The relentless marketing, alternately promoting weight loss drugs and foods that lean toward making us fat, wasn’t aimed at the elite athletes strutting their stuff on the world stage. It’s a safe bet they didn’t achieve the peak of human fitness on a diet of pizza and french fries. It’s equally doubtful they require injections of the GLP-1 class of drugs to manage their weight.

Nope, those commercials are aimed at the couch potatoes back home, subjecting us to both temptation and a shortcut to redemption as we bear witness to these feats of human endurance.

These athletes deserve our admiration and respect, but to be fair to the rest of us, most working stiffs don’t have the time, the drive or the resources to devote full-time to the pursuit of extreme fitness.

So we’re left swinging between food-culture extremes, the effects of which filter back through the food chain to the farm. Consider for a moment how the food industry is twisting itself into a pretzel trying to understand how these drugs will affect consumer demand.

Firstly, these products reduce appetites, which means people eat less — so much so that it’s more difficult for them to meet their nutritional needs. It’s also now known that one of the unintended consequences of rapid weight loss is a loss of muscle.

Lately, the focus has shifted to how to support consumers in their post-GLP-1 phase as users move away from the drugs due to factors such as costs or side effects. Recent studies are indicating the weight they lost bounces back four times faster than weight lost through traditional diet and exercise.

That has shifted attention to creating low-calorie, nutrient-dense foods, with a particular emphasis on protein.

How does this affect farmers’ bottom line? Some analysts have pointed to the protein craze as one reason record-high beef prices haven’t had the same dampening effect on demand that they might have in the past.

It’s also creating some longer-term shifts in pricing and production.

A recent Farm Credit Canada analysis outlined how this plays out for dairy farmers, to cite one example. A decade ago, they were told they needed to produce milk with a higher proportion of butterfat, which led to shifts in pricing, genetics and feeding strategies to accommodate.

Now, demand is tipping back to protein, leading marketing boards to once again adjust pricing formulas to incentivise a higher ratio of protein in the milk supply. Change comes at a cost, and those costs eventually find their way into the price of food.

“Does this protein craze have staying power? It will take years and successive generations of breeding to shift the herd towards higher-protein-lower butterfat-producing animals,” FCC economist Graeme Crosbie asked in his article.

That’s a good question. Looking back over the countless extreme approaches grabbing headlines in recent generations — the Atkins Diet, keto, low-fat, high-fat, cabbage, carnivore, meatless, vegan, California, intermittent fasting, anti-ultra processed — to name a few — many have caused food-sector pivots, but ultimately, most had limited staying power.

Remember the Atkins Diet of the early 2000s? Industry statistics show that at its peak, pasta consumption dropped eight per cent and bread by up to 40 per cent.

Meanwhile, food manufacturers responded with a major investment in hundreds of low-carb food products, many of which flourished only briefly.

The jury is still out on the plant-based protein craze, touted as healthier for people and the planet. However, many of the early plant-based products are languishing in the marketplace because of their high cost and blah taste. That industry is reportedly regrouping in a bid to up the flavour profile and rebalance costs.

There are already signs that the GLP-1 drugs are losing their shine. They no doubt still have a place but many are discovering they aren’t the panacea those advertisements make them out to be.

Farmers busy with the day-to-day business of growing food ingredients can’t afford to farm the fads. But it’s still wise to monitor these changing consumer behaviours to find the common threads — such as protein, nutrition and a move away from ultra-processed foods.

Understanding how the middle ground between the different extremes might be shifting gives farmers the upper hand when making strategic investments in their operations.

The post Producers must tread carefully when food fads come calling appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

U.S. flour production totalled 21.3 million tonnes in 2025, down 0.9 per cent from 2024 levels, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

That is the smallest output in 14 years.

Things are trending differently in Canada, where mills produced 2.68 million tonnes of wheat flour in 2025, a 7.7 per cent increase over 2024 levels.

The Canadian National Millers Association was contacted for this story but did not respond in time to meet publication deadlines.

DTN lead analyst Rhett Montgomery thinks the slowdown in U.S. flour production is linked to a relatively recent fad.

“You continue to see a dietary move away from wheat,” he said.

Gluten intolerance is on the rise and so are wheat-free diets, but he isn’t ringing the alarm just yet.

“I don’t know if I’d be overly concerned,” Montgomery said during a recent DTN webinar.

“Bread and wheat have been the cornerstone of food and human consumption for thousands of years.”

Greg Horstmeier, DTN’s editor-in-chief, said what might be a cause for concern is the newly published Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which placed meat protein at the top of the pyramid and grains at the very bottom.

“It’s kind of a complete 180 from what we saw as a recommended food pyramid in the past,” he said.

“We’ll have to see how that changes things, whether that alters this (gluten-free) trend even more.”

WHY IT MATTERS: The dietary guidelines form the foundation of federal nutrition programs.

Horstmeier just returned from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s annual convention.

“They were certainly happy with where meat is on that food pyramid,” he said.

The same can’t be said for the country’s millers, who in a recent press release called the new pyramid a “major shift” in the government’s approach to nutrition.

The guidelines de-emphasize whole grain consumption, calling for two to four servings a day compared to six to 11 servings in the original food pyramid introduced in 1992.

The guidelines also call for Americans to significantly reduce the consumption of highly processed refined carbohydrates, such as white bread, ready-to-eat or packaged breakfast meals, flour tortillas and crackers.

The document refers to refined grains as “sugar in disguise.”

The North American Millers’ Association (NAMA) said milled grains have been foundational to diets and health for centuries.

“NAMA urges the administration to look more closely at the beneficial role that fortified and enriched grains play in supplying critical nutrients like fiber, iron, and folate,” the organization said in the press release.

“Stigmatizing grain foods as highly processed undermines U.S. farmers and the high-quality, American-grown products they make possible.”

NAMA said it will be lobbying in support of all grain foods as the U.S. administration implements the new dietary guidelines in federal nutrition programs in the coming years.

The National Association of Wheat Growers called the guidelines “unintentionally confusing.”

“Wheat, wheat flour and foods made from wheat have been nutrient-rich, life-sustaining staples for tens of thousands of years and deserve clear, continued support as a central part of our nation’s diet,” NAWG said in a press release.

The post Flour production slumps in the U.S., increases in Canada appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

While we — a group of nutritional scientists — have been involved in this kind of research, we are not responsible for the headlines. Underneath those attention-grabbing stories, however, there is important and serious research that will help to keep us all happier and healthier.

We study parts of foods called bioactives that have an effect on health (either good or bad). Unlike vitamins and minerals, bioactives, such as certain fatty acids, fibre or flavanols (a group of compounds found, for example, in tea or apples), are not essential for survival but still affect our health.

The big challenge with research on bioactives is to separate the effect of a food from an individual compound (foods are incredibly complex and contain many compounds). In a cup of coffee are some phenolic acids that have a positive effect on heart health, but other compounds that can increase cholesterol. This makes our research difficult — but also exciting.

We must find ways to distinguish between the health effect of different parts of foods to understand what is happening and ultimately provide more confidence in the recommendations we provide.

One way to find out more about the effect of individual foods on health is to compare people with different diets and follow them over a long time. That approach has helped us to show that the Mediterranean diet — and the Nordic diet — keep us healthier for longer. But this approach is flawed when we want to find out more about individual foods or their components.

Foods are never consumed in isolation and it is incredibly difficult to take this apart in such studies. To make the results of such research easier to understand, these findings are often converted into food equivalents — the infamous punnet (or small grocery-packaged basket) of raspberries, cups of tea or bottles of wine you should consume for health. In reality, it is much more difficult.

Research into diet and health is difficult because there are many things to consider. There are the essential nutrients that we need to survive. There are dietary patterns that can affect overall health and that are the basis for recommendations, such as the U.K. government’s Eatwell guide. And then there are bioactive compounds that are found mainly in plant foods and that may have a beneficial effect on health.

Research into bioactives often results in headlines about amazing foods. In reality, it is just a tiny part of the food, often found elsewhere as well. A notable example is blueberries. They contain bioactives, but they are also expensive. Blackberries and plums provide the same bioactives, but are much cheaper.

Over the past decades, we have learned a lot about the chemicals naturally occurring in foods — what they are and how they affect the body. Some of them confer benefits for our heart, brain and gut that will help us sprint faster, cycle longer, concentrate harder and relax more easily.

Many of them cause problems when consumed in excessive amounts though. For example, green tea flavanols can cause liver damage when consumed in very large amounts. We are only just starting to find out whether there is an ideal amount of these compounds that provides maximum benefits. Until then, it is safe to say that a varied diet is the best approach.

The great thing about our understanding of nutrition is that it is continuously evolving and improving and we understand much better what foods to look out for as research moves on.

Everyone should build up a sort of portfolio of diet that includes the essential nutrients, fibre and bioactives needed to keep healthy and age well. Our bodies are incredibly complex and need lots of different vitamins, minerals, macro- and micronutrients to optimally keep us going. It now seems likely that we need to add bioactives to this list. But it doesn’t matter where they are coming from — it is variety that is important.

You should be wary about dietary advice that suggests you exclude the range of wonderful foods on offer and focus on a few “superfoods” that seemingly have magical properties. Nutrition is much more complex than that, and eating a healthy diet is much easier.

Gunter Kuhnle, Charlotte Mills and Jeremy Spencer are nutritional scientists at the University of Reading. This article first appeared in The Conversation and is reprinted under Creative Commons.

The post Comment: Why you shouldn’t trust research pulling for a single ‘superfood’ appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Protecting children from unhealthy food products and fast-food chains has been the subject of many conversations. Ads for sugary food products geared towards children have been contested for years and some countries have opted to ban them, one way or another. The United Kingdom, the latest country to do so, has now banned TV advertising for food products high in fat, salt, and sugar between the hours of 5:30 a.m. and 9 p.m.

In Canada, there has already been an attempt to regulate ads aimed toward children. Bill S-228, known as the Child Health Protection Act, was introduced with the intention of restricting the marketing of food and beverage products high in salt, saturated fat and sugar to children aged 12 years and younger. However, Bill S-228 never received further consideration by the federal government due to the 2019 election. While Parliament has not done anything since, Health Canada has provided guidelines for industry to consider, and it is now examining new U.K. rules on advertising.

Meanwhile, our own food industry just recently released a ‘Code for the Responsible Advertising of Food and Beverage Products to Children.’ A coalition, which includes most major processors and restaurants in Canada, chose not to wait for Ottawa to regulate this advertising. The announcement mentions that the code exceeds Health Canada’s recommendations. Perhaps, but many Canadians have been skeptical of self-regulating proposals coming from industry. When it comes to public health issues, Canadians tend to trust governments more than industry.

There is some science to not wanting marketing to persuade young consumers. Recent developments in neuroscience have shown that younger children’s cognitive development prevents them from making rational decisions when watching advertising and can skew judgment on what products are desirable. And marketing is all about creating desires. Many countries have recognized this issue and have since regulated the industry. Mexico, Iran, Chile, and many European countries have regulated marketing practices for food products.

According to Statistics Canada, nearly a third of Canadian children are overweight or obese, and many suspect that the number of children who are obese in Canada may have gone up in recent months. Lockdowns and continuing public safety measures have kept many children away from organized sports and physical activities and put a toll on our youth’s overall health. This is one challenge our regulators will have to keep in mind, whether they decide to regulate advertising to children or not.

But regulating advertising to children is not as simple as one may think. First, television is not how most children take in information these days. Internet streaming services and social media are the main vehicles now used by many of us. Regulating anything on these platforms can be difficult. In 1980, Quebec imposed a ban on advertisements for toys and food aimed at children under 13 in print and electronic media. That ban has had mixed results since many people in the province will watch media content broadcasted from outside the province. Also, food companies now advertise to older children, which makes the 13-year-old threshold difficult to implement, in many social and commercial settings.

Bill C-10, aimed at updating Canada’s Broadcasting Act would have given Ottawa more power to regulate more popular internet streaming services, such as Amazon Prime, Disney Plus and Netflix. Compliance for any rules would be expected of everyone as it is right now for traditional broadcasters such as CTV, Global and private radio stations. Without any of this, regulating content of many media will be challenging, if not impossible. That is just the way it is today. But with an election looming, Bill C-10 may suffer the same fate as Bill S-228 and may never see the light of day.

Beyond regulations though, lies one of the most powerful tools we have when it comes to sound nutrition: education. Kids do not buy these products, but parents do. Given that children are highly vulnerable, parents should continue to act as gatekeepers of fridges and cupboards in their homes. It is critical we do not let parents off the hook in all of this, especially now. Industry will always innovate and be ahead of policy and regulations aimed at banning certain practices. When it comes to food, our best defence is good, responsible parenting.

Over time, as a society, we get to decide the rights and wrongs by asking governments to act. Misguided advertising aimed at children by the food industry may very well be one of these cases. But in the meantime, since industry has undoubtedly recognized that we have a problem by releasing its own code to limit advertising to children, we ought to give this a shot and see what happens over the next few years. But Ottawa should certainly put industry on notice. There is nothing more precious in our communities than our children.

The post Comment: The kids are not alright appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“Pulses are more than just nutritious seeds – they also contribute to achieving the goals of the 2030 Agenda of Sustainable Development,” the UN said in a release. “They play a critical role in addressing challenges of poverty, food security, soil health and climate change. These species provide many opportunities for improving the sustainability of agricultural production systems.”

A virtual event was held to highlight the day, bringing in industry and government officials to talk about pulse crops.

“Pulses play a key role in achieving better food systems. They are a source of safe and nutritious food for all and also contribute to the sustainability of agricultural production systems. Today we celebrate the role of this diverse and versatile commodity in addressing food security and contributing to healthy diets,” said Beth Bechdol, deputy director-general for the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

Pulses can also play a role in reducing poverty, promoting well-being of people and the planet, and achieving the far-reaching and people-centred set of universal and transformative goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, according to comments from Munir Akram, president of the UN Economic and Social Council and permanent representative of Pakistan to the UN.

The benefit of pulses in terms of food security, nutrition, sustainable agriculture and fighting climate change were also discussed during the event.

Pulses have many benefits, and these protein-, fibre- and mineral-rich leguminous crops are in the spotlight when featured in many dishes around the world, said the UN.

A number of chefs also took part in the event, noting the legumes are a part of the food culture, family traditions and diets of many people across the globe.

The post Pulse weekly outlook: World Pulses Day celebrated appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Responding Thursday to the report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the CCA said Canada’s beef production system is an “excellent example” of what the report described as a “resilient, sustainable and low-GHG (greenhouse gas) emission system.”

Specifically, the IPCC said, “Balanced diets, featuring plant-based foods, such as those based on coarse grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and animal-sourced food produced in resilient, sustainable and low-GHG emission systems, present major opportunities for adaption and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health.”

The CCA said research shows Canadian beef “has one of the lowest (GHG) footprints in the world, accounting for only 0.04 per cent of the world’s (GHG) emissions.”

In Canada alone, the CCA said, the beef industry chalks up 2.4 per cent of the country’s total GHG footprint while contributing $33 billion to the Canadian economy and storing “substantial amounts of carbon” in managed rangelands.

Canadian beef cattle also “help to preserve one of the world’s most endangered ecosystems,” the CCA said, quoting the World Wildlife Fund as saying half of the northern Great Plains have already been lost to cultivated agriculture.

The beef sector preserves wildlife habitats under threat from cultivation through “well-managed grazing” on uncultivated land, housing at-risk species such as the swift fox, sage grouse and monarch butterfly, the CCA added.

Land managed by beef producers provides habitat capacity for 68 per cent of wildlife on only 33 per cent of total agricultural area in Canada, the CCA added.

The IPCC report also calls for action on conservation, including protecting remaining grasslands from crop agriculture and restoring native grasslands to provide habitat and increase carbon storage, the CCA said.

‘Greater consumption’

That said, the IPCC report also notes “food system emissions are growing globally due to increasing population, income, and demand for animal-sourced products. Diets are changing on average toward greater consumption of animal-based foods, vegetable oils and sugar/sweeteners, with GHG emissions increasing due to greater amounts of animal-based products in diets.”

The report suggests that by 2050, “dietary changes” could free up several million square kilometres of land and provide “technical mitigation potential” of 0.7 to eight gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year “relative to business as usual projections.”

“Consumers certainly have the right to choose the food they eat,” the CCA said Thursday in response. “However, reducing meat consumption is not a solution to climate change. Research continues to show that reducing food waste will have a far larger impact on mitigating climate change.”

In Canada alone, the CCA said, “the estimate is that consumers waste 40 per cent of their food, much of which has been refrigerated and transported for great distances to get here.”

The IPCC report concurs that reducing food loss and waste will also help lower GHG emissions and “contribute to adaptation through reduction in the land area needed for food production.”

Toward that end, it lists technical options such as improving harvesting techniques, on-farm storage, infrastructure, transport, packaging, retail and education.

However, the report also cites projections out to 2050 from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization as showing “global-scale evidence that rebalancing diets is key to increasing the overall sustainability of food and agricultural systems worldwide.”

A 15 per cent reduction of animal products in the diets of high-income countries by 2050 would “contribute to containing the need to expand agricultural output due to upward global demographic trends,” the report said.

“Not only would GHG emissions and the pressure on land and water be significantly reduced but the potential for low-income countries to increase the intake of animal-based food, with beneficial nutritional outcomes, could be enhanced.”

‘Life cycle analysis’

In defense of ruminant livestock overall, the IPCC report also notes that “analyzing ruminant meat production is highly complex because of the extreme heterogeneity of production systems and due to the numerous products and services associated with ruminants.”

Often, the report notes, the cattle sector’s emissions are all allocated “only to human-edible meat and the boundaries are set only within the farm gate.”

But less than 50 per cent of slaughtered cattle weight is human-edible meat, the IPCC said, and one to 10 per cent is lost or incinerated, depending on a country’s rules around specified risk materials (SRMs) such as nervous system tissues.

The rest of the animal’s mass, the IPCC noted, provides inputs to “multiple” industries such as clothing, furniture, vehicle coating materials, biofuel, gelatin, soaps, cosmetics, pet foods, fertilizers and chemical and pharmaceutical industrial supplies.

In turn, the report said, “this makes ruminant meat production one of the most complex problems for LCA (life cycle analysis) in the food system.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Beef sector sees place in UN report’s lower-emission vision appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Although the report stopped short of explicitly advocating going meat-free, it called for big changes to farming and eating habits to limit the impact of population growth and changing consumption patterns on stretched land and water resources.

Plant-based foods and sustainable animal-sourced food could free up several million square kilometres of land by 2050 and cut 0.7 to eight gigatonnes a year of carbon dioxide equivalent, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said.

“There are certain kinds of diets that have a lower carbon footprint and put less pressure on land,” Jim Skea, professor at London’s Imperial College, said on Thursday.

The IPCC met this week in Geneva to finalize its report which should help to guide governments meeting this year in Chile on ways to implement the 2015 Paris Agreement.

“The IPCC does not recommend people’s diets… Dietary choices are very often shaped or influenced by local production practices and cultural habits,” Skea, who is one of the report’s authors, told reporters in Geneva.

Land can be both a source and sink of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, and better land management can help to tackle climate change, the IPCC said.

But it is not the only solution and cutting emissions from all sectors is essential to quickly curtail global warming.

“The window for making these changes is closing fast. If there is further delay in reducing emissions, we will miss the opportunity to successfully manage the climate change transition in the land sector,” it said.

Since the pre-industrial era, land surface air temperature has risen by 1.53 C, twice as much as the global average temperature (0.87 C), causing more heatwaves, droughts and heavy rain, as well as land degradation and desertification.

Human use directly affects more than 70 per cent of the global, ice-free land surface and agriculture accounts for 70 per cent of freshwater use, the IPCC added in the report.

Agriculture, forestry and other land use activities accounted for 23 per cent of total net man-made greenhouse gas emissions during 2007-2016. When pre- and post-production activity in the food system are included, that rises to up to 37 per cent.

Last year the IPCC’s first special report warned that keeping the Earth’s temperature rise to 1.5 C, rather than the 2 C target agreed under the Paris accord, required rapid change across society.

Food security

The IPCC warned of more disruption to global food chains as extreme weather becomes more frequent due to climate change and said environmental costs should be factored into food.

It projects a median increase of 7.6 per cent in cereal prices by 2050, meaning higher food prices and an increased risk of hunger.

While an estimated 821 million people are undernourished, changing consumption habits have already contributed to about two billion adults being overweight or obese.

Per capita supply of vegetable oils and meat has more than doubled based on data since 1961 but 25-30 per cent of total food produced is still lost or wasted.

Yields of crops such as maize and wheat have declined in some regions, while those of maize, wheat and sugar beets have increased in others in recent decades.

Forest factor

While forests can soak up heat-trapping gases from the atmosphere, desertification and deforestation can amplify warming due to the loss of vegetation cover and soil erosion.

Measures to cut emissions, such as the production of biofuels and biochar — made from biomass — as well as planting trees, will also increase demand for land conversion.

Reducing deforestation and forest degradation could result in a reduction of 0.4-5.8 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent, the report said.

The Amazon, about 60 per cent of which lies in Brazil, is sometimes called the “lungs of the world” due to the amount of CO2 it can absorb but it was not directly mentioned in the IPCC’s summary for policymakers.

Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro has supported opening up protected areas of the world’s largest tropical rainforest to facilitate agriculture and mining since taking office in January.

The report text is prepared by over 100 scientists but has to be approved by governments. In those discussions, Brazil and India were very active to protect their national agro-industrial interests, a source familiar with the talks said.

— Reporting for Reuters by Nina Chestney in London and Stephanie Nebehay in Geneva; additional reporting by Megan Rowling.

The post UN flags need to reduce meat consumption to curb land use impact on global warming appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

According to a recent study by Dalhousie University, nearly one in five Canadians have decided to either reduce the amount of meat they consume or have outright eliminated it from their diets. Add the fact that 63 per cent of the 6.4 million Canadians who purposely restrict the amount of animal protein they consume are aged 38 or under, it’s clear that the economic influence of the anti-meat movement can only increase. Scary thought for the steak houses out there.

But the food-service industry is showing it can adapt and be successful in an environment where demand for animal protein is becoming more fragmented. In fast food, A&W’s “Beyond Burger” is a good example. The item sold out a month after its release and was reportedly selling better, at many outlets, than the chain’s iconic Teen Burger. Its success is due to the principle of normalizing the offer. The “Beyond Burger” was just part of the regular menu, and tasted almost the same as other top sellers at the restaurant.

Even McDonald’s is adjusting. Anyone can go to an electronic kiosk inside of a McDonald’s restaurant and order a meatless Big Mac. They even have a picture of the product: it’s a bun, lettuce, tomato, sauce, and that’s it. No patty. Shocking when you think of how McDonald’s had positioned itself for decades as the première ambassador of the Canadian beef industry.

In fine dining, more restaurants are adding vegetarian and vegan options to their menus. Some cities like Toronto now have an entire district devoted to veganism. Fairs, festivals — hardly a week goes by without hearing about some event where a meatless world is showcased. Little more than 20 years ago, veganism was almost frowned upon. Today, it is often celebrated.

But given that one in five Canadians are restricting meat from their diet, odds are that at least one person in every social group or family is a vegan or vegetarian. Menus are much more inclusive now, since most dietary preferences tend to coexist. The other phenomenon worth noting is the whole concept of flexitarianism, or consumers who have consciously decided to reduce their meat consumption, but only on a part-time basis. More than 3.5 million Canadians consider themselves flexitarians, or what some may call conscious carnivores. That group, most of them boomers, are really the bridge between the mass food market and the devoted meatless crowd. Flexitarians are the ones being targeted by the food-service industry.

People become flexitarian for a variety of reasons. Usually it is out of concern for the environmental footprint of the livestock industry and/or animal welfare, or one’s own health. Or perhaps flexitarians want to save a few dollars by opting for a cheaper protein alternative than meat. It’s not surprising to see many boomers become flexitarians as they have shown for many years that their generation is very much about choice and keeping options open. Some may even say that boomers, with flexitarianism, are hedging against their own guilt complex. Who knows? But generational pressures are also real. Many flexitarians likely have children who are vegans or vegetarians, or may have friends who are not eating meat. Regardless, a greater number of consumers are accepting the reality that food diversity is the new normal, especially when it comes to protein sources.

The same Dalhousie University survey suggests that most consumers with no particular dietary preferences are satisfied with options offered by restaurants. Vegetarians also seem pleased, as do flexitarians, given the flexible nature of their diet. For restaurants, serving flexitarians is less onerous as the diet gives both the industry and consumers more flexibility. That’s the market the “Beyond Burger” is aiming for, so we should not be surprised to see an increasing number of meat-free options in the future. This is only the beginning.

Vegans are a different story. The vegan diet is more restrictive, which makes it more difficult for retailers to manage expectations. Vegans appear to visit mostly vegan restaurants and may not venture beyond food-service establishments that are not utterly committed to the strict lifestyle that is veganism. For vegans, a visit anywhere else frequently ends in disappointment. But the number of vegan restaurants is also increasing, in order to serve a growing number of consumers looking for a true vegan fix. That group includes vegans, of course, but also vegetarians and you guessed it, flexitarians.

In food service, the business case to sell more vegetable proteins is very strong. Lentils, chickpeas, and pulses in general are much less expensive than beef, pork or chicken, at least for now. It will be interesting to see how things unfold for the meat industry.

For beef, pork and chicken producers, despite all of this, the future remains bright. Different, but bright. The meat industry will just need to learn that their products, as a protein source, cohabit with a much larger range of alternative sources of protein. Besides, almost 83 per cent of Canadians are still unconditionally committed to meat consumption. But the “Canadians should eat more beef” mantra just won’t “cut it” anymore, no pun intended. It needs a different spin, and the food-service industry appears to be catching on.

The post Comment: Flexitarianism on the menu appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Well, that may be a slight exaggeration, as many Canadians still need a regular meat fix. In fact, many see meat consumption as one of the pleasures in life, as well as a necessary part of a balanced diet. Some even believe meat consumption to be a fundamental right.

According to a recent study from Dalhousie University, more than 82 per cent of Canadians remain committed to meat consumption. But for the meat industry, and especially beef producers, the study also gives us some troubling news for the future.

The study indicates that 6.4 million Canadians — a number equal to the population of Toronto — have either adopted a meatless diet or are limiting the amount of meat they eat every week. But it gets more serious, as reduced meat consumption spreads across the generation gap.

While a total of 63 per cent of vegans are under the age of 38, which includes both generation Y and millennials, the older crowd are participating in the meatless trend as well. More than 42 per cent of flexitarians are boomers. In other words, many boomers like meat but are struggling against their guilt-inducing eating habits. This could lead to what is known as a rebound effect. For example, after a day when meat is purposely not consumed, the effect is nullified the following day, by a lavish meat-based meal. Still, the intention is there.

Looking at these numbers, the overpowering plant-based narrative has clearly made a dent in the average consumer’s perception of a healthy diet. Different sources of proteins are getting some attention. By now, most Canadians have already thought about reducing their meat consumption, and 32.2 per cent of respondents intend to do so within the next six months. As the beef industry tries to find ways to demonstrate sustainability, consumers appear to have already moved on, and the concept of meat avoidance isn’t going to disappear any time soon.

Concern for the environment and animal welfare are some of the factors that are slowly pushing consumers away from certain meat products. But health concerns seem to be the biggest motivator. A diet which promotes reducing meat consumption is being increasingly recognized as a healthy choice. But despite negative press reports on the effects of meat on human health and a vocal minority who argue that humans evolved as vegetarians, some scientific evidence contradicts these views. History has shown that humans relied heavily on meat as a source of energy and critical substrates such as protein and long-chain omega-3 fatty acids.

Although highly criticized at the time, a report released by the World Health Organization in 2015, which condemned processed meat consumption, has affected how meat in general is perceived around the world, including here in Canada. In the report, it is claimed that consumers who ate the most processed meats, such as hotdogs, bacon, or ham, had an increased risk of cancer compared to those who ate such foods infrequently.

Three years later, several countries have altered their food guide to encourage consumers to look for vegetable proteins or even fish. Canada will soon join this group with its new food guide.

But simply asking consumers to eat less meat may trigger not only resistance to change but also confusion regarding amounts and sources of protein. Several consumers are resisting the notion of plant-based diets as a viable alternative or a means to a healthy lifestyle.

Indeed, conversations on proteins these days are divisive and utterly polarized. Interestingly, when looking at Dalhousie University’s report, the blockade effect seems to be linked to masculinity, traditionalism, and hierarchies, all of which resemble and maintain the conventional structures of power in the western world.

Meat is often inherently linked to manhood. There’s no other way to put it. Such influences also resemble the symbolic and social history of meat consumption. Conversely, urbanization, the collective will to live in a more diverse society, increased access to education for all, and a rising female voice are distinctive products of modern society and thus represent a push for culinary changes, affecting what we put on our plates.

Proteins are becoming more pluralist. For the beef industry, the journey has not been easy. Compared to 2010, Canadians are eating 16 per cent less beef annually, which equates to 94 million kilos. The one lesson that can be learned, however, is that commodity groups should not look at their product in isolation. Beef, as an example, needs to coexist with lentils, fish, or other, more affordable sources of proteins. To befriend other commodity groups would be a novel approach, but it would also be a refreshing change. It certainly would be an effective way to fight the protein wars.

The post Comment: The protein wars are here appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

As I opened a package of bacon to cook while camping on the holiday weekend, I learned from the label that it was “gluten free.”

Gluten-free bacon? I was confused. Since when does bacon, which comes from animals, contain gluten, which is one of the components of the proteins in cereal grains?

It reminded me of a recent Twitter feed where the writer posted a photo of a service truck that offered “gluten-free tree trimming” and asked where he could find a gluten-free oil change.

When we were back on the grid, I Googled “does bacon contain gluten?” It seemed confused too. I waited several minutes and received no answer.

So I asked Siri, who referred me to Celiac.com where someone commented: “I have never encountered bacon that was not gluten free.”

The next website on Siri’s list was a little less reassuring for those who are concerned about such things.

“Not all bacon is truly gluten free,” the website verywellfit.com says. “The vast majority of bacon products don’t include any gluten ingredients. However, that doesn’t mean that your bacon is truly gluten free, you need to check it for potential gluten cross-contamination… (products) may contain trace amounts of gluten because they’re processed in a shared facility or on shared equipment.”

As bacon typically comes from facilities that process other meat products, I suspect the prospects for such contamination would be exceedingly low.

But with many consumers avoiding gluten, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and various artificial additives for a whole host of reasons, we’re seeing a lot of food products bearing labels that tell us what is not in our food, rather than what is.

Looking through my cupboards I find crackers that boast prominently on the label that they are “non-GMO verified,” which actually tells me very little about their nutritional quality or how they were produced.

It tells me a lot about what food manufacturers think will convince me to choose their products over their competitors’ products.

University of Dalhousie researchers led by Sylvain Charlebois, dean of the faculty of management, recently delved into the consumer psyche around GMOs and labelling. Survey results published this week are a stunning rebuke of how commercialization of the technology was handled in the late 1990s.

The industry took the position that it would be too expensive to label foods made with genetically modified ingredients, and it would lead some consumers to believe that they were different or unsafe, even though the nutritional quality was unchanged. However, refusing to tell consumers up front that the technology was in play allowed critics to claim the industry had something to hide.

It opened the door to reverse marketing, in which manufacturers can imply their products are better because they don’t contain something — even if that food never contained it in the first place.

The survey shows that consumers remain confused and uncertain about the merits of GMOs in the food system. “While 37.7 per cent of Canadians believe GM foods to be safe, 34.7 per cent do not.”

Just over half of consumers reported being unsure of whether they are even eating them, even though an estimated 75 per cent of food products contain at least one ingredient produced using the technology.

On one point the results were unequivocal. More than 85 per cent of Canadians think GMO foods or ingredients should be identified on the packaging label.

While the survey showed that price remains the most important determinant in a consumer’s food-purchasing decision (55.5 per cent), second on the list at 41.3 per cent was the category “no hormones or antibiotics.”

The labels promoting meat from animals raised without hormone and antibiotic are tough for producers to accept because even meat from animals raised with those production aids should contain neither. However, those labels do tell consumers something about the production system used to raise those animals.

Nutritional content, which arguably should be first in the Dalhousie survey, came third at 39.6 per cent. Non-GMO was sixth at 21.7 per cent.

Reverse labelling is clearly an effective marketing strategy. Some labels help consumers choose food according to their dietary needs or ethics; others are simply mischievous.

With a population that is increasingly unknowledgeable about where food comes from and how it is made, the onus is on the food industry to ensure labelling contributes to clarity rather than confusion.

The post Editorial: Gluten-free bacon? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.