Plant-Based Diets Linked to Less Severe Illness from COVID-19
Plant-based diets are linked to less severe illness from COVID-19, according to a study published in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health. Researchers surveyed health care workers with high exposure to COVID-19 patients across six countries on their dietary habits and COVID-19 outcomes. Participants who followed plant-based diets had a 73% lower chance of moderate to severe COVID-19 illness, whereas those who followed low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets were 48% more likely to have moderate to severe COVID-19 illness. Those who followed plant-based diets had higher intakes of legumes, nuts, and vegetables rich in fiber and vitamins A, C, and E that support the immune system and overall health. The authors recommend a plant-based diet that avoids pro-inflammatory foods such as red and processed meat associated with negative health outcomes to help protect against severe COVID-19.
Reference
Kim H, Rebholz CM, Hegde S, et al. Plant-based diets, pescatarian diets and COVID-19 severity: a population-based caseâcontrol study in six countries. BMJ Nutr Prev Health. Published online June 7, 2021. doi: 10.1136/bmjnph-2021-000272
During COVID-19, a Plant-Based Diet Helped Hospital Workers Stay Healthy
During COVID-19, a plant-based diet helped hospital workers stay healthy, according to a new study published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. Physicians Committee researchers randomized health care workers at a Washington, D.C., hospital into a control group or a group instructed to follow a vegan diet for 12 weeks and tracked weight and cholesterol. Those who followed a vegan diet lowered their body weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar when compared to those in the control group. These participants also increased their quality of life amid the workplace stresses of the pandemic. Improvements in these outcomes, linked to reduced severity and morality of COVID-19, help ensure health care workers remain healthy to better serve patients.
References
Kahleova H, Berrien-Lopez R, Holtz D, et al. Nutrition for hospital workers during a crisis: effect of a plant-based dietary intervention on cardiometabolic outcomes and quality of life in healthcare employees during the Covid-19 pandemic. Am J Lifestyle Med. Published online November 5, 2021. doi: 10.1177/15598276211050339
“The smartphone-based COVID Symptom Study, including 592,571 participants, found that dietary patterns that were highest in fruits, vegetables, and plant-based foods in general were associated with a 41% lower risk of severe COVID-19 and a 9% reduction of COVID-19 infection of any severity, compared to diets lowest in these foods.”
Merino J, Joshi AD, Nguyen LH, et al. Diet quality and risk and severity of COVID-19: a prospective cohort study. medrxiv. Published online June 25, 2021. doi: 10.1101/2021.06.24.21259283v1
“That treatment should include information about healthful dietary habits, particularly a renewed emphasis on vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and legumes, and plant-based diets.”
I wish to appeal the decision to take down my video for the following reasons which are also included with scientific references in the background information linked to the video.
My song was written to bring attention to the potentially large benefits of appropriately boosting vitamin D levels to help reduce the severity of the pandemic AND help achieve better immune systems generally, in light of what has been described as the global pandemic of vitamin D deficiency (1) which regardless of costs associated with covid-19 could save many lives and cut health costs significantly (2).
Nowhere in the song â which is not to be read like a scientific text â do I claim that:
âą vitamin D is a substitute for vaccines
âą that it is the only solution
âą that it guarantees favourable outcomes with Covid-19
– Nor have I claimed that pandemic safety regulations are unnecessary.
– In my disclaimer on the video and in the accompanying text I clearly state the importance of dealing with concerns about possible vitamin D deficiency with a qualified medical professional.
Increasing vitamin D as a strategy to help the pandemic situation and protect people better has been put forward by many health professionals and researchers as a precautionary principle of low-cost and potential high gain as there is much scientific evidence to support this. (3) (7)
Science revolves around debate and there is no clear consensus that that vitamin D does not play a significant role in the prevention of serious covid-19 outcomes (4). âThe jury is outâ does not mean that there is scientific consensus that promoting appropriate higher vitamin D intake is dangerous or wrong to help prevent serious outcomes of covid-19. The WHO donât make this claim either (8). Much research says no evidence of help, much says plenty of evidence for help.
Recommendations vary internationally and from doctor to doctor, further showing lack of consensus upon which to base taking down my video. (5) Studies cited on vitamin D deficiency and covid-19 that claim insufficient evidence for protective function have often been: in countries where vitamin D deficiency is not high, negating supplement effectivity or focused on post-infection therapy and not prevention or carried out by medical professionals who have their normal work-burdens to deal with additionally, negating effectiveness of research scope, non-peer reviewed (âpre-printsâ) or a mixture of these. Funding has not been put forward like it has for dedicated vaccine studies.
âWeâve seen a lot of very poor quality papers published in preprint and peer-review which report âno evidenceâ but itâs important to remember that a poor quality investigation will never find evidence,â he said. âThis is very far from reporting âwe found evidence there was no effectâ which no-one has reported.â (4)
That renders the narrative that claims that there is proof of âas largely irrelevant. âAs Neale points out, âthere is data that is suggestiveâ and enough smoke to indicate that you donât want to be vitamin-D-deficient in a pandemic.â (4)
Toxicity with vitamin D is widely recognised as being rare (6). Yet daily dosages recommended in many countries are remarkably small despite ongoing deficiency. 4000 I.U. / day is recognised as safe, this isnât being promoted as standard, rather 400 (UK), 800 (Germany), 1000 (EFSA). (5) Routine blood tests are not provided and must be paid extra above health insurance in Germany.
My song also deals with the question of lobbyism (reported by state media) behind decisions in health authorities and indeed approval authorities and even in some cases, state media and the WHO, which may reflect decisions about daily dosage of vitamin D or competition with products from more powerful drug companies. The prescription of drugs / funding of studies is not always based upon priority of ethics but also on relative financial influence of lobbyists (9)
Malpractices in health systems have been well-documented by German state media revealing industry-bias in the decision-making processes. (9) This is not to negate any positive work by such institutions but the public should have freedom of information as to any compromising decision-making processes which do not necessarily serve the best interests of the public, instead aiming to increase profits as a higher priority, and also fill the pockets of politicians associated with said industries.
According to the Robertkochinstitut (RKI) up to 30.2% of adults in Germany have deficiency. 38.4% of adults achieve adequate care. 61.6% are therefore have suboptimal levels.
âSimilar rates of vitamin D deficiency have been reported in Europe [26] and Canada. A greater prevalence of vitamin D deficiency exists in Middle Eastern countries. A study of 316 young adults aged 30-50 years from the Middle East showed that 72.8% had 25(OH)D values of less than 15 ng/dL (that is, severely deficient).â
âMoreover, more than two-thirds of all children had levels below 75 nmol/L, including 80 percent of Hispanic children and 92 percent of non-Hispanic black children. â (USA)
âa low vitamin D status is emerging as a very common condition worldwide, and several studies from basic science to clinical applications have highlighted a strong association with chronic diseases, as well as acute conditions. Moreover, the large amount of observational data currently available are also accompanied by pathophysiological associations of vitamin D with energy homeostasis, and regulation of the immune and endocrine systems.â
âthe lack of specific recommendations in the context of COVID-19 was also met with disappointment by many in the scientific community who have argued that vitamin D supplementation is generally safe and that any potential low toxicity would likely be strongly outweighed by any potential benefits in relation to protection from COVID-19.â
Examples of the inconsequential basis for âproof of no proofâ of studies that are commonly cited:
âWeâve seen a lot of very poor quality papers published in preprint and peer-review which report âno evidenceâ but itâs important to remember that a poor quality investigation will never find evidence,â he said. âThis is very far from reporting âwe found evidence there was no effectâ which no-one has reported.â
âOne weakness, they said, is the sampleâs high proportion of people of European ancestry. They recommended further study of more diverse and higher-risk populations, for whom vitamin Dâs effects might differ.â
âVitamin D has shown antimicrobial as well as anti-inflammatory propertiesâ âThus, the immunomodulatory capacity of vitamin D should be further explored considering there is already preliminary evidence of its effectiveness against COVID-19.â
âRoutine 25-OH-Vitamin D3 measurement in COVID-19 patients could be of great importance, either for clinical course estimation or deciding on supplementation.â
âCompared to the general population, adult CA and SOT patients with COVID-19 had higher comorbidities, greater levels of inflammatory markers at diagnosis, and higher rates of intensive care and hospital mortality. â
âHence, Vitamin D can serve as a potential immune-modulator in COVID-19 infection due to its immune regulating function being supported by considerable clinical evidence [49, 69]. Although not prospectively validated in a randomized control trial; the role of vitamin D in attenuating hyper-acute inflammatory response in severe COVID-19 can be determined by studying impact of vitamin D deficiency on markers like CRP and IL-6 [59]. While centers worldwide routinely utilize CRP levels to assess CS, levels of vitamin D before development of CS and afterwards can predict reliability of vitamin D as an immune-modulating agent that can alter IL-6 activity and serve as a therapeutic target in treatment of CS [59]. Vitamin D3 supplementation is inexpensive and readily available. Therefore, on the current covid-19 pandemic where a cause-and-effect relationship continues to be explored, it is prudent to follow public health guidelines to ensure vitamin D3 adequacy and daily supplementation with 1000â2000 IU per day.â
Heaney, R. P. and Holick, M. F. (2011), Why the IOM recommendations for vitamin D are deficient. J Bone Miner Res, 26: 455â457. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.328
cited: 3. Veugelers PJ, Ekwaru JP. A statistical error in the estimation of the recommended dietary allowance for vitamin D. Nutrients. 2014 Oct 20;6(10):4472-5
Europe (EFSA): 15 ”g per day
âThe Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) defined an adequate intake (AI) of 15 ”g per day for healthy individuals over one year of age. This includes pregnant and lactating women. The DRVs for infants aged 7-11 months have been set at 10 ”g per day.â
âThe new guidance from NICE, SACN and PHE on vitamin D recommendations for the UK is hugely disappointing, and I am sure that this response will be echoed by many other vitamin D researchers in the UK and worldwide.â
âSeveral groups, including one that I have participated in, have suggested a higher level of vitamin D supplementation. Specifically increasing this to 800 IU/day vitamin D. This is still relatively conservative â groups in the North America are recommending 4,000 IU/day â but is much more likely to improve the vitamin D status of people in the UK. In rejecting this request to increase recommend vitamin D supplementation NICE, SACN and PHE continue to promote the idea of vitamin D âtoxicityâ, despite no evidence of this in trials where up to 4,000 IU/day vitamin D were used. This obsession has become a major hurdle to better vitamin D health in the UK. Many vitamin D researchers have worked tirelessly over the summer to provide a framework in which vitamin D supplementation could be incorporated into the general strategies being used to defeat COVID-19. NICE, SACN and PHE have rejected this, and their ânewâ recommendations provide little or no help at all for the UK public.â
âThe National Academy of Medicine has said that taking up to 4,000 Ius per day is safe for the vast majority of people, and risk of hypercalcemia increases at levels over 10,000 Ius per day.â
âIn statements released over the last decade, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) (15) and the Endocrine Society (14) have both concluded that acute VDT is extremely rareâ
âIn general, vitamin D toxicity occurs at 25(OH)D blood levels over 500 nmol/L or at a daily intake exceeding 30,000 IU/day over an extended period of time. Supplements taken as directed and up to 4000 IU/day for adolescents and adults (age 9 and up) would not lead to toxicity. Individuals with liver and kidney conditions may have a lower threshold for vitamin D toxicity than the general population1. â
âRecommendations such as ânow 5,000 IU of vitamin D dailyâ (= 125 ”g) are dangerous, as that is more than the absolute upper limit for safe intake (upper intake level). The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment even recommends no more than 20 ”g (= 800 iE) vitamin D per day. â (translated from German)
Large studies on toxicity show no toxicity at this level in adults.
âVitamin D supplementation to the older adult population in Germany has the costâsaving potential of preventing almost 30,000 cancer deaths per yearâ
âGiven its rare side effects and its relatively wide safety margin, it may be an important, inexpensive, and safe adjuvant therapy for many diseasesâ
âMany conflicting recent studies are now showing an association between vitamin D deficiency and cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, and depression.â
This statement is false, as it is unproven that protective effects from certain supplements do not exist. One correction could be: âFunding has not been put forth for large randomised studies on the preventative effects of all supplements for covid-19 across the spectrum of genetic differencesâ
A further falsehood: âDietary supplements are also not used to treat diseasesâ
Vitamin D, if suspected or found to be in deficiency (âsymptoms of vitamin D deficiency can include muscle weakness, pain, fatigue and depressionâ and effects can include diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure and certain cancers 1) it is often boosted for patients I.e. to âtreatâ those conditions and prevent worsening outcomes. Whether that is in a supportive function or not doesnât matter. The goal is to help combat those related conditions.
âFrom October to March everyone over the age of five will need to rely on dietary sources of vitamin D. Since vitamin D is found only in a small number of foods, it might be difficult to get enough from foods that naturally contain vitamin D and/or fortified foods alone. So everyone, should consider taking a daily supplement containing 10 micrograms of vitamin D.â
Getting enough vitamin D from diet is unrealistic and could have negative side-effects of e.g. heavy metals in sea-fish, expense thereof and risk of overdose of vitamin A and also would exacerbate harm to animals and our ecological system as fisheries are being decimated around the globe
âThe first option on the WHO/FAO list is increasing the diversity of foods consumed but this has its challenges because there are very few food sources naturally rich in vitamin D. These are mainly of animal origin, which is highly relevant in the context of the recent calls for a radical transformation of the global food system, with emphasis on increased consumption of plantâbased foods and reductions in animalâderived foods for many, as part of a more sustainable flexitarianâtype diet (see Buttriss 2020; Steenson & Buttriss 2020).â
“Crises related to extreme weather events, COVID-19 and the RussiaâUkraine conflict have revealed serious problems in global food (inter)dependency. Here we demonstrate that a transition towards the EAT-Lancetâs planetary health diet in the European Union and the United Kingdom alone would almost compensate for all production deficits from Russia and Ukraine while yielding improvements in blue water use (4.1âGm3âyrâ1), greenhouse gas emissions (0.22âGtCO2eâyrâ1) and carbon sequestration (17.4âGtCO2e).”
Widespread Adoption of Plant-Based Diets Required for Net Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050
Widespread global adoption of plant-based diets and other changes are needed to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to a report published in the British Medical Journal. Researchers note that behaviors around diet account for 26% of greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, reducing consumption of animal products would use less water and land and reduce consumption of saturated fats. Meat consumption in America and Europe would need to drop by 79% and 68%, respectively in order to reach international emission goals. The authors recommend policies that decrease affordability of unhealthful foods like meat by removing subsides on livestock, for example, while increasing affordability of healthful, plant-based foods.
References
Marteau TM, Chater N, Garnett EE. Changing behaviour for net zero 2050. BMJ. 2021;375:n2293. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n2293t
IPCC underplay intensity of climate change (e-g- they didn’t incorporate mitigtion through regained land and rewilding in 2019 report)
“The UN Food Systems Summit (UN FSS), taking place this week in New York, aims to make global agricultural systems more sustainable, billing itself as a transformational âpeopleâs summitâ.
But documents obtained by Greenpeace Unearthed â the investigative arm of environmental NGO Greenpeace â and seen by the Guardian, show livestock industry bodies threatening to withdraw if others in their discussion group at the summit do not share their âcommon goalâ.
“the UN FSS should not have given âincumbent industries a platform to deny or minimise the scientific consensusâ.
“âIt started with the meat industry itself, and then included people who wish to softly transition from the current system. Only towards the end were more critical voices invited.â
Here are examples of veganic farming – the amount of humus increases annually (from about 9:30). You will need turn on subtitles in YouTube to English unless you speak German for the first one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEVmKVUZMnw&t=570s
91% der Zerstörung des Amazonas sind auf die Tierhaltung zurĂŒckzufĂŒhren. Nur etwa 2% der Soja aus diesem Prozess werden direkt fĂŒr den menschlichen Verzehr verwendet. 80%+ in Tierfutter, das Reste als Ăl fĂŒr Industrie.
Das Soja in den veganen Produkten bei uns ist nicht GMO, wie beim Tierfutter der Fall ist, und kommt meist aus de EU. Fast immer bei BIO, sonst kommt einiges aus USA und hat daher gar nichts mit Abholzung zu tun.
“It seems that â at least part of the â former food products, including from supermarkets, are processed into livestock feed with packaging and all. This is not only detrimental to animal welfare, but perhaps also to ourselves. Most likely, almost every steak and burger contains small pieces of plastic.â
The animal agriculture industry grows grains, vegetables and soy to fatten up farmed animals destined for slaughter. The U.S. alone could feed 800 million people with the food grown to fatten up farmed animals.
“Most strikingly, impacts of the lowest-impact animal products typically exceed those of vegetable substitutes, providing new evidence for the importance of dietary change”
“Results show that external greenhouse gas costs are highest for conventional and organic animal-based products….
The large difference of relative external climate costs between food categories as well as the absolute external climate costs of the agricultural sector imply the urgency for policy measures that close the gap between current market prices and the true costs of food.”
The American Institute of Biological Sciences stresses the need to shift to a plant based diet to address the climate change emergency. This paper was signed by 11,000 scientists:
“Eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of animal products (figure 1câd), especially ruminant livestock (Ripple et al. 2014), can improve human health and significantly lower GHG emissions (including methane in the âShort-lived pollutantsâ step). Moreover, this will free up croplands for growing much-needed human plant food instead of livestock feed, while releasing some grazing land to support natural climate solutions (see âNatureâ section). Cropping practices such as minimum tillage that increase soil carbon are vitally important. “
“There is also a highly unequal distribution of land use between livestock and crops for human consumption. If we combine pastures used for grazing with land used to grow crops for animal feed, livestock accounts for 77% of global farming land. While livestock takes up most of the worldâs agricultural land it only produces 18% of the worldâs calories and 37% of total protein”
solving world hunger by moving to plant-based agriculture
“There is also a highly unequal distribution of land use between livestock and crops for human consumption. If we combine pastures used for grazing with land used to grow crops for animal feed, livestock accounts for 77% of global farming land. While livestock takes up most of the worldâs agricultural land it only produces 18% of the worldâs calories and 37% of total protein”
“Meat consumption is highest across high-income countries (with the largest meat-eaters in Australia, consuming around 116 kilograms per person in 2013). The average European and North American consumes nearly 80 kilograms and more than 110 kilograms, respectively.“
“Over 70% of harvested GE biomass is fed to food producing animals, making them the major consumers of GE crops for the past 15 plus years.” (from 2013 but animal agriculture is increasing globally)
Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets
Bingli Clark Chai, Johannes Reidar van der Voort, Kristina Grofelnik , Helga Gudny Eliasdottir,
Ines Klöss and Federico J. A. Perez-Cueto *
Design & Consumer Behaviour Section, Department of Food Science, Faculty of Science,
University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 26, 1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark
* Correspondence: apce@food.ku.dk
Received: 11 July 2019; Accepted: 24 July 2019; Published: 30 July 2019
Abstract: The food that we consume has a large impact on our environment. The impact varies significantly between different diets. The aim of this systematic review is to address the question: Which diet has the least environmental impact on our planet? A comparison of a vegan, vegetarian and omnivorous diets. This systematic review is based on 16 studies and 18 reviews. The included studies were selected by focusing directly on environmental impacts of human diets. Four electronic bibliographic databases, PubMed, Medline, Scopus and Web of Science were used to conduct a systematic literature search based on fixed inclusion and exclusion criteria. The durations of the studies ranged from 7 days to 27 years. Most were carried out in the US or Europe. Results from our review suggest that the vegan diet is the optimal diet for the environment because, out of all the compared diets, its production results in the lowest level of GHG emissions. Additionally, the reviewed studies indicate the possibility of achieving the same environmental impact as that of the vegan diet, without excluding the meat and dairy food groups, but rather, by reducing them substantially.
Changes in environmental organisations’ narratives towards plant-based diets:
“Dr. Sylvia Fallon of the Natural Resources Defense Council has shown, symbiosis between grazing herds and grasses has historically worked best to sequester carbon when the animals lived the entirety of their lives within the ecosystem, their carcasses rotted and returned their accumulated nutrients into the soil, and human intervention was minimal to none. It is unclear, given that Savory has identified this type of arrangement as his ecological model, how marketing cattle for food would be consistent with these requirements. Cows live up to 20 years of age, but in most grass-fed systems, they are removed when they reach slaughter weight at 15 months. Cheating the nutrient cycle at the heart of land regeneration by removing the manure-makers and grass hedgers when only 10 percent of their ecological âvalueâ has been exploited undermines the entire idea of efficiency that Savory spent his TED talk promoting. ”
“Savoryâs narrative is compelling if you accept his idea that deserts are but rarely natural. For him ground that is bare, without grass, is desert and desert is not natural. However, deserts are indeed natural, and they are not simply bare ground areas. Secondly, he believes that deserts and desertification are the same thing. They are not. In fact there is much dispute over the definition of desertification. Wikipedia says there are over a hundred definitions.”
Deserts are indeed natural. They have existed for millions of years before any human influence. They have their own ecosystems, and they, like grasslands, can be degraded
“In Savory’s universe, ungrazed land, known as “rested” land, will always wither away. “It’s just wrong,” said Brewer. A substantial number of studies on desert grassland have found that with rest, grass cover “increases dramatically,” while “intensive grazing delays this recovery.”
“There are relatively few (11) peer-reviewed studies on the effects of holistic grazing that are
âapprovedâ by the Savory Institute, i.e., included
in Savory Institute Research Portfolio”
“Three quantitative meta-analysis models were used to assess data sets from literature between 1972 and 2016. Weighted mean differences (effect sizes) between HPG and continuous grazing showed that there was no difference in plant basal cover, plant biomass and animal gain responses (p > 0.05). Thus, from the balance of studies, if animal impact is occurring during HPG, it has no effect on production. As interesting as the overall result is the significant between-study heterogeneity assessed using Cochranâs Q (p = 0.007 to <0.0001). Studies with positive effect sizes tended to have higher precipitation (p < 0.05), suggesting that only some rangelands have the resources to support HPG. ”
Another Savory lie – bison more abundant that current cattle numbers:
Bison numbers historically: 30-60 million estimated pre 1800 (back then there was far more optimal sequestering of carbon with much greater natural forest cover, the human population was much smaller and “extraction” of bison for meat on a much lower scale than today’s slaughter rate of animals. Basically the system is being robbed of nutrients).
“Increased methane emissions of grass-fed cattle are also an unavoidable result of ruminant digestion, as cows fed a natural diet of grass, hay, and other forages produce three times more methane than cows fed corn and grains (the traditional diet on intensive industrial or âfactoryâ farms.)
The study notes other environmental harms that would likely result from a shift to all or mostly grass-fed beef production, including wildlife habitat loss from greater land use, fresh water eutrophication, soil erosion, the suppression of native vegetation from overgrazing, and increased nitrous oxide emissions.
The researchers conclude, âGiven the environmental tradeoffs associated with raising more cattle in exclusively grass-fed systems, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.â
âThereâs a groundswell of truly sustainable and inspiring circumfaunal material out there, but cutting through the wool industryâs well-funded mythology is no easy task,â said Joshua Katcher, founder of the CIRCUMFAUNA initiative and co-author of the report. âWe need to have an honest discussion about woolâs outsized impact on biodiversity loss and climate change and transition to plant-derived and high-tech innovative materials that donât take such a big toll on native species and the climate.â
UK swimming spots near livestock farms highly polluted. The farmers and water authorites are increasingly allowed through deregulation to be self-policing and the number of incidents has shot up accordingly
Suppliers of beef to McDonaldâs, Taco Bell and Walmart are sourcing meat from US farms using antibiotics linked to the spread of dangerous superbugs. See also:
“In reality, the bulk of industrially produced grain crops (most yieldreduction in the study was found in grains) goes to biofuels and confinedanimal feedlots rather than food for the one billion hungry. The call todouble food production by 2050 only applies if we continue to prioritize thegrowing population of livestock and automobiles over hungry people.”
3.7 Steckbrief: Biozyklisch-veganer Anbau
Kategorie: Vorleistung, Produktion
Beschreibung: Der biozyklisch-vegane Anbau (auch âșveganer Ăkolandbauâč oder âșbio-vegane Landwirtschaftâč), im Englischen âșBiocyclic vegan farmingâč, âșbiodynamic vegan agricultureâč oder âșveganic agricultureâč (als Kombination von âșveganâč und âșorganicâč), verzichtet beim ökologischen Anbau veganer Lebensmittel vollstĂ€ndig auf Tierhaltung und den Einsatz tierischer oder synthetischer Betriebsmittel. Damit entfĂ€llt beispielsweise die Verwendung von GĂŒlle, Mist, Jauche oder SchlachtabfĂ€llen als DĂŒngemittel.
Ziel und Innovation: Der GroĂteil landwirtschaftlicher Betriebe setzt bei der Produktion veganer Lebensmittel auf den Einsatz tierischer oder synthetischer DĂŒngemittel. Auch die biologische Landwirtschaft ist hĂ€ufig mit Nutztierhaltung verbunden. Beim Bioverband Demeter ist die Haltung von Raufutterfressern sogar verpflichtend und kann nur in AusnahmefĂ€llen entfallen124. Durch die Tierhaltung entstehen weltweit massive UmweltschĂ€den, die ĂŒber einen erhöhten FlĂ€chenbedarf, die SchĂ€digung von Boden und Grundwasser bis hin zu negativen Auswirkungen auf das Klima reichen. Laut einer Studie der FAO sind ĂŒber 14 Prozent der weltweiten, durch den Menschen verursachten Treibhausgase auf die Tierhaltung zurĂŒckzufĂŒhren125.
Gleichzeitig ist die Nachfrage nach vegetarischen und veganen Produkten auch in Deutschland messbar. Den Daten des Instituts fĂŒr Demoskopie Allensbach zufolge, handelt es sich bei 7,6 % der Verbraucher und Verbraucherinnen um âVegetarier oder Leute, die weitgehend auf Fleisch verzichtenâ126. Weitere 1,1 % sind âVeganer oder Leute, die weitgehend auf tierische Produkte verzichtenâ. HĂ€ufig sind sich diese Konsumenten und Konsumentinnen veganer Lebensmittel nicht darĂŒber bewusst, dass auch diese Lebensmittel im engeren Sinne ĂŒberwiegend nicht-vegan produziert werden. In der Regel werden Betriebsmittel tierischen Ursprungs, wie Blut-, Horn-, Haar-, Feder- oder Knochenmehle verwendet. Die gesundheitlichen Bedenken dieser ökologischen DĂŒngerpellets sind groĂ. Sie können mit Keimen, Antibiotika und Schwermetallen belastet sein. Beim biozyklisch-veganen Anbau wird auf tierischen DĂŒnger und Betriebsmittel tierischen Ursprungs komplett verzichtet.127 Stattdessen wird ein hoher Wert auf einen gezielten Humusaufbau auf pflanzlicher Basis gelegt, der ĂŒber Kompostierung in Verbindung mit GrĂŒndĂŒngung und Mulchen erreicht werden kann. Stammen die fĂŒr den Humusaufbau verwendeten Pflanzenreste dabei aus dem eigenen Betrieb, der Gemeinde oder der Region, so ergeben sich dadurch ebenso kĂŒrzere Transportwege. Die Bodenfruchtbarkeit soll zudem durch eine abwechslungsreiche Fruchtfolge, Mischkulturen und den Anbau von Leguminosen wie Kleegras, Lupinen oder Erbsen gefördert werden.
Ein Feldversuch in Griechenland konnte zeigen, dass auf lange Sicht der Stickstoffgehalt sowie der Gehalt weiterer PflanzennĂ€hrstoffe in der aus Oliventrester-Kompost hervorgegangenen Humuserde ansteigen128. Da die NĂ€hrstoffe in der Humuserde nicht mehr wasserlöslich seien, stĂŒnden sie der Pflanze vollstĂ€ndig zur VerfĂŒgung ohne eine ĂberdĂŒngung herbeizufĂŒhren, so
124 Demeter e.V. (o.J.) Richtlinien 2020. S. 54. https://www.demeter.de/sites/default/files/richtlinien/richtlinien_gesamt.pdf (27.01.2020)
125 Gerber, P.J. et al. (2013): Tackling climate change through livestock â A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. S. 15.
126 INSTITUT FĂR DEMOSKOPIE ALLENSBACH (o.J.). AW A 2016. Allensbacher Marktanalyse WerbetrĂ€geranalyse CODEBUCH. S. 80. https://www.ifd- allensbach.de/fileadmin/AWA/AWA2016/Codebuchausschnitte/AWA2016_Codebuch_Essen_Trinken_Rauchen.pdf (27.01.2020) 127 Vegconomist (2019): Im Interview mit dem Förderkreis Biozyklisch-Veganer Anbau e.V. ĂŒber die Bio-vegane Landwirtschaft. 31.Oktober 2019. https://vegconomist.de/interviews/im-interview-mit-dem-foerderkreis-biozyklisch-veganer-anbau-e-v-ueber- die-bio-vegane-landwirtschaft/ (27.01.2020)
128 Biocyclic Park Kalamata, IFOAM ABM 2017. (2017). https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=_HPCm- 5acI0&feature=emb_logo, (27.01.2020)
39
TEXTE Nischeninnovationen in Europa zur Transformation des ErnĂ€hrungssystems – NEuropa
Dr. Johannes Eisenbach, Vorstand vom Förderkreis Biozyklisch-Veganer Anbau e.V.129. Eine Studie zum Anbau von Tomaten bestĂ€tigt diese Beobachtungen. Tomatenpflanzen, die in Humuserde wuchsen warfen einen bis zu 45% höheren Ertrag, als Pflanzen, die gar nicht oder mit anorganischem DĂŒngemittel behandelt wurden130. Zudem verbessert sich die Pflanzengesundheit und durch die Humuserde kann mehr Kohlenstoff im Boden gebunden werden. 131
English 
German