Nutritionism in a food policy context: the case of ‘animal protein’

Reductionist approaches to food focus on isolated nutritional criteria, ignoring the broader physiological and societal benefits trade-offs involved. They can lead inadvertent or, potentially, intentional labelling of foods as good or bad. Both be considered worrisome. Among our present-day array issues is disproportionate stigmatisation animal-source harmful for human planetary health. The case a protein transition reinforces this trend, overemphasising one particular constituent (even if an important one). In its strongest formulation, (reduced notion ‘animal protein’) are represented intrinsically category that needs minimised, thereby falsely assuming ‘proteins’ nutritionally interchangeable. We caution against using word ‘protein’ in policy-making describe heterogenous set foods. Rather, we suggest referring said ‘protein-rich foods’, while acknowledging expanded pool non-protein nutrients they provide their unique capabilities support much range bodily functions. Several essential otherwise beneficial generally more bioavailable than plant-source A similar complementarity exists reverse. Nutritional environmental metrics should carefully interpreted, considerable contextuality This undertaken, instance, with respect biochemistry light individual genetically inherited physiology. Also, assessments impact need fine-grained approach, especially when examining product at system scale. Harms multiple, multi-dimensional, difficult measure basis narrow sets descriptive often used (e.g. CO2-eq/kg). appropriate way forward would consist combining integrating best animal plant solutions reconnect wholesome nourishing diets rooted undervalued such conviviality shared traditions, thus steering away from nutrient-centric dogma. Humans do not consume nutrients, foods, so part culturally complex dietary patterns that, despite complexity, policy making.