According to a new study co-authored by a Tulane University researcher and published in the journal Nature Food, making simple substitutions like switching from beef to chicken or drinking plant-based milk instead of cow’s milk could reduce the average American’s carbon footprint from food by 35%, while also boosting diet quality by between 4-10%, according to the study.

These findings highlight the potential of a “small changes” approach that researchers believe could encourage more consumers to adopt climate-friendly eating habits. Food production accounts for 25-33% of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions with beef production being a primary contributor.

“This study shows that cutting dietary carbon emissions is accessible and doesn’t have to be a whole lifestyle change,” said Diego Rose, senior author and nutrition program director at Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine. “It can be as simple as ordering a chicken burrito instead of a beef burrito when you go out to eat. When you’re at the grocery store, move your hand one foot over to grab soy or almond milk instead of cow’s milk. That one small change can have a significant impact.”

The study, which analyzed diet data from over 7,700 Americans, identified commonly eaten foods with the highest climate impact and simulated replacing them with nutritionally similar, lower-emission options.

“For us, substitutes included swapping a beef burger for a turkey burger, not replacing your steak with a tofu hotdog,” said Anna Grummon, lead author and assistant professor of pediatrics and health policy at Stanford University. “We looked for substitutes that were as similar as possible.”

The largest projected reductions in emissions were seen in mixed dishes: burritos, pastas and similar popular dishes where it’s easy to substitute a lower-impact protein instead of beef.

The study expanded on past research by including dietary data for children. Whereas it may be more effective for an adult to focus on protein swaps, Grummon said switching children to plant-based milk can have a “meaningful impact on the carbon footprint” and help start positive habits earlier.

Identifying healthy alternatives to high-carbon foods was not the intent of the study. And yet, swapping to lower carbon foods showed “sizable improvements in how healthy the diets were.”

While these substitutes are not intended as a cure-all for climate objectives or personal health goals, they are evidence that small changes can have a large impact.

“There is overlap between sustainable diets and healthy diets,” Grummon said. “Our study shows that changing just one ingredient, making one swap, can be a win-win, resulting in meaningful changes in both climate outcomes and how healthy our diets are.”

Other co-authors of the study included Cristina Lee and Thomas Robinson of Stanford University and Eric Rimm of Harvard University.

The post Study shows simple diet swaps can cut carbon emissions and improve your health appeared first on Pharmacy Update Online.

As the use of medication increases, the problem of pollution and associated environmental impact grows as well. Pharmaceutical residues in urine and faeces are increasingly released into the environment via municipal wastewaters, posing risks to both public health and ecosystems.

Therefore, determining who should manage risks and bear the cost for more advanced wastewater treatment is a critical question. In the European Union, the guiding principle is that the polluter should pay, but researchers at CARe conclude that it would be more reasonable to let costs be borne by water consumers or taxpayers rather than pharmaceutical companies.

The European Union is expected to impose requirements for more efficient removal of pharmaceuticals at all major municipal treatment plants in Europe. Companies manufacturing medicines are often identified as those who should bear the cost, following the “polluter pays” principle. However, researchers at CARe highlight both ethical and practical limitations with this principle.

Who is the true polluter?

The core of the “polluter pays” principle is simple yet powerful: those causing pollution should bear the financial and administrative responsibility to counteract it. This not only encourages responsible behaviour, but it also seems fair that those contributing to creating a problem also contribute to its solutions. However, a crucial challenge is to identify the true polluter.

Pharmaceuticals are different from most other goods. Supranational systems approve them, states subsidize them, and regional councils and doctors decide on prescriptions before individuals can use them. Both society and individual consumers demand pharmaceuticals and thus contribute to emissions in different ways. Therefore, the justification for placing the burden of potential sewage purification solely on the manufacturer of a medicine can be questioned.

Significant societal consequences

If pharmaceutical companies are compelled to bear the costs of advanced sewage treatment, there is a substantial risk that, for purely economic reasons, they would rather refrain from selling medications in a given region. It is often challenging to replace a medication with a specific active substance with another more environmentally friendly one without jeopardizing patient benefit.

“The consequences of sales halts would, in many cases, be devastating for national healthcare. On average, it takes more than a decade for a new medicine to reach the market, and it often costs more than one billion euro. Developing “green” pharmaceuticals is thus not a viable solution, except perhaps in the very long term,” says Professor Joakim Larsson, Centre director of CARe.

Balancing responsibility and sustainability

Researchers at CARe propose a hybrid framework to balance responsibility and sustainable pharmaceutical supply and usage. This framework combines the “polluter pays” principle with a “capacity principle,” according to which complex collective problems should be addressed by actors that have the financial and practical capabilities to handle them without causing excessively negative consequences for others. Within the hybrid framework, it matters less who causes the problem, and the focus is on solutions.

Upgrading sewage treatment plants to better remove pharmaceutical residues could then be a viable strategy. The importance of preserving access to clinically important medications justifies distributing the costs of upgrades among water consumers and/or taxpayers.

The post Taxpayers should foot the bill if EU demands efficient removal of pharmaceuticals from wastewaters appeared first on Pharmacy Update Online.