Building upon research supporting that plant-based diets can dramatically reduce environmental impacts, a new study suggests that such a broad move across the EU and the UK may also help improve resilience in terms of these nations’ capacity to recover from food insecurity driven by the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

It also states that it is possible to “harness numerous environmental benefits,” while filling the gap in overall Ukraine and Russia crop production for both domestic consumption and exports via this dietary shift.

“We use a spatially explicit multiregional input-output approach to investigate the use of spared land, changes in fertilizer use and environmental co-benefits for blue water, green water, carbon emissions and carbon sequestration,” share the researchers.

“This modeling approach allows us to follow crops throughout the global supply chain from producers to consumers, thereby accounting for embodied products in the global supply chain – such as in the case of soybeans produced in Brazil, which are exported to feed cattle in the Netherlands, which are then exported to the UK for final consumption as beef.”

Mammoth savings for wheat
In their analysis, the researchers first assessed the level of saved crops from a dietary change in the EU and UK and then filled any gaps for export crops that would have been produced by Ukraine and Russia.

A shift toward a plant-forward diet in the EU and UK would save a large proportion of crops, mainly by reducing the overconsumption of additive sugar and animal products.They also investigated the ability of these shifts to fill gaps in overall Ukraine and Russia production. “If saved crops turn out to be insufficient, we assume that these gaps are filled with production on land saved via the transition, for an estimate of the overall savings,” state the researchers.

The study uncovered that a shift to a “planetary health diet” in the EU and UK would save a large proportion of crops, mainly by reducing the overconsumption of additive sugar and animal products.

These savings alone would be sufficient to compensate for almost all Ukraine and Russia food exports. In particular, there is a potentially large saving in wheat, due to reduced animal feed.

However, dietary shifts alone do not result in sufficient savings to offset all Ukraine and Russia wheat production; 65.2% of wheat (38.1 metric tons) would have to be produced on spared land.

Still, the saved wheat from such an EU and UK dietary shift would be sufficient to cover the 19.4 metric tons of wheat exports lost from Ukraine and Russia and some of this saved wheat, when redirected to international markets, would make up for the shortfall.

Given that prices are set on global food commodity markets, the reduction in demand could reduce prices.

There are further large savings in maize, barley, sunflowers and rapeseed from the reduction in animal product consumption, and potatoes through reducing direct consumption.

But while EU and UK dietary change would yield large savings in rapeseed compared with Ukraine and Russia production, it would be insufficient for sunflower demand, and some substitution would be necessary.

Expanded array of securities
The researchers also suggest that a dietary change from current diets to the EAT-Lancet diet – wher whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts and legumes comprise a greater proportion of foods consumed – would not only benefit planetary and human health but could also help absorb interruptions in the international food supply.

In May 2022, the International Food Policy Research Institute estimated that over 20 countries have implemented food export bans as a response to the shortfall in agricultural goods due to the Ukraine-Russia war.Such a dietary shift in the EU and the UK can fill the gap in Ukraine and Russia crop exports, while reducing fertilizer use, water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing carbon sequestration.

“However, there are many social barriers to the widespread adoption of such diets which may include expense, cultural norms and knowledge about healthy diets,” concede the researchers.

“It is not clear whether plant-rich diets are more or less expensive than alternatives, but it is clear that current subsidies artificially reduce the cost of animal-rich diets both directly in monetary terms and indirectly as externalities.”

Yet even lower participation rates in planetary diet adoption can make a large difference, they highlight. “If the EU and the UK reduced meat consumption by 20%, the saved crops could replac most crops exported by Ukraine and Russia except for sunflower (covering only 11% of Ukraine and Russia exports), wheat (33%) and barley (72%).”

The study reveals that if 50% of people engaged in a planetary diet shift, the saved crops would account for almost all crops exported by Ukraine and Russia (except wheat and sunflower) and would yield a considerable environmental dividend.

“However, harnessing these opportunities will require a just transition that ensures economically accessible and culturally appropriate food for different groups within and across the EU and UK,” conclude the researchers.

A year of turbulence in food
Ukraine is often described as Europe’s breadbasket, and the EU is heavily exposed to this conflict-driven food shock. Recent work estimates that a 50% grain export reduction from Russia and no Ukrainian exports would increase prices by 4.6% and 7.2% for maize and wheat, respectively.

In May 2022, the International Food Policy Research Institute estimated that over 20 countries have implemented food export bans as a response. These bans have been driven in regions already facing other substantial pressures, such as Southeast Asia and India.

Across Southeast Asia, palm oil production slumped due to migrant labor shortages during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier this year, Indonesia halted palm oil exports to hold onto domestic supply.

In India, unprecedented spring heat waves, driven by climate change, have curtailed wheat production. Export restrictions caused a stir concerning their potential to cause even greater food insecurity globally. 

During April, these combined factors, along with food price speculation, drove the food price index of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) above the peak of the 2007 to 2008 food crisis – a crisis that caused widespread food insecurity and political instability – and further price increases remain possible, driven by climate extremes during the 2022 northern hemisphere summer.