobic digesters, capping manure-derived gases, and particular, methane, cleaning that up and making it into transportation fuels for heavy duty trucks, buses, and so on.

So, this is the model that we are using in California. it’s called anaerobic digestion. Our cows are also becoming more efficient. We are producing more and more milk with a cow every year, and that has led to a slight shrinkage of our dairy cow herd by 0.5% per year. So, our dairy herd is shrinking by 0.5% per year, and that has also impacts on emissions. Fewer cows, fewer emissions.

By 2030, by the year 2030, two of my colleagues and I have released a report and we’ve published it in the scientific literature. By 2030, we will achieve more than the 7.2 million metric tons, anywhere between 7.6 to 10.6. This is a unprecedented success that our industry has achieved through working with the University of California, working with our agencies.

Without that happening, it wouldn’t have been possible. So, I have news for those people who think there’s something wrong with academicians working with industry. There is no other way than academicians working with industry because that’s how we get the knowledge from the campus of some of the best universities in the world into the real world.

That is exactly the way that works. And this is a model that’s not just appreciated by some, it’s appreciated by our farming sector. They trust us to do research that arrives at techniques, technologies that work in the real world. 

Bret: 
And will this be scalable? Do you think this will be scalable? 

Frank: 
Yes, absolutely, it’s absolutely scalable. It doesn’t mean that what we do here in California is scalable to, let’s say, a country like India. So in India, they would have to do different things. But we know that strong methane reductions have a tremendous impact on warming because methane is a different type of gas compared to CO2 compared to other greenhouse gases.

In so far, that methane is the only one that’s short-lived, okay? Methane is not just produced by sources, but methane is also naturally destroyed by a process in the atmosphere called oxidation. And if you manage to reduce this gas through dairy digesters or through feed additives that you feed to animals, that reduces what comes out the front end.

If you reduce methane, you reduce warming. It’s not just that you have less warming, but you actually reduce warming. If you reduce methane by something like 30 or 40%, 30% is enough over 20 years to not cause an industry to have any additional warming. No more additional warming if you achieve something like a 0.3% reduction of methane per year.

So, I repeat that because it’s so important, if a farm reduce 0.3% methane per year, then that means this farm is climate neutral. It does not add additional warming because then, what the farm replenishes in methane and what is naturally destroyed are in balance. This is like balancing out your account, okay?

You’re spending versus income. So, that’s what happens when you reduce methane by 0.3%, and that’s very possible. And we are seeing it here in California. And if it’s possible here. It’s possible elsewhere as well. We have the strongest dairy industry in the United States. We’re producing 20% of our dairy products here in this state.

And if it’s doable with our scale, it’s doable anywhere. 

Bret: 
So, I think this is important for perspective. So, a 0.3% reduction in methane has that impact. Now, how would you compare that to a 0.3 reduction in carbon dioxide? Because of the difference in how long they’re lived in the environment and the recycling.

Frank: 
So, that’s a great question. Any emissions of CO2. Every time we drive a car, truck, train, plane, ship, every time we do, we add additional warming. Because once the CO2 is in the atmosphere, it stays there for a thousand years. Once methane is in the atmosphere, it stays there for about one decade, and then it’s gone.

So, CO2 is cumulative. Every time we burn oil, coal and gas, we add new CO2 to the atmosphere. So, every time, Bret, that you’ve ever driven a car or flown someplace or so, CO2 was emitted, is still in the atmosphere and stay there pretty much forever. It will not go away. But the same is not true for a cow.

If you were a dairyman, then the methane produced by your cows 10 years ago would now be gone and replenished by the cows you have today, okay? But the methane from 10 years ago would be gone, whereas CO2 emissions that you released by driving a car 10 years ago. They’re all still in the atmosphere, and they will stay there forever.

Yeah, big difference. 

Bret:
 That’s a very good perspective. So, I want to circle back to that analysis of the five different diets. I realize I didn’t follow up on that when you said there was no difference in many different factors. I think you’re talking about water usage and land usage and so much more.

And the only difference was a small difference in emissions. What was there not a difference in the various different diets that they evaluated? 

Frank: 
So, in the first report, the EAT-Lancet 1.0, they looked at these different categories of environmental impacts, biodiversity and climate and several others.

And they looked across these different diets, one of them being  EAT-Lancet. And then the other one’s pescatarian, vegan, vegetarian, and so on versus a business as usual, the omnivore diet, that’s currently prevalent. And I was very surprised because the differences, the numerical differences across the diets, were minimal, okay?

They were just minimal. And the only one that I found was different was the climate impact category. And so to me, that was mind-blowing because what I had read, particularly in the media, okay? And I have to say, particularly in the media, I had not heard that as much touted from the commissions, the EAT commissions, as I did hear it from all these outlets that I talked about.

This is the diet you need to eat to save the world from a changing climate, and it’s also better for your health. That’s what I heard everywhere, and I’m sure that you did as well. So, what I don’t know because I didn’t drill in enough into this, what I don’t know is if that was orchestrated from EAT and the major offices within EAT, or whether that was the media just taken it off and whether it was them just running with it.

I don’t know that. 

Bret: 
Okay. I really appreciate you joining me to provide this perspective, which is so crucial. And I hope people really listen to this and take heart to help put this  EAT-Lancet report into perspective. And I know, you’re very active on a number of channels.

So, if people want to learn more about you and read more about your thoughts and your work, where can we direct them to go? 

Frank: 
Yeah, I’m the Director of what’s called the CLEAR Center at UC Davis, and that’s a sustainability center doing research and communications around issues, such as the ones we’re discussing here today.

There’s a block on our webpage and YouTube channels and explainers really important. For example, if you want to know what soil carbon sequestration is or how cows form methane or why it matters, all of that is explained there. So, clear.ucdavis.edu is our webpage, and my handle on Twitter and other social medias, GHGGuru.

Bret: 
Great. Thank you again. I really appreciate all your work and appreciate you coming on to share your knowledge with everybody. Thanks, again. 

Frank: 
You’re most welcome. Thank you for having me. 

Bret: 
Thanks for listening to the Metabolic Mind Podcast. If you found this episode helpful, please leave a rating and comment as we’d love to hear from you.

And please click the subscribe button so you won’t miss any of our future episodes. And you can see full video episodes on our YouTube page at Metabolic Mind. Lastly, if you know someone who may benefit from this information, please share it as our goal is to spread this information to help as many people as possible.

Thanks again for listening, and we’ll see you here next time at The Metabolic Mind Podcast.