Nutritionism in a food policy context: The case of 'animal protein'

Abstract

Reductionist approaches to food focus on isolated nutritional criteria, ignoring the broader physiological and societal benefits and trade-offs involved. They can lead to the inadvertent or, potentially, intentional labelling of foods as good or bad. Both can be considered worrisome. Among our present-day array of issues is the disproportionate stigmatisation of animal-source foods as harmful for human and planetary health. The case for a protein transition reinforces this trend, overemphasising one particular nutritional constituent (even if an important one). In its strongest formulation, animal-source foods (reduced to the notion of 'animal protein') are represented as an intrinsically harmful food category that needs to be minimised, thereby falsely assuming that 'proteins' are nutritionally interchangeable. We caution against using the word 'protein' in food policy-making to describe a heterogenous set of foods. Rather, we suggest referring to said foods as 'protein-rich foods', while acknowledging the expanded pool of non-protein nutrients that they provide and their unique capabilities to support a much broader range of bodily functions. Several essential or otherwise beneficial nutrients are generally more bioavailable in animal-source foods than in plant-source foods. A similar complementarity exists in reverse. Nutritional and environmental metrics should be carefully interpreted, as considerable contextuality is involved. This needs to be undertaken, for instance, with respect to the biochemistry of food and in light of individual and genetically inherited human physiology. Also, the assessments of the environmental impact need a fine-grained approach, especially when examining a product at the system scale. Harms and benefits are multiple, multi-dimensional, and difficult to measure on the basis of the narrow sets of descriptive metrics that are often used (e.g. CO 2-eq/kg). A more appropriate way forward would consist of combining and integrating the best of animal and plant solutions to reconnect with wholesome and nourishing diets that are rooted in undervalued benefits such as conviviality and shared traditions, thus steering away from a nutrient-centric dogma. Humans do not consume isolated nutrients, they consume foods, and they do so as part of culturally complex dietary patterns that, despite their complexity, need to be carefully considered in food policy making.

Full text

SPECIAL ISSUE: ADSS 2021 | PERSPECTIVES ON ANIMAL BIOSCIENCES
https://doi.org/10.1071/AN21237
Nutritionism in a food policy context: the case of ‘animal
protein’
Frédéric LeroyA,* , Ty BealB,C, Pablo GregoriniD, Graham A. McAuliffeE and Stephan van VlietF
For full list of author affiliations and
declarations see end of paper
*Correspondence to:
Frédéric Leroy
Industrial Microbiology and Food
Biotechnology (IMDO), Faculty of Sciences
and Bioengineering Sciences,
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2,
B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
Email: frederic.leroy@vub.be
Handling Editor:
James Hills
Received: 30 April 2021
Accepted: 10 December 2021
Published: 21 February 2022
Cite this:
Leroy F et al. (2022)
Animal Production Science
doi:10.1071/AN21237
© 2022 The Author(s) (or their
employer(s)). Published by
CSIRO Publishing.
This is an open access article distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-ND).
OPEN ACCESS
ABSTRACT
Reductionist approaches to food focus on isolated nutritional criteria, ignoring the broader
physiological and societal benefits and trade-offs involved. They can lead to the inadvertent or,
potentially, intentional labelling of foods as good or bad. Both can be considered worrisome.
Among our present-day array of issues is the disproportionate stigmatisation of animal-
source foods as harmful for human and planetary health. The case for a protein transition
reinforces this trend, overemphasising one particular nutritional constituent (even if an
important one). In its strongest formulation, animal-source foods (reduced to the notion of
‘animal protein’) are represented as an intrinsically harmful food category that needs to be
minimised, thereby falsely assuming that ‘proteins’ are nutritionally interchangeable. We caution
against using the word ‘protein’ in food policy-making to describe a heterogenous set of foods.
Rather, we suggest referring to said foods as ‘protein-rich foods’, while acknowledging the
expanded pool of non-protein nutrients that they provide and their unique capabilities to
support a much broader range of bodily functions. Several essential or otherwise beneficial
nutrients are generally more bioavailable in animal-source foods than in plant-source foods. A
similar complementarity exists in reverse. Nutritional and environmental metrics should be
carefully interpreted, as considerable contextuality is involved. This needs to be undertaken, for
instance, with respect to the biochemistry of food and in light of individual and genetically
inherited human physiology. Also, the assessments of the environmental impact need a fine-
grained approach, especially when examining a product at the system scale. Harms and benefits
are multiple, multi-dimensional, and difficult to measure on the basis of the narrow sets of
descriptive metrics that are often used (e.g. CO
2
-eq/kg). A more appropriate way forward
would consist of combining and integrating the best of animal and plant solutions to reconnect with
wholesome and nourishing diets that are rooted in undervalued benefits such as conviviality and
shared traditions, thus steering away from a nutrient-centric dogma. Humans do not consume
isolated nutrients, they consume foods, and they do so as part of culturally complex dietary
patterns that, despite their complexity, need to be carefully considered in food policy making.
Keywords: dairy, eggs, livestock, meat, plant-based, poultry, vegan, vegetarian.
Introduction
Nutritional scientism,or nutritionism, is the reductionist notion that food should be valued
for its individual parts rather than the broader benefits offered, not only with respect to
nourishment and health, but also regarding pleasure, i.e. hedonics and eudemonics, and
cultural significance (Scrinis 2013; Carstairs 2014), in addition to other important
community and ecosystem benefits (Horrocks et al. 2014; Provenza et al. 2021). As
such, it condenses dietary advice to statements relating to a few favoured nutrients that
are perceived as beneficial or benign (e.g. dietary fibre) or harmful (e.g. saturated fat).
In reality, it is far more complicated than good versus bad nutrients, given that overall
diet quality, quantity, food source, lifestyle and unique needs of individuals will play a
major role in dictating health outcomes and whether a certain food or nutrient is

F. Leroy et al. Animal Production Science
‘problematic’ or not. The basic nature of nutritionism
decontextualises, simplifies and exaggerates the role of
nutrients in human health and tends to conceal concerns
related to food production and processing quality (Scrinis
2013). Nutritionism does not leave only the broader
dietary context unaddressed, it also ignores, or downplays,
conflicting scientific findings related to the nutrients it
focusses on. This results in simplistic interpretations of their
roles in bodily health and the illusion of nutritional and
biomarker determinism (based on one-to-one, cause-and-
effect relationships; Scrinis 2013). For instance, saturated fat
comprises a suite of individual fatty acids with different
physiological impacts on low-density lipoprotein
cholesterol (Grundy 1994; Micha and Mozaffarian 2010),
thereby providing a clear, contrasting example of simplified
perspectives on nutrition. As a result, normal components of
wholesome diets, including foods that contain saturated fat,
can be unfairly portrayed as de facto unhealthy (Binnie et al.
2014; Gershuni 2018). Nutritionism thus manifests itself
by oversimplifying complex science while simultaneously
appealing to scientific authority to increase persuasiveness
of its key messages, subsequently forcing public health
authorities, consumer organisations, and the food industry
into a fractured working paradigm (Jacobs and Orlich 2014).
In the context of biopolitics, such nutritionism in action cannot
only have unintended ethical implications for individual
responsibility and freedom, but also lead to iatrogenic harm
or other harmful impacts on societal wellbeing (Mayes and
Thompson 2015).
A striking example of such a counterproductive approach is
the excessive projection of contemporary dietary challenges
on the notion of protein transition. The latter implies that
the human population should shift to diets that restrict
‘animal protein’ (described usually with connotations of
environmental- and health-related harm) and fill in the
deficit with ‘plant protein’, often framed as ‘plant-based
alternatives’ (Willett et al. 2019). There are many valid
reasons, such as aforementioned concerns for health and the
environment, to rethink contemporary diets (e.g. Western
consumption patterns frequently involve high intakes of
unhealthy foods), potentially leading to shifts in animal:
plant ratios. However, we argue that naive binary and
reductionist approaches that wish to resolve our food
system’s problems by simply arguing for a maximised
replacement of animal protein by ‘plant protein’ hold no
merit due to the overwhelming complexity of (a) the global
food system and its (agricultural) constraints and (b) the
human digestive system and metabolism. Eventually, this
may cause more harm than benefit by ignoring many other
food-related sustainability issues, such as the potential
health (Hall et al. 2019; Costa de Miranda et al. 2021)
and environmental impact of excessive ultra-processed food
production and intake (Fardet and Rock 2020; Seferidi
et al. 2020), the protection of national economies and local
livelihoods, and the cultural relationships with foods,
including those of animal origin (Leroy and Praet 2015).
To sum up, nutritionism substantially oversimplifies the
nutritional and environmental implications of a far-reaching
protein transition.
Motivated by dangers of nutritional mis- and dis-
information spreading, particularly given the rapid power
of transmission via social media platforms, the present
article explores unintended pitfalls of nutritionism approach
related to the qualifier ‘animal protein’, hence pre-empting
unhelpful conclusions and policies such a school of thought
may result in.
Misleading category descriptors
Within dietary policy making and its intention to shift global
diets, the denomination based on a single nutrient (i.e.
protein) is often used to indicate much broader nutritional
categories contained in animal and plant foods, despite
each category being highly heterogeneous and biochemically
complex to begin with. For example, each individual nutrient’s
potential uptake by humans, known as bioavailability, varies
depending on the product carrying the said nutrient (e.g.
protein), the individual’s nutrient status, the over- or under-
supply of a given nutrient in an individual’s diet, the dietary
pattern in which a given nutrient is consumed, and many
other factors such as genetics, which affect how nutrients are
absorbed and metabolised (Gibson et al.2006; Beal et al.
2017). For instance, several nutrients in animal-source foods
(e.g. amino acids, zinc, iron), tend to be more bioavailable
than when they are obtained from plant foods (Ertl et al.
2016), which is sometimes due to the presence of anti-
nutrients in plant foods, such as phytates (Gilani et al.2012;
Gibson et al. 2018). Describing animal-source foods or plants
primarily as protein foods is especially noticeable in English
scientific literature and policy documents, but is now also
becoming more widespread globally. Whether either
category is net harmful or beneficial (and should be
consumed less or more) depends on the type of food, where
and how it is produced, how it is prepared and consumed,
and who is consuming it (and in the context of what diet), at
which stage of life, in which condition of health, and in
which socio-cultural foodscapes. While this certainly
complicates food policy messaging, these factors need to be
carefully considered in policy making.
As outlined elsewhere, there are various cultural and
historical reasons to explain why this complexity has
been narrowed down to the simplistic animal–plant divide
we are currently experiencing (Leroy and Hite 2020; Leroy
et al. 2020). This divide may be more related to social
dynamics and anxieties of the urban centres of the West
than to actual physiological or environmental considerations.
As such, the terminology of animal protein has become
commonplace for either the defence (e.g. Imai et al. 2014;
B

www.publish.csiro.au/an Animal Production Science
Thorisdottir et al. 2014; Eilert 2020; Yuan et al. 2021)or
stigmatisation of animal-source foods in the context of
health and/or sustainability (e.g. Tharrey et al. 2018; Sabaté
et al. 2015; Chung et al. 2020; Huang et al. 2020; Zhao
et al. 2020).
Although, as a nutrient, protein is certainly one of the
cornerstones of food security worldwide, with 1 billion
people being estimated to have inadequate intake (Wu
et al. 2014), the argument for deep systemic change with
protein as a main target overlooks the many other roles and
contributions of food, whether it be biological (e.g. provision
of lesser-discussed micronutrients such as iron, selenium
and zinc), socio-economical (e.g. maintaining animals as
economic assets or for familial prestige or farm work), or
cultural (e.g. religious significance, gastronomic legacy and
regional identities). Ideally, food policy should be a holistic
assessment of nourishment, livelihoods, ecology and culture,
rather than a narrow attempt to create a measurable change
in a specific nutrient through the use of specific levers (taxes,
dietary guidelines, etc.) In reality, the role of what is described
as ‘protein’ is one that also touches on such significant
community aspects, including ethnicity, religion and educa-
tion (Drewnowski et al.2020). Nutricentric policies, therefore,
undermine the multiple other ways humans engage with and
understand food (Scrinis 2013).
Below, we will specifically focus on the nutritional
and environmental implications of a nutritionism-driven
outlook on the place of animal-source foods in dietary
change, without assuming that the other societal aspects
mentioned above would be of lesser importance.
Nutritional implications
The substitution of plant protein for animal protein comes
with several nutritional constraints. A first point of
attention is that the interchangeability of animal and plant
proteins on a per mass basis is not straightforward. Not
only should both the amounts and the spectrum of essential
amino acids be considered, but differences in protein
digestibility can also create considerable variation in
protein value. Although the latter effect can be attenuated
through more intense processing, as for pea protein isolate
compared with cooked peas (Rutherfurd et al. 2015), the
digestibility of plant protein is often reduced due to structural
resistance, fibre and anti-nutritional factors (Wolfe et al.
2018; Sá et al. 2020). Animal-source foods are highly
digestible while generally offering amino acids that may
otherwise be in short supply, leading to a higher whole body
(Park et al. 2021) and skeletal muscle anabolic response (van
Vliet et al. 2015) than do plant proteins.
While food policy reports often discuss animal and
plant proteins as being exchangeable (Willett et al. 2019;
WBCSD 2020), plant proteins consistently show a reduced
anabolic potential when considered both in terms of ounce-
equivalents (Park et al. 2021) and as gram-for-gram protein
comparisons (Wilkinson et al. 2007; Phillips 2012; Gorissen
et al. 2016). Therefore, such narrative assumes that all
proteins are equal and exchangeable, which they are not. It
is only at very high intakes (likely 35–60 g per meal;
Phillips 2012; Yang et al. 2012; Gorissen et al. 2016)or
>1.6 g protein/kg bodyweight.day (Hevia-Larraín et al.
2021) that the anabolic potential between protein-rich
plant and animal foods may become comparable, although
mixed meal feeding (animal sources complemented with
plant sources) can overcome the lower anabolic potential of
plant sources (Reidy et al. 2013). The dose-responsiveness
issue is not trivial, as it is often stated that we eat too much
protein (Fontana and Partridge 2015; Longo et al. 2015),
and that policy targets, such as the RDA value, recommend
a daily intake of 0.8 g per kg body weight (Institute of
Medicine 2002). Although the latter can be considered as a
minimal level for protein intake to avoid deficiency and
loss of lean body mass in healthy young adults, it is not
necessarily optimal and is considered insufficient for certain
populations (Layman 2009; Phillips et al. 2020). Many could
benefit from substantially higher protein intakes to increase
or maintain lean body mass, reduce fat mass, and maintain
good health (Tagawa et al. 2021). This is especially valid
for individuals with elevated needs, such as, pregnant and
lactating women, the elderly, the acutely or chronically
diseased, athletes, and others who are looking to increase
skeletal muscle (Bauer et al. 2013; Semba et al. 2016;
Traylor et al. 2018; Groenendijk et al. 2019; Rasmussen
et al. 2020; Merono˜ et al. 2021).
Second, the protein transition policy framework creates a
disproportionate focus on protein a such. Yet, one should bear
in mind that protein-rich foods, largely regardless of being
animal- or plant-based, are not just providing protein, but
also offer a wide range of other essential nutrients, and
thereby have unique capabilities to support a much broader
range of bodily functions. For example, animal-source foods
are optimal sources (in terms of density) of commonly
lacking micronutrients globally, which can have severe
impacts on health and wellbeing, including iron, vitamin A,
zinc, folate, vitamin B12 and calcium (Beal et al. 2021;
White et al. 2021). Several essential or otherwise beneficial
nutrients are generally more bioavailable in
animal-source foods than in plant-source foods (e.g. zinc,
iron, vitamin A, omega-3 fatty acids, protein) or (nearly)
exclusively available in animal-source foods (e.g. vitamin
B12, dietary vitamin D, creatine, carnosine, taurine, anserine).
To make the determination of a single, optimally sustainable
source of protein even more complicated, a similar nutritional
complementarity exists in reverse. Namely, certain plant-based
proteins, particularly unprocessed or minimally processed
sources, provide fibre, phytochemicals, and several micronutri-
ents (e.g. vitamin C, vitamin E, magnesium and manganese)
that are more difficult to obtain from animal-derived foods
C

F. Leroy et al. Animal Production Science
(Zhu et al.2018; Päivärinta et al.2020). It should also be
noted that while animals can provide organic fertiliser,
leguminous plants such as white clover can replenish soils with
nitrogen through atmospheric fixation, further demonstrating
the complexities, but also the complementarities, of a sustain-
able food system; namely; the answer is not black and
white and various food producers need to work together to
ensure circularity and maximisation of resource utilisation.
This suggests that an appropriate complementary balance
between animal and plant foods may offer the most holistic
benefits and robust dietary angle, whereby protein is just
part of the equation, albeit an important one.
Third, a potential concern with respect to the protein
transition relates to the heavily promoted option of plant-
based imitation products that are aiming to displace animal
protein forms (e.g. meat, dairy and eggs). While increased
consumption of minimally processed legumes and pulses
has been associated with improved health in Western diet
patterns (Richter et al. 2015), some authors have cautioned
against extending this finding to novel plant-based (meat)
imitation products (Hu et al. 2019). Several plant-based
imitation products can be categorised as processed-
reconstituted foods with little direct relation to whole
foods, being made from refined or extracted ingredients
thereof, in addition to synthesised chemicals (Scrinis 2013).
Some imitation products correspond broadly to the
category of ultraprocessed foods, a dietary group that is
associated with the westernisation of diets and consists of
‘branded, convenient (durable, ready-to-consume), attractive
(hyper-palatable) and highly profitable (low-cost ingredients)
food products‘ (cf. Monteiro et al. 2018). As a larger category,
and acknowledging that there is considerable heterogeneity
within that group and often issues of confounding (Scrinis
2013), ultra-processed foods have been associated with
health disorders (Costa de Miranda et al. 2021; Ostfeld and
Allen 2021; Zhang et al. 2021) and are known to increase
daily ad libitum calorie intake (Hall et al. 2019), while
some of their specific constituents raise concern on a more
mechanistic basis. It is only recently that we have begun to
consider the possibility that several food additives, typically
considered safe, could also have less measurable effects on
health via modulation of the gut microbiota. This seems to be
the case for emulsifiers and texturisers (Halmos et al. 2019),
trehalose (Collins et al. 2018) and artificial sweeteners (Suez
et al. 2014). A multitude of such additives is required for
food engineering purposes, because of the many difficulties
associated with the mimicking of complex animal-source
food matrices starting from plant protein isolates, starches,
and/or refined oils that lack the proper flavour, colour and
texture. There is a historical parallel with highly processed
spreads, which were aiming to imitate butter (and ultimately
to be ‘better’ than the original, or hyper-real), but required
various additives to simulate the appearance, taste, texture,
and nutrient profile of the original (Scrinis 2013). This is
probably also the reason why the presented solutions are
offered as fast-food products, rather than wholesome foods,
as the latter are still too challenging to imitate. Yet, the
concern goes beyond these specific additives; is what is
conventionally assessed as safe, through toxicological
assessment, not overlooking more subtle and long-term
effects on human health? Or, are the highly engineered
foods that are now presented as alternatives for traditional
protein-source foods sufficiently robust to form the basis for
a mass dietary transition, which would consist of replacing
foods such as meat, legumes, nuts, eggs, fish and dairy, all
of which have been part of human diets for millennia, by
very recent fabrications with no historical validation of
providing human sustenance? This does not imply that
there is no potential place for such products in current and
future food choices, especially for those people preferring
to minimise their intake of foods from animal origin. Initial
work suggests that plant-based imitations of animal source
foods can be part of healthy omnivorous diets (e.g. Gardner
et al. 2007; Toribio-Mateas et al. 2021), while their ability
to promote positive or negative impacts is likely to depend
on individual nutrient profiles and the background diet in
which these are consumed (Satija et al. 2017). However,
what we do suggest is that their widespread incorporation
in food systems as one-to-one replacements for animal-
source foods, which provide vastly different nutrient
profiles when viewed beyond nutritional reductionism, may
have to be looked on with scrutiny. In the current confusing
marketing landscape, better information is needed to help
consumers understand how and if plant-based imitations
may support healthy sustainable diets (Kraak 2021).
Environmental implications
The first major implication that reductionist views have on
environmental footprints of agri-food systems pertains to
the fact that assessments of the environmental impacts of
individual foods or composite diets are usually based on
product (or diet)-level comparisons of certain subjectively
defined metrics, either in combination (e.g. multi-impact
category life cycle assessment (LCA) and, more recently, the
choice of nutrients in density scores, McAuliffe et al. 2020)
or isolation (e.g. carbon footprint). In terms of comparative
scaling factors, known in LCA jargon as ‘functional units’,it
is most common to adopt such functional units as, for
example, kilograms liveweight or tonnes per hectare in the
case of greenhouse-gas emissions for animal- and plant-
based products respectively, at the farmgate exit (usually
reported as kg CO
2
-eq). In the case of total land use or
agricultural land use, the denominator is typically hectares
or square metres. Perhaps of more concern, burdens to
nature are often scaled on the basis of basic nutritional
metrics such as total protein (Moughan 2021), which omits
complexities such as amino acid balances. These simplistic
D

www.publish.csiro.au/an Animal Production Science
scaling factors are ideal for comparisons of systems that
produce products with similar nutritive value; however, when
the nutritional quantity and quality varies considerably,
which is often the case when comparing plant-source foods
to animal-source foods, a more robust consideration of
human nutrition is required to determine how much of a
given product is needed to satisfy daily requirements
compared with another product with different nutritive
properties (Beal et al. 2021). While it is important to bear
in mind that the ‘greater’ carbon footprint of nutritious
foods and beverages can, in certain circumstances, be
somewhat offset by a greater nutritional value and/or supply
of nutraceutical properties such as the anti-inflammatory
benefits of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (Smedman et al.
2010; Drewnowski et al. 2015; McAuliffe et al. 2018, 2020),
it is also of critical importance to note that these product- or
diet-level relative-ranking reversals and/or impact off-setting
are heavily dependent on the assumptions underlying each
model. Therefore, such assumptions need to be tested
robustly to determine how sensitive model conclusions are
to subjective decision-making. For protein, in particular,
the nutritional differences in amino acid composition and
digestibility can have a considerable impact on the environ-
mental comparisons (Tessari et al. 2016; Marinangeli and
House 2017; Sonesson et al. 2017; Moughan 2021).
A second consideration is that a narrow focus on CO
2
-eq
and land use per unit of nutrition (even on the hypothetical
condition that this would be properly expressed) risks
overlooking various contextual factors (Smith et al. 2021).
This is related to the use of global averages masking large
regional and even local variations in efficiency, a difference in
global warming between CO
2
from fossil fuels and biogenic
methane from ruminants, poor suitability of marginal
land for crop agriculture, often failing to account for soil
carbon stock changes (for better or worse), the amount of
existing woodland on a farm, which will be actively capturing
carbon from the atmosphere, lack of accountancy for
co-products, etc. Although external input-dependent livestock
systems often come with an important environmental impact
(reduction of biodiversity, invasion of crop-producing
lands, feed production from vast monocultures, disruption
of nutrient cycles, etc.) that needs to be addressed, an
inconsiderate and drastic switch to plant-based alternatives
would create its own trade-offs.
Sustainably produced crops can obviously offer a valuable
alternative when it comes to some of the more destructive
practices in animal agriculture. However, it can as well be
postulated that, in other cases, monoculture-based systems,
typically used for the mass production of mainstream plant-
based alternatives, would lead to a food production system
that makes the planet worse off than the one obtained with
holistically managed low-input livestock, particularly in the
context of diversified farming systems (Kremen and Miles
2012; Petersen-Rockney et al. 2021). Often it is a matter of
adapting the most appropriate agricultural system to the
local context, rather than imposing a generalised top-down
choice away from animal agriculture. Moreover, the system
does not need to be binary; rotation-based options, offering
the best of both worlds, so to speak, with the nitrogen
being fixed from leguminous crops and the nutrients being
deposited by grazing animals go some way to naturally
replenish soils, sequester carbon, and reduce reliance on
fossil fuels for the production of inorganic fertiliser
(Kronberg et al. 2021). Indeed, natural ecosystems have
evolved with a diversity of plants, animals and micro-
organisms, each playing a unique role in the system. If
managed properly, building biodiversity and integrating
animals into agricultural systems can provide numerous
ecological services and thus improve the sustainability and
resilience of food production, while producing numerous
ecosystem services and ensuring profits for farmers
(Kremen and Miles 2012; LaCanne and Lundgren 2018;
Fenster et al. 2021).
Conclusions
We argue that diets need to combine the best of animal and
plant solutions by re-emphasising wholesome diets as a
shared experience of nourishing conviviality, steering away
from ultra-processed foods and nutrient-centric dogma, and
by tailoring agricultural production to the ecological assets
and constraints of each region. Whereas nutritionism is
often a food corporation-serving instrument, a food quality
paradigm would couple scientific analysis to guidance by
personal engagement, practical and cultural knowledge, and
traditional dietary patterns, without necessarily romanticis-
ing them (cf. Scrinis 2013). Depending on the context, this
may imply that animal:plant ratios are altered, but decision-
making should at all times resist the oversimplification of
this problematic binary categorisation (Smith et al. 2021).
Moreover, we contend that animal-source foods should not
be reduced to the quantity of protein they provide, but
rather appreciated for their high density in numerous
bioavailable nutrients, many of which are difficult to obtain
in adequate quantities through plant-source foods alone and
vice versa. We, therefore, caution against using the word
‘proteins’ in food policy making to describe a heterogenous
set of foods in the human diet. Rather, we suggest referring
to said foods as ‘protein-rich foods’, while acknowledging
the expanded pool of non-protein nutrients that they
provide and their unique capabilities to support a much
broader range of bodily functions and health outcomes.
References
Bauer J, Biolo G, Cederholm T, Cesari M, Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Morley JE,
Phillips S, Sieber C, Stehle P, Teta D, Visvanathan R, Volpi E, Boirie
Y (2013) Evidence-based recommendations for optimal dietary
protein intake in older people: a position paper from the PROT-AGE
E

F. Leroy et al. Animal Production Science
Study Group. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 14,
542–559. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2013.05.021
Beal T, Massiot E, Arsenault JE, Smith MR, Hijmans RJ (2017) Global
trends in dietary micronutrient supplies and estimated prevalence
of inadequate intakes. PLoS ONE 12, e0175554. doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0175554
Beal T, White JM, Arsenault JE, Okronipa H, Hinnouho G-M, Murira Z, et
al. (2021) Micronutrient gaps during the complementary feeding
period in South Asia: a comprehensive nutrient gap assessment.
Nutrition Reviews 79(Supplement_1), 26–34. doi:10.1093/nutrit/
nuaa144
Binnie MA, Barlow K, Johnson V, Harrison C (2014) Red meats: time
for a paradigm shift in dietary advice. Meat Science 98, 445–451.
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.024
Carstairs C (2014) ‘Our sickness record is a national disgrace’: Adelle
Davis, nutritional determinism, and the anxious 1970s. Journal of the
History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 69, 461–491. doi:10.1093/
jhmas/jrs057
Chung S, Chung M-Y, Choi H-K, Park JH, Hwang J-T, Joung H (2020)
Animal protein intake is positively associated with metabolic
syndrome risk factors in middle-aged Korean men. Nutrients 12,
3415. doi:10.3390/nu12113415
Collins J, Robinson C, Danhof H, Knetsch CW, van Leeuwen HC, Lawley
TD, Auchtung JM, Britton RA (2018) Dietary trehalose enhances
virulence of epidemic Clostridium difficile. Nature 553, 291–294.
doi:10.1038/nature25178
Costa de Miranda R, Rauber F, Levy RB (2021) Impact of ultra-processed
food consumption on metabolic health. Current Opinion in Lipidology
32,24–37. doi:10.1097/MOL.0000000000000728
Drewnowski A, Rehm CD, Martin A, Verger EO, Voinnesson M, Imbert P
(2015) Energy and nutrient density of foods in relation to their carbon
footprint. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 101, 184–191.
doi:10.3945/ajcn.114.092486
Drewnowski A, Mognard E, Gupta S, Ismail MN, Karim NA, Tibère L,
Laporte C, Alem Y, Khusun H, Februhartanty J, Anggraini R,
Poulain J-P (2020) Socio-cultural and economic drivers of plant and
animal protein consumption in Malaysia: the SCRiPT study.
Nutrients 12, 1530. doi:10.3390/nu12051530
Eilert SJ (2020) The future of animal protein: feeding a hungry world.
Animal Frontiers 10,5–6. doi:10.1093/af/vfaa033
Ertl P, Knaus W, Zollitsch W (2016) An approach to including protein
quality when assessing the net contribution of livestock to human
food supply. Animal 10, 1883–1889. doi:10.1017/S175173111
6000902
Fardet A, Rock E (2020) Ultra-processed foods and food system
sustainability: what are the links?. Sustainability 12, 6280. doi:10.3390/
su12156280
Fenster TLD, LaCanne CE, Pecenka JR, Schmid RB, Bredeson MM,
Busenitz KM, et al. (2021) Defining and validating regenerative
farm systems using a composite of ranked agricultural practices
[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. Food1000Research 10, 115.
doi:10.12688/f1000research.28450.1
Fontana L, Partridge L (2015) Promoting health and longevity
through diet: from model organisms to humans. Cell 161, 106–118.
doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.02.020
Gardner CD, Messina M, Kiazand A, Morris JL, Franke AA (2007) Effect of
two types of soy milk and dairy milk on plasma lipids in
hypercholesterolemic adults: a randomized trial. Journal of the
American College of Nutrition 26, 669–677. doi:10.1080/07315724.
2007.10719646
Gershuni VM (2018) Saturated fat: part of a healthy diet. Current Nutrition
Reports 7,85–96. doi:10.1007/s13668-018-0238-x
Gibson RS, Perlas L, Hotz C (2006) Improving the bioavailability of
nutrients in plant foods at the household level. Proceedings of the
Nutrition Society 65, 160–168. doi:10.1079/PNS2006489
Gibson RS, Raboy V, King JC (2018) Implications of phytate in plant-
based foods for iron and zinc bioavailability, setting dietary
requirements, and formulating programs and policies. Nutrition
Reviews 76, 793–804. doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuy028
Gilani GS, Wu Xiao C, Cockell KA (2012) Impact of antinutritional factors
in food proteins on the digestibility of protein and the bioavailability
of amino acids and on protein quality. British Journal of Nutrition 108,
S315–S332. doi:10.1017/S0007114512002371
Gorissen SHM, Horstman AMH, Franssen R, Crombag JJR, Langer H,
Bierau J, Respondek F, van Loon LJC (2016) Ingestion of wheat
protein increases in vivo muscle protein synthesis rates in healthy
older men in a randomized trial. The Journal of Nutrition 146,
1651–1659. doi:10.3945/jn.116.231340
Groenendijk I, den Boeft L, van Loon LJC, de Groot LCPGM (2019) High
versus low dietary protein intake and bone health in older adults: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Computational and Structural
Biotechnology Journal 17, 1101–1112. doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2019.
07.005
Grundy SM (1994) Influence of stearic acid on cholesterol metabolism
relative to other long-chain fatty acids. The American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition 60, 986S–990S. doi:10.1093/ajcn/60.6.986S
Hall KD, Ayuketah A, Brychta R, Cai H, Cassimatis T, Chen KY, et al.
(2019) Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight
gain: an inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food
intake. Cell Metabolism 30,67–77.e3. doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2019.
05.008
Halmos EP, Mack A, Gibson PR (2019) Review article: emulsifiers in the
food supply and implications for gastrointestinal disease. Alimentary
Pharmacology & Therapeutics 49,41–50. doi:10.1111/apt.15045
Hevia-Larraín V, Gualano B, Longobardi I, Gil S, Fernandes AL, Costa LAR,
et al. (2021) High-protein plant-based diet versus a protein-matched
omnivorous diet to support resistance training adaptations: a
comparison between habitual vegans and omnivores. Sports Medicine
51, 1317–1330. doi:10.1007/s40279-021-01434-9
Horrocks CA, Dungait JAJ, Cardenas LM, Heal KV (2014) Does
extensification lead to enhanced provision of ecosystems services from
soils in UK agriculture? Land Use Policy 38, 123–128. doi:10.1016/
j.landusepol.2013.10.023
Hu FB, Otis BO, McCarthy G (2019) Can plant-based meat alternatives
be part of a healthy and sustainable diet? JAMA 322, 1547–1548.
doi:10.1001/jama.2019.13187
Huang J, Liao LM, Weinstein SJ, Sinha R, Graubard BI, Albanes D (2020)
Association between plant and animal protein intake and overall and
cause-specific mortality. JAMA Internal Medicine 180, 1173–1184.
doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2790
Imai E, Tsubota-Utsugi M, Kikuya M, Satoh M, Inoue R, Hosaka M, Metoki
H, Fukushima N, Kurimoto A, Hirose T, Asayama K, Imai Y, Ohkubo T
(2014) Animal protein intake is associated with higher-level
functional capacity in elderly adults: the Ohasama study. Journal of
the American Geriatrics Society 62, 426–434. doi:10.1111/jgs.12690
Institute of Medicine (2002) Dietary reference intakes for energy,
carbohydrate, fiber, fat, fatty acids, cholesterol, protein, and amino
acids. (The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine). Available at https://www8.nationalacademies.org/
onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s10490
Jacobs Jr DR, Orlich MJ (2014) Diet pattern and longevity: do simple rules
suffice? A commentary. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 100,
313S–319S. doi:10.3945/ajcn.113.071340
Kraak VI (2021) Perspective: Unpacking the wicked challenges for
alternative proteins in the United States: can highly processed
plant-based and cell-cultured food and beverage products support
healthy and sustainable diets and food systems? Advances in
Nutrition, nmab113. doi:10.1093/advances/nmab113
Kremen C, Miles A (2012) Ecosystem services in biologically diversified
versus conventional farming systems: benefits, externalities, and
trade-offs. Ecology and Society 17, 40. doi:10.5751/ES-05035-170440
Kronberg SL, Provenza FD, van Vliet S, Young SN (2021) Review: closing
nutrient cycles for animal production – current and future
agroecological and socio-economic issues. Animal 15, 100285.
doi:10.1016/j.animal.2021.100285
LaCanne CE, Lundgren JG (2018) Regenerative agriculture: merging
farming and natural resource conservation profitably. PeerJ 6,
e4428. doi:10.7717/peerj.4428
Layman DK (2009) Dietary Guidelines should reflect new understandings
about adult protein needs. Nutrition & Metabolism 6, 12. doi:10.1186/
1743-7075-6-12
Leroy F, Hite AH (2020) The place of meat in dietary policy: an
exploration of the animal/plant divide. Meat and Muscle Biology 4,
2. doi:10.22175/mmb.9456
Leroy F, Praet I (2015) Meat traditions. The co-evolution of humans and
meat. Appetite 90, 200–211 doi:10.1016/j.appet.2015.03.014
F

www.publish.csiro.au/an Animal Production Science
Leroy F, Hite AH, Gregorini P (2020) Livestock in evolving foodscapes
and thoughtscapes. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4, 105.
doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.00105
Longo VD, Antebi A, Bartke A, Barzilai N, Brown-Borg HM, Caruso C, et al.
(2015) Interventions to slow aging in humans: are we ready? Aging Cell
14, 497–510. doi:10.1111/acel.12338
Marinangeli CPF, House JD (2017) Potential impact of the digestible
indispensable amino acid score as a measure of protein quality on
dietary regulations and health. Nutrition Reviews 75, 658–667.
doi:10.1093/nutrit/nux025
Mayes CR, Thompson DB (2015) What should we eat? Biopolitics, ethics,
and nutritional scientism. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 12, 587–599.
doi:10.1007/s11673-015-9670-4
McAuliffe GA, Takahashi T, Lee MRF (2018) Framework for life cycle
assessment of livestock production systems to account for the
nutritional quality of final products. Food and Energy Security 7,
e00143. doi:10.1002/fes3.143
McAuliffe GA, Takahashi T, Lee MRF (2020) Applications of nutritional
functional units in commodity-level life cycle assessment (LCA) of
agri-food systems. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
25, 208–221. doi:10.1007/s11367-019-01679-7
Mero˜no T, Zamora-Ros R, Hidalgo-Liberona N, Rabassa M, Bandinelli S,
Ferrucci L, et al. (2021) Animal protein intake is inversely
associated with mortality in older adults: the InCHIANTI study. The
Journals of Gerontology: Series A, glab334. doi:10.1093/gerona/
glab334
Micha R, Mozaffarian D (2010) Saturated fat and cardiometabolic risk
factors, coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes: a fresh look at
the evidence. Lipids 45, 893–905. doi:10.1007/s11745-010-3393-4
Monteiro CA, Cannon G, Moubarac J-C, Levy RB, Louzada MLC, Jaime PC
(2018) The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and
the trouble with ultra-processing. Public Health Nutrition 21,5–17.
doi:10.1017/S1368980017000234
Moughan PJ (2021) Population protein intakes and food sustainability
indices: the metrics matter. Global Food Security 29, 100548.
doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100548
Ostfeld RJ, Allen KE (2021) Ultra-processed foods and cardiovascular
disease: where do we go from here?. Journal of the American College
of Cardiology 77, 1532–1534. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2021.02.003
Päivärinta E, Itkonen ST, Pellinen T, Lehtovirta M, Erkkola M, Pajari A-M
(2020) Replacing animal-based proteins with plant-based proteins
changes the composition of a whole Nordic diet: a randomised clinical
trial in healthy Finnish adults. Nutrients 12, 943. doi:10.3390/
nu12040943
Park S, Church DD, Schutzler SE, Azhar G, Kim I-Y, Ferrando AA, Wolfe RR
(2021) Metabolic evaluation of the dietary guidelines’ ounce
equivalents of protein food sources in young adults: a randomized
controlled trial. The Journal of Nutrition 151, 1190–1196. doi:10.1093/
jn/nxaa401
Petersen-Rockney M, Baur P, Guzman A, Bender SF, Calo A, Castillo F,
et al. (2021) Narrow and brittle or broad and nimble? Comparing
adaptive capacity in simplifying and diversifying farming systems.
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5, 56. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2021.
564900
Phillips SM (2012) Nutrient-rich meat proteins in offsetting age-related
muscle loss. Meat Science 92, 174–178. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.
04.027
Phillips SM, Paddon-Jones D, Layman DK (2020) Optimizing adult protein
intake during catabolic health conditions. Advances in Nutrition 11,
S1058–S1069. doi:10.1093/advances/nmaa047
Provenza FD, Anderson C, Gregorini P (2021) We are the Earth and the
Earth is us: how palates link foodscapes, landscapes, heartscapes,
and thoughtscapes. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5, 547822.
doi:10.3389/fsufs.2021.547822
Rasmussen B, Ennis M, Pencharz P, Ball R, Courtney-Martin G, Elango R
(2020) Protein requirements of healthy lactating women are higher
than the current recommendations. Current Developments in Nutrition
4, 653. doi:10.1093/cdn/nzaa049_046
Reidy PT, Walker DK, Dickinson JM, Gundermann DM, Drummond MJ,
Timmerman KL, et al. (2013) Protein blend ingestion following
resistance exercise promotes human muscle protein synthesis. The
Journal of Nutrition 143, 410–416. doi:10.3945/jn.112.168021
Richter CK, Skulas-Ray AC, Champagne CM, Kris-Etherton PM (2015)
Plant protein and animal proteins: do they differentially affect
cardiovascular disease risk? Advances in Nutrition 6, 712–728.
doi:10.3945/an.115.009654
Rutherfurd SM, Fanning AC, Miller BJ, Moughan PJ (2015) Protein
digestibility-corrected amino acid scores and digestible
indispensable amino acid scores differentially describe protein
quality in growing male rats. The Journal of Nutrition 145, 372–379.
doi:10.3945/jn.114.195438
Sá AGA, Moreno YMF, Carciofi BAM (2020) Food processing for the
improvement of plant proteins digestibility. Critical Reviews in Food
Science and Nutrition 60, 3367–3386. doi:10.1080/10408398.2019.
1688249
Sabaté J, Sranacharoenpong K, Harwatt H, Wien M, Soret S (2015) The
environmental cost of protein food choices. Public Health Nutrition
18, 2067–2073. doi:10.1017/S1368980014002377
Satija A, Bhupathiraju SN, Spiegelman D, Chiuve SE, Manson JE, Willett
W, et al. (2017) Healthful and unhealthful plant-based diets and the
risk of coronary heart disease in US adults. Journal of the American
College of Cardiology 70, 411–422. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.05.047
Seferidi P, Scrinis G, Huybrechts I, Woods J, Vineis P, Millett C (2020) The
neglected environmental impacts of ultra-processed foods. The Lancet
Planetary Health 4, e437–e438. doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30177-7
Scrinis G (2013) ‘Nutritionism: the science and politics of dietary advice.’
(Colombia University Press: New York, NY, USA)
Semba RD, Shardell M, Sakr Ashour FA, Moaddel R, Trehan I, Maleta KM,
et al. (2016) Child stunting is associated with low circulating essential
amino acids. EBioMedicine 6, 246–252. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.
02.030
Smedman A, Månsson HL, Drewnowski A, Edman A-KM (2010) Nutrient
density of beverages in relation to climate impact. Food & Nutrition
Research 54, 5170. doi:10.3402/fnr.v54i0.5170
Smith NW, Fletcher AJ, Hill JP, McNabb WC (2021) Animal and plant-
sourced nutrition: complementary not competitive. Animal Production
Science, in press. doi:10.1071/an21235
Sonesson U, Davis J, Flysjö A, Gustavsson J, Witthöft C (2017) Protein
quality as functional unit: a methodological framework for inclusion
in life cycle assessment of food. Journal of Cleaner Production 140,
470–478. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.115
Suez J, Korem T, Zeevi D, Zilberman-Schapira G, Thaiss CA, Maza O,
Israeli D, Zmora N, Gilad S, Weinberger A, Kuperman Y, Harmelin
A, Kolodkin-Gal I, Shapiro H, Halpern Z, Segal E, Elinav E (2014)
Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut
microbiota. Nature 514, 181–186. doi:10.1038/nature13793
Tagawa R, Watanabe D, Ito K, Ueda K, Nakayama K, Sanbongi C,
Miyachi M (2021) Dose–response relationship between protein
intake and muscle mass increase: a systematic review and meta-
analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutrition Reviews 79,66–75.
doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuaa104
Tessari P, Lante A, Mosca G (2016) Essential amino acids: master
regulators of nutrition and environmental footprint? Scientific
Reports 6, 26074. doi:10.1038/srep26074
Tharrey M, Mariotti F, Mashchak A, Barbillon P, Delattre M, Fraser GE
(2018) Patterns of plant and animal protein intake are strongly
associated with cardiovascular mortality: the Adventist Health
Study-2 cohort. International Journal of Epidemiology 47, 1603–1612.
doi:10.1093/ije/dyy030
Thorisdottir B, Gunnarsdottir I, Palsson GI, Halldorsson TI, Thorsdottir I
(2014) Animal protein intake at 12 months is associated with growth
factors at the age of six. Acta Paediatrica 103, 512–517. doi:10.1111/
apa.12576
Toribio-Mateas MA, Bester A, Klimenko N (2021) Impact of plant-based
meat alternatives on the gut microbiota of consumers: a real-world
study. Foods 10, 2040. doi:10.3390/foods10092040
Traylor DA, Gorissen SHM, Phillips SM (2018) Perspective: protein
requirements and optimal intakes in aging: are we ready to
recommend more than the recommended daily allowance? Advances
in Nutrition 9, 171–182. doi:10.1093/advances/nmy003
van Vliet S, Burd NA, van Loon LJC (2015) The skeletal muscle anabolic
response to plant- versus animal-based protein consumption. The
Journal of Nutrition 145, 1981–1991. doi:10.3945/jn.114.204305
WBCSD (2020) Food and Agriculture Roadmap. Chapter: healthy
and sustainable diets. (World Business Council for Sustainable
G

F. Leroy et al. Animal Production Science
Development) Available at https://www.wbcsd.org/Programs/Food- Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1321(1), 1–19.
and-Nature/Food-Land-Use/FReSH/Resources/Food-Agriculture-
Roadmap-Chapter-on-Healthy-and-Sustainable-Diets
White JM, Beal T, Arsenault JE, Okronipa H, Hinnouho G-M, Chimanya K,
et al. (2021) Micronutrient gaps during the complementary feeding
period in 6 countries in eastern and southern Africa: a comprehensive
nutrient gap assessment. Nutrition Reviews 79(Supplement_1), 16–25.
doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuaa142
Wilkinson SB, Tarnopolsky MA, MacDonald MJ, MacDonald JR,
Armstrong D, Phillips SM (2007) Consumption of fluid skim milk
promotes greater muscle protein accretion after resistance exercise
than does consumption of an isonitrogenous and isoenergetic
soy-protein beverage. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 85,
1031–1040. doi:10.1093/ajcn/85.4.1031
Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et
al. (2019) Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on
healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet 393, 447–492.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
Wolfe, R.R., Baum JI, Starck C, Moughan PJ (2018) Factors contributing
to the selection of dietary protein food sources. Clinical Nutrition 37,
130–138. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2017.11.017
Wu G, Fanzo J, Miller DD, Pingali P, Post M, Steiner JL, Thalacker-Mercer
AE (2014) Production and supply of high-quality food protein
for human consumption: sustainability, challenges, and innovations.
doi:10.1111/nyas.12500
Yang Y, Churchward-Venne TA, Burd NA, Breen L, Tarnopolsky MA,
Phillips SM (2012) Myofibrillar protein synthesis following
ingestion of soy protein isolate at rest and after resistance exercise
in elderly men. Nutrition & Metabolism 9, 57. doi:10.1186/1743-
7075-9-57
Yuan M, Pickering RT, Bradlee ML, Mustafa J, Singer MR, Moore LL
(2021) Animal protein intake reduces risk of functional impairment
and strength loss in older adults. Clinical Nutrition 40, 919–927.
doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2020.06.019
Zhang Z, Jackson SL, Martinez E, Gillespie C, Yang Q (2021) Association
between ultraprocessed food intake and cardiovascular health in US
adults: a cross-sectional analysis of the NHANES 2011–2016. The
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 113, 428–436. doi:10.1093/
ajcn/nqaa276
Zhao H, Song A, Zheng C, Wang M, Song G (2020) Effects of plant protein
and animal protein on lipid profile, body weight and body mass index
on patients with hypercholesterolemia: a systematic review and meta-
analysis. Acta Diabetologica 57, 1169–1180. doi:10.1007/s00592-020-
01534-4
Zhu F, Du B, Xu B (2018) Anti-inflammatory effects of phytochemicals
from fruits, vegetables, and food legumes: a review. Critical Reviews
in Food Science and Nutrition 58, 1260–1270. doi:10.1080/10408398.
2016.1251390
Data availability. Data sharing is not applicable as no new data were generated or analysed during this study.
Conflicts of interest. FL is a non-remunerated board member of various academic non-profit organisations including the Belgian Association for Meat Science
and Technology (President), the Belgian Society for Food Microbiology (Secretary), and the Belgian Nutrition Society. On a non-remunerated basis, he also has a
seat in the scientific committee of the Institute Danone Belgium, the Scientific Board of the World Farmers’ Organization, and the Advisory Commission for the
‘Protection of Geographical Denominations and Guaranteed Traditional Specialties for Agricultural Products and Foods’ of the Ministry of the Brussels Capital
Region. PG is an Associate Editor of Animal Production Science but was blinded from the peer-review process for this paper. SvV reports financial renumeration for
academic talks, but does not accept honoraria, consulting fees, or other personal income from food industry groups/companies. All authors consume omnivorous
diets.
Declaration of funding. FL acknowledges financial support of the Research Council of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, including the SRP7 and IOF3017 projects,
and in particular the Interdisciplinary Research Program ‘Tradition and naturalness of animal products within a societal context of change’ (IRP11). GM is funded by
Soil to Nutrition (S2N), Rothamsted Research’s Institute Strategic Programme supported by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and Biotechnology and Biological
Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) (BBS/E/C/000I0320). SvV grant support by SvV reports grant support from USDA-NIFA-SARE (2020-38640-31521;
2021-67034-35118), the North Dakota beef commission, the Turner Institute of Ecoagriculture, the Dixon Foundation, and the Greenacres Foundation for
projects that link agricultural production systems (including livestock and crops) to the nutritional/metabolite composition of foods and human health. PG
and FL acknowledge financial support of the project ‘Grazing for environmental and human health’ funded by the New Zealand Royal Society’s Catalyst
Seeding Fund.
Author affiliations
AIndustrial Microbiology and Food Biotechnology (IMDO), Faculty of Sciences and Bioengineering Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels,
Belgium.
BGlobal Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), Washington, DC 20036, USA.
CDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
DDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, Faculty of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Lincoln University, PO Box 85084, Lincoln 7647 Christchurch, New Zealand.
ESustainable Agriculture Sciences, Rothamsted Research, North Wyke, Okehampton, EX20 2SB, UK.
FDepartment of Nutrition, Dietetics, and Food Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA.
H

www.publish.csiro.au/an Animal Production Science
Frédéric Leroy graduated as a Bioengineer (Ghent University, 1998) and obtained a PhD in Applied Biological
Sciences at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB, 2002), Belgium, where he now holds a professorship in food
science and (bio)technology. His research deals with the production, technology, microbiology, and
nutritional aspects of various foods, with a particular focus on animal-source foods. He is also involved in
interdisciplinary research and cultural food studies.
Ty Beal is a Research Advisor on the Knowledge Leadership team at the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition
(GAIN), where he generates evidence to guide programs and mobilise knowledge related to global nutrition
and food systems. His research seeks to understand what people eat, why, how it impacts their health, and how
to sustainably improve diets and human health. He holds a PhD from the University of California, Davis, where
he was a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow.
Pablo Gregorini is Professor of Livestock Production at Lincoln University, Director of the Lincoln University
Pastoral Livestock Production Lab, and Head of the Lincoln University Centre of Excellence for Designing
Future Productive Landscapes. Internationally, he chairs the International Scientific Advisory Committee
for the Symposium of Nutrition of Herbivores, and serve in the International Scientific Committee for farm
systems design. His research focus is on nutrition, foraging ecology and grazing management of ruminants
in different grasslands and rangelands of the world, as well as how phytochemistry and culture once
linked the palates of humans and herbivores with soil, plants and landscapes.
Graham A. McAuliffe is an Environmental Scientist with a background in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and
Systems Thinking. His career focus to date has largely centred on methodological improvements to LCA,
including the quantification of uncertainties and the consideration of foods’ nutritional composition and
quality within the burgeoning field of nutritional LCA (or nLCA). His experience pertaining to nLCA,
which is arguably still in its infancy, has resulted in being invited to consult on a number of national and
international projects and ventures. Most recently, he was involved in an international report on nLCA
commissioned by UNs’ FAO.
S. van Vliet is an Assistant Professor in the Center for Human Nutrition Studies at Utah State University. Dr
Stephan van Vliet earned his PhD in Kinesiology as an ESPEN Fellow from the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, and received training at Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine and Duke
University School of Medicine. Dr van Vliet's research is performed at the nexus of agricultural and human
health. He routinely collaborates with farmers, ecologists, and agricultural scientists to study critical
linkages between agricultural production methods, the nutrient density of food, and human health.
I