The National Restaurant Association Show announced the recipients of the 2020 Food and Beverage (FABI) Awards. These recognize products that are breaking new ground. They said nine of the awards are changing the “plant forward game.” Of interest to our readers may be Beyond Breakfast Sausage, Gardein Crabless Cake, Impossible Pork made from plants, Oatmilk Draft Latte, and Yondu Vegetable Umami. They also included CAULIPOWER Chicken Tenders as plant forward, but said they are from all natural, cage-free chicken, illustrating that plant forward isn’t the same as vegetarian or vegan. So always be sure to read ingredients!
I can’t think of a more perfect book title than Vegan for Life. This classic, first published almost 10 years ago, is a practical handbook for being vegan for life – for your life, for the animals’ lives, and for our planet’s life.
Recently, Jack Norris, RD and Virginia Messina, MPH, RD, extensively updated and revised their book. This revised edition has the same calm, sensible tone as the original edition did. It’s been updated to include the latest research on topics relevant to vegans including fat (how much? What kind?), vitamin B12, digestive health, food allergies, and even lesser known nutrients like choline and selenium. The authors are both vegan dietitians and the book reflects their commitment to honest, evidence-based information.
This is not a dry, nutrition text, however. The authors provide lots of practical information including sample menus, lists of foods, and a food guide. There are also chapters on vegan pregnancy, children and teens, older people, and athletes. The chapter on transitioning to a vegan diet was one of my favorites because of its ideas for simple dinners, packed lunches, and ways to use beans. Even as a long-term vegan I found lots of helpful ideas for fine-tuning my diet.
This book offers resources for new vegans, for those considering being vegan, for vegans of all ages, for seasoned vegans. I plan to urge my local library to order several copies – it’s that good.
Vegan for Life, 2nd edition (ISBN: 978-0-7382-8586-3) is published by Hachette Books. It has 334 pages and retails for $17.99.
Shortly after our post about updated Daily Values on food labels, we got a question from a reader who asked, “The FDA webpage you linked to highlights that the DV for total fat has been updated from 65 g to 78 g and the DV for sodium has been updated from 2,400 mg to 2,300 mg. Do you have any comments on those changes?”
As you may recall from an earlier post, the Nutrition Facts portion of a food label includes Daily Values which are established by the FDA to be used for the labels of foods and supplements. Daily Values are amounts of nutrients that people are recommended to consume or not to exceed each day.
In the most recent update, the Daily Value for total fat went from 65 grams to 78 grams of fat per day. Of course, this doesn’t mean that you need to eat more fat. Remember, in this case, this indicates an upper limit – don’t eat more than 78 grams of fat a day if you’re eating 2,000 calories a day. 2,000 calories is the amount the FDA decided to use as a guide for general nutrition advice.
We wondered why there was an increase in the upper limit for total fat. Some quick calculations showed us that if your diet has 65 grams of fat and 2,000 calories, your diet gets 30% of its calories from fat. If your diet has 78 grams of fat and 2,000 calories, your diet gets 35% of calories from fat.
The RDAs include recommendations for the acceptable macronutrient distribution range (AMDR) – the percentage of calories that should come from protein, fat and carbohydrate. The AMDR for total fat is 20-35% of calories (1). Since 35% appears to be the upper limit, that is likely why 78 grams of fat (35% of 2,000 calories) was used as the DV.
The change in the sodium DV is due to a new recommendation for sodium. In 2019, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, (the non-profit organization that makes nutrition recommendations for the United States) developed a new method for evaluating dietary intake called the Chronic Disease Risk Reduction Intake (CDRR). The CDRR is defined as the lowest level of intake for which there was strong enough evidence to say that above this intake, there is a greater risk of chronic disease (2).
There is strong evidence that reducing sodium intake reduces blood pressure (2,3). The CDRR for adults for sodium is 2,300 mg/d; above this level of intake, a reduction in sodium intake is recommended. This new recommendation appears to be the reason that the DV for sodium was changed to 2,300 milligrams.
As was the case for fat, this does not mean that you must take in the DV for sodium daily to be healthy. It means that you should reduce your sodium intake so that it is below 2,300 milligrams.
References
Institute of Medicine Food and Nutrition Board. Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2002.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes for Sodium and Potassium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2019.
Newberry SJ, Chung M, Anderson CAM, et al. Sodium and Potassium Intake: Effects on Chronic Disease Outcomes and Risks. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 206. (Prepared by the RAND Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2015-00010-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 18-EHC009-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; June 2018.
Based in Louisville, KY, Roots is a great option for Asian vegetarian dine-in or carry out. I always enjoy eating at Roots and have never been disappointed. Not only do they offer amazing vegan and vegetarian dishes, they also provide fast service and the food is always fresh. Additionally, they have a wide variety of unique and tasty meatless options to choose from.
My partner and I ordered takeout from there for the first time (due to Covid-19) and were once again very impressed. We started with an order of the crispy egg rolls (comes with 2) and pan-fried pot-stickers (comes with 5) and then split the Thai salad, orange tofu, and crispy shiitake mushrooms for our entrées. The orange tofu and shiitake mushrooms don’t come with rice, so we got an order of that as well. However, the portion sizes are pretty adequate, especially if you are getting more than just entrées. The Thai salad is a good size and could be eaten as an entrée.
I love appetizers and really enjoyed the egg rolls and pot-stickers. They are always a great go-to. The egg rolls were super crispy and had a tofu and veggie filling. My favorite were the pot-stickers, which came with a soy and sesame sauce. The Thai salad was full of flavor and I liked that they added sesame seeds to it. The ginger dressing really pulled everything together. They did have it mixed in, so if you prefer dressing on the side I would mention that. The orange tofu was very tasty and came with red pepper, zucchini, and snow peas. The sauce was sweet but not overpowering. Lastly, the shiitake mushrooms were exceptional. The dish was cooked to perfection and the mushrooms had a great texture. There was a good balance of mushrooms and vegetables, and it was very filling.
If you’re looking for veggie, Asian cuisine, I highly recommend Roots. You won’t be disappointed. I will be getting takeout again very soon!
Looking for a healthy dessert? Why not try a dessert smoothie! Ivy Grob (a former VRG intern) shared some of her recipes in a previous issue of Vegetarian Journal including Strawberry Shortcake, Banana Chocolate, Berry Cobbler, Peanut Butter Cup, Peach Pie, and Apple Pie Smoothies. Read the article here: https://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2016issue3/2016_issue3_dessert_smoothies.php
Father’s Day is June 21st this year. Why not show your love by preparing a delicious baked pasta dish for your dad! Debra Daniels-Zeller’s previous Vegetarian Journal article “Make-Ahead Baked Pasta Delights” offers the following recipes:
The Vegetarian Resource Group sent in these comments to the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory committee, c/o USDA Food and Nutrition Service, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments for the 2020 edition of Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020 endorsed “a healthy vegetarian eating pattern” as one of three “healthy eating patterns that can be adapted based on cultural and personal preferences.” This healthy vegetarian eating pattern could encompass lacto-ovo/lacto vegetarian and vegan patterns. The inclusion of both vegetarian and vegan food patterns provided needed guidance for Americans who choose to eat vegetarian or vegan meals, whether this is done occasionally or every day. The text of the Guidelines made a clear and compelling case for a rapid shift in the American diet to one that is more plant-based. The evidence-based approach used throughout the report allowed readers to understand the basis for the recommendations that are made. We hope that the next edition of Dietary Guidelines for Americans will provide similar or stronger support for vegetarian/vegan diets.
We respectfully submit comments and suggestions for the revision of Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Continue to include detailed, specific information about vegetarian and vegan diets.
Since the Dietary Guidelines were last updated, many papers have been published on vegetarian diets. Information from this body of research should be used when updating the sections on vegetarian diets. Examples of relevant information to include:
In adults, vegetarian diets are associated with a 40% lower risk of coronary heart disease events and a 29% reduction in cerebral vascular disease events compared to nonvegetarian diets.1
A recent meta-analysis reported a 25% lower risk of incidence and/or mortality from ischemic heart disease and an 8% lower incidence of cancer in vegetarians overall (15% lower incidence in vegans) compared to nonvegetarians.2
Vegetarians have a lower mean BMI than nonvegetarians (Vegetarians: -1.48 kg/m2; vegans: -1.72 kg/m2).2
A meta-analysis determined that vegetarians had a 27% lower risk of developing diabetes than did nonvegetarians. This reduced risk was seen in vegans and in lacto-ovo, lacto, and ovo vegetarians.3
Vegetarians have lower total cholesterol (Vegetarian: -28.16 mg/dL; vegans: -31.02 mg/dL) and LDL cholesterol (Vegetarians: -21.27 mg/dL; Vegans: -22.87 mg/dL) than nonvegetarians.2
Vegetarian diets, especially vegan diets, effectively promote weight reduction.4
Changing from a nonvegetarian to a vegetarian or vegan diet is associated with a mean decrease in blood cholesterol concentration of 14 mg/dL and a mean decrease in LDL concentration of 13 mg/dL. Reductions of this scale correspond to an estimated 9 to 10.6% decrease in risk of heart disease.5
Vegan-vegetarian diets are safe in pregnancy.6,7
Breast milk of well-nourished vegan and vegetarian women is nutritionally equivalent to the breast milk of well-nourished nonvegetarian women.8
An average 2000 calorie diet with 3.5 or more ounces of meat per day has 2.5 times more greenhouse gas emissions compared to an average 2000 calorie vegan diet. Moving from a meat-containing diet to a vegan diet would reduce an individual’s carbon footprint by 1560 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per year.9
Modeling studies comparing a nonvegetarian diet based on global dietary guidelines (at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables, no more than 1.5 ounces of red meat), a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet, and a vegan diet found adoption of the healthier non-vegetarian diet could result in 5.1 million fewer deaths per year. A lacto-ovo vegetarian diet would reduce deaths by 7.3 million per year and a vegan diet by 8.1 million per year. Worldwide use of a vegan diet would reduce food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 70% compared to what is projected for 2050. A lacto-ovo vegetarian diet would reduce these emissions by 63% and a healthier nonvegetarian diet would reduce projected emissions by 29%. Healthcare cost savings could be as much as $1 trillion per year with worldwide use of vegan diets, $973 billion with lacto-ovo vegetarian diets, and $735 billion with healthier nonvegetarian diets.10
Incorporate tools and information to educate about use of vegan and vegetarian diets and reduction of meat consumption.
Other countries have recently issued dietary advice that promotes lower meat consumption. These materials provide ideas for ways that this information could be incorporated in Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
For example, the Netherlands’ Wheel of Fire graphic, which is similar to the United States’ MyPlate, recommends eating red meat twice a week at most, and using beans and nuts as primary protein sources on at least two days a week. Red meat is limited due to its being high in saturated fats and its negative effects on the environment. Fish is limited to one serving a week due to sustainability concerns. Fortified plant milks can be used to replace dairy products.11
The UK’s Eatwell Guide has a food group “Beans, Pulses, Fish, Eggs, Meat, and Other Products” suggesting that beans and pulses (another word for legumes) are given top priority. Instead of the traditional “Dairy Group,” this guide calls it the “Dairy and Alternatives Group” and a carton of soymilk is included in the graphics for this group.12
Canada’s Food Guide has no dairy group. Dairy products are included under the general heading of Protein Foods where plant proteins are featured prominently. The Food Guide states, “Protein foods, including plant-based protein foods, are an important part of healthy eating. Include foods such as beans, lentils, nuts, seeds, lean meats and poultry, fish, shellfish, eggs, lower fat milk and lower fat dairy products.” Canadians are urged to plan a couple of meatless meals a week and example meals are vegan. The image of an ideal plate suggests that the recommended diet consists of 50% fruits and vegetables, 25% grains, and 25% protein foods.13
We encourage the Committee to continue to stress the benefits of vegan and vegetarian diets, to expand the discussion of benefits of these diets, and to continue to identify these diets as healthy eating patterns.
Sincerely,
Reed Mangels, PhD, RD
Nutrition Advisor, The Vegetarian Resource Group
References
1. Kwok CS, Umar S, Myint PK, Mamas MA, Loke YK. Vegetarian diet, Seventh
Day Adventists and risk of cardiovascular mortality: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2014;176: 680–686.
2. Dinu M, Abbate R, Gensini GF, Casini A, Sofi F. Vegetarian, vegan diets and
multiple health outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis of
observational studies. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017;57:3640-3649.
3. Lee Y, Park K. Adherence to a vegetarian diet and diabetes risk: a
systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Nutrients. 2017
Jun 14;9(6). pii: E603.
4. Huang RY, Huang CC, Hu FB, Chavarro JE. Vegetarian diets and weight
reduction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gen Intern
Med. 2016;31(1):109‐116.
5. Wang F, Zheng J, Yang B, Jiang J, Fu Y, Li D. Effects of vegetarian diets on
blood lipids: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled
trials. J Am Heart Assoc. 2015;4(10):e002408.
6. Piccoli GB, Clari R, Vigotti FN, et al. Vegan-vegetarian diets in pregnancy:
danger or panacea? A systematic narrative review. BJOG. 2015;122(5):623‐633.
7. Melina V, Craig W, Levin S. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and
Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016;116(12):1970‐1980.
8. Karcz K, Królak-Olejnik B. Vegan or vegetarian diet and breast milk
composition – a systematic review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2020 Apr 22:1-18.
doi: 10.1080/10408398.2020.1753650. [Epub ahead of print]
9. Scarborough P, Appleby PN, Mizdrak A, et al. Dietary greenhouse gas
emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK.
Climatic Change. 2014;125:179–92.
10. Springmann M, Godfray HC, Rayner M, Scarborough P. Analysis and valuation
of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc Natl Acad
Sci USA. 2016;113(15):4146‐4151.
11. Netherlands Nutrition Center. How much and what can I eat each day?
(Translated). http://www.voedingscentrum.nl/nl/gezond-eten-met-de-schijf-van-vijf/hoeveel-en-wat-kan-ik-per-dag-eten-.aspx
12. Public Health England. Eatwell Guide 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/528193/Eatwell_guide_colour.pdf
13. Government of Canada. 2019. Canada’s Food Guide. https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/
The Vegetarian Resource Group received an email in April 2020 from a Dutch college student working on her senior thesis in fashion and textile technologies. She asks:
“…I’m writing about sustainable alternatives for artificial leather without added PVC…I thought you could help me find information about sustainable artificial leather possibilities…”
VRG Note: “PVC” is the acronym for polyvinyl chloride, a common petrochemical used in many consumer products from baby toys to construction materials. Although there are many different types of synthetic leather, most of it has traditionally been made out of PVC, on the market since the 1960s. Another fossil fuel derivative, polyurethane, PU, is also used to make vegan leather. From looking at many company websites for this article, PU appears to be the most common vegan leather on the market today.
The inquirer added in a subsequent email:
“…The aspects I’m looking at for artificial leathers are: price, quality and sustainability…I was wondering how you see this situation and what you think/see is important?”
In responding to this student researching the sustainability of vegan leathers, The VRG began by directing her to a document which discussed the environmental impacts of cow leather versus synthetic leather.
Cradle to Gate versus Cradle to Grave
According to the table on page 25 in this 2017 document, titled Pulse of the Fashion Industry, published by the Global Fashion Agenda and The Boston Consulting Group, the environmental impact of animal leather far exceeds that of PU leather based on a “Cradle to Gate” analysis. (No values for other types of vegan leathers are given.) By this metric, PU leather appears more sustainable than animal leather.
Unfortunately, “cradle to gate” means that the environmental assessment occurred only before the item left the factory. In-Use and End-of-Use (i.e., what happens during and after the useful life of a product is over) are NOT considered. It’s also unclear whether the environmental impact from the manufacture of all the starting materials before they got to the factory were taken into consideration, or just the impacts of assembling the item’s pieces in the company’s factory itself.
This difference is relevant in the case of synthetic leather because often fashion companies use “remnants” – or leftovers – of PVC or PU. Fashion companies may use this as a reason to exclude its manufacture from an analysis of the environmental costs of their products, since they didn’t commission its production in the first place.
These are important distinctions. A “cradle to cradle” analysis of every starting material would give a more accurate comparison of cow versus synthetic leather. Certainly, at the very least, it would increase the environmental impact of synthetic leathers because of the toxic and, in many cases, carcinogenic air and water pollutants – like dioxins –generated during the initial manufacture and the final incineration of PVC, PU and other fossil fuel derivatives. If the PVC is destined to go to a landfill, it will leech chemicals indefinitely during its lifespan which is believed to be thousands of years.
Sustainability and Fossil Fuels
Whether a product is derived from fossil fuels or not has an enormous impact on its sustainability. First of all, fossil fuels – coal, gas, and oil – are not renewable resources. Sustainability is based on a circular economy in which all starting materials can be – and actually are – recycled, upcycled or reused. Non-renewables, by definition, cannot be. This implies that a product claiming to be sustainable cannot be made from fossil fuels. Secondly, burning fossil fuels is the major reason for anthropogenic climate change, which has been called a human existential threat. This also implies that a sustainable, circular economy cannot include fossil fuels. For these reasons, the claim that vegan leather made from fossil fuel derivatives (like PVC or PU) is not sustainable has strong support. Among the petrochemicals used to make vegan leather – also called “pleather” where the letter p stands for plastic – PVC is the worst.
Polyvinyl chloride is coated with one or more other petrochemicals to make it soft and supple. These chemicals are in a class called phthalates. Many more phthalates are banned in the European Union compared to the United States, and banned in more products, because of their toxicity. Birth defects and hormonal disturbances are associated with exposure to even small quantities of phthalates. Phthalates are not bonded chemically to PVC. This means during the use of products made of PVC, as well as upon incineration, phthalates readily break loose and can cause harm.
By contrast, the type of polyurethane (PU) used to make vegan leather, called thermoplastic PU, does not require the use of phthalates to make it bendable. It is for this reason that some people believe PU is a more environmentally-friendly vegan leather option.
In terms of price, synthetic leather is very inexpensive compared to cow leather.
With respect to quality, many people with experience using both types claim that cow leather is more durable and long-lasting compared to pleather. For instance, they claim PVC and PU leathers do not last as long as cow leather, and they crack or peel easily compared to it.
Fortunately, for vegans and all people who are concerned about the environment, there are alternatives to both cow and synthetic leathers. There are also a few synthetic leathers that may appear to be eco-friendly, and are marketed that way. A closer look, however, reveals they are 100% petrochemical.
Newer Types of Synthetic Leathers
Polyamide (PA) is another petrochemical used to make vegan leather. (The synthetic material nylon is also a polyamide.) Like PVC and PU, the production and incineration of PA release toxic chemicals that pollute air and water, harm human health and adversely affect aquatic ecosystems.
Dinamica® uses recycled polyester, which is another fossil fuel derivative. (Polyester is commonly used in clothes.) They call it “ecological suede.”
Both companies refer to their synthetic leathers as microfibers.
Microfiber materials, when washed, burned or landfilled, release large quantities of extremely small fibers that are detrimental to marine life and do not biodegrade. They eventually find their way into seafood or sea salt.
Here’s the nonprofit Story of Stuff® discussing microfibers.
Semi-Synthetic Vegan Leathers
There are a few companies which sell a wide variety of semi-synthetic pleathers. The most common semi-synthetic types have a synthetic layer made of PVC, PU or PA attached to a natural backing, or vice versa.
Note: Piñatex® uses PLA (polylactic acid, which is chemically misnamed because it is an ester and not an acid). PLA, although it may have a natural source, is industrially manufactured using some petrochemicals. Because of this, Piñatex is included in this list as a semi-synthetic leather.
Leather made out of banana leaves? Leather from fungi? Just some of the sustainable innovations in materials coming to the market. The following brands are relatively new, and are not yet readily available. They may cost up to ten times more than PVC/PU leather.
There are companies like Biofabricate® with the sole purpose of serving as support to entrepreneurs looking to create sustainable fabrics.
As an example of how the material development process works, here’s a video by Suzanne Lee, the founder of a tech startup, Biocouture®, describing the creation of her microbe-based leather:
Many of these natural leathers are still in the development phase, so quality issues are still being worked out. It remains to be seen how durable they will be to withstand wear.
For more information about any of these companies, including where you can purchase their products, contact them directly through their websites listed above.
[Editor’s Note: Please remember that humans are not perfect. We all do the best we can, and at various times in our lives we may choose various issues to focus on or make different decisions. Don’t judge others or be discouraged by all the choices out there. Forty years ago, if you wanted soymilk, often you had to order powdered products through the mail. Now a host of plant milks are available almost everywhere in the U.S., and more people are consuming these products. The same evolution may happen with sustainable leather. If you are promoting a better world, this should all be done in a positive and caring way.]
The contents of this posting, our website, and our other publications, including Vegetarian Journal, are not intended to provide personal medical advice. Medical advice should be obtained from a qualified health professional. We often depend on product and ingredient information from company statements. It is impossible to be 100% sure about a statement, info can change, people have different views, and mistakes can be made. Please use your best judgment about whether a product is suitable for you. To be sure, do further research or confirmation on your own.
OPM announced a special Combined Federal Campaign giving period. The Office of Personnel Management has reopened its annual federal giving program in response to the coronavirus pandemic. In an announcement dated April 22, acting OPM Director Michael Rigas said that the web portal for donating via a special Combined Federal Campaign would be open until June 30, 2020, to allow federal employees to donate to nonprofits.
According to the announcement, gifts from federal employees will go entirely to the nonprofit and won’t be subject to distribution fees. The announcement also said that employees who didn’t pledge through payroll deductions last fall can make a payroll-funded donation through CFC. Existing donors who pledged through payroll deductions can make additional donations electronically. See: https://cfcgiving.opm.gov/
The Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG) is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating the public on veganism and the interrelated issues of health, nutrition, ecology, ethics, and world hunger. We have been helping health professionals, food services, businesses, educators, students, vegans, and vegetarians since 1982. In addition to publishing the Vegan Journal, VRG produces and sells a number of books.
Sign up for our newsletter to receive recipes, ingredient information, reviews of new products, announcements of new books, free samples of products, and other VRG materials.
