Review of the plant-based nutrition and lifestyle medicine news April 2026

This month sees an update to several national guidelines, all emphasising plant-rich diets and exercise, plus lifestyle interventions for Parkinson’s, diet and cancer and fasting for Crohn’s disease.

New lipid guidelines and dietary guidelines to improve cardiovascular health

The new dyslipidaemia guideline from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and nine other medical associations that replaces the 2018 guide, places renewed emphasis on lifestyle practices as the foundation of cardiovascular disease prevention, while recognising that pharmacotherapy is often required to reach increasingly stringent lipid targets.

A key message is the importance of a life-course approach. Elevated atherogenic lipoproteins over time drive cardiovascular risk, so early intervention, particularly through healthy behaviours, is essential. These include heart-healthy eating, regular physical activity, maintaining a healthy weight, good sleep, stress management, and avoidance of tobacco.

A heart-healthy diet is recommended to reduce cardiovascular events, while dietary supplements are not advised due to limited and inconsistent evidence of benefit. Physical activity is also emphasised, both for modest lipid improvements and broader cardiovascular protection.

The guideline recognises that behaviour change requires support. Referral to dietitians and use of multidisciplinary care are encouraged, particularly in higher-risk individuals such as those with severe hypertriglyceridaemia.

Despite this strong focus on lifestyle practices, drug therapy, especially statins, remains central. Lower LDL-cholesterol targets, particularly in secondary prevention, mean that many patients will require combination therapy alongside lifestyle measures. It also includes lowering the screening and treatment age from 40 to 30.

The American Heart Association (AHA) has also updated its dietary guidance for cardiovascular health and is notably different from the recently released Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The AHA reinforces that overall dietary patterns, rather than individual nutrients, are central to cardiovascular health. Poor diet quality remains a leading contributor to cardiovascular disease, and the guideline emphasises that adopting and sustaining a heart-healthy dietary pattern across the life course is fundamental to prevention.

At its core, the guidance promotes a predominantly plant-based, minimally processed way of eating. This includes a high intake of vegetables and fruits, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds, alongside healthy sources of protein, whilst limiting red and especially processed meat. There is a clear emphasis on replacing saturated fats, found in animal fats and tropical oils, with unsaturated fats from plant oils and whole foods, reflecting strong evidence for improvements in LDL-cholesterol and cardiovascular risk. Healthy protein sources mainly focus on beans and pulses and also include fish.

A major focus is the quality of foods rather than just macronutrient composition. The guideline strongly encourages shifting away from ultraprocessed foods, and towards minimally processed foods that retain their natural structure and nutrient profile. Similarly, it highlights the importance of reducing added sugars, particularly from sugar-sweetened beverages, and lowering sodium intake, both of which have well-established links to cardiovascular risk.

Energy balance is also central, with maintaining a healthy body weight through alignment of diet and physical activity identified as a key determinant of cardiometabolic health. Physical activity is therefore integrated into the dietary framework rather than treated separately.

Importantly, the guidance challenges common misconceptions around supplements and single “superfoods.” Nutritional needs should be met primarily through whole dietary patterns, which provide fibre, micronutrients, and bioactive compounds that work synergistically. In most individuals, a high-quality diet removes the need for supplementation. The exception being a meat-free diet that requires supplementation with vitamin B12 (through fortified foods or supplements).

Alcohol guidance is rightly more cautious than in previous iterations. The statement advises against initiating alcohol consumption for health reasons and recommends limiting intake due to uncertain cardiovascular benefit and clear risks across a range of health outcomes.

A useful article on trending cardiovascular nutritional controversies covers evidence for and against beef tallow, ultraprocessed foods, full-fat dairy, seed oils, medium chain triglyceride (MCT) oils, seafood, and alternative sweeteners. In short, the paper concludes that beef tallow is harmful to health as it raises LDL-cholesterol levels. There is insufficient evidence to choose high-fat over low-fat dairy (remembering that dairy is not required in the diet). Ultraprocessed foods should be limited in the diet, favouring minimally processed, whole foods instead. Seed oils benefit cardiometabolic health and can be part of a heart-healthy diet, but they should not be heated to excessive temperatures or repeatedly heated. MCT oils may have a role in certain rare medical conditions, but the evidence does not support promotion in the general population. It reminds us that coconut oil is not an MCT and is not considered heart healthy. Seafood (or should we say sea animals) are considered a beneficial component of the diet, but there are increasing concerns around environmental contamination of these foods. Articifical sweetners (aspartame, advantame, acesulfame potassium, neotame, saccharin, and sucralose), natural sweeteners (monk fruit extract and stevia) and sugar alcohols (erythritol, mannitol, sorbitol, and xylitol) have an overall negative impact on health, although they may be healthier to consume that sugar-sweetened beverages. The healthiest choices is to stick to consuming water, tea and coffee.

Vegetarian and vegan diets and cancer incidence

This 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis provides a comprehensive assessment of vegetarian and vegan diets in relation to cancer risk, drawing on prospective cohort studies across multiple populations and cancer types.

Overall, vegetarian diets are associated with a modest but consistent reduction in total cancer incidence, with around a 13% lower risk compared to non-vegetarian diets. This reduction extends across several specific cancers, with the strongest associations seen for cancers of the digestive system, particularly stomach and colorectal cancers, as well as pancreatic cancer. There are also smaller but statistically significant reductions in breast cancer, especially postmenopausal breast cancer, alongside bladder cancer, melanoma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

For vegan diets, the evidence base is more limited but broadly consistent in direction. Vegan diets are associated with a larger reduction in total cancer risk, in the range of around 20–25%, and a reduced risk of breast cancer. However, findings for colorectal and prostate cancer are less clear, reflecting the smaller number of studies available.

The authors conclude that the evidence linking vegetarian diets to lower risk of total cancer, colorectal cancer, colon cancer, and breast cancer is “probable,” while for other cancers it is considered suggestive but less certain due to limited data. For vegan diets, the evidence is currently more limited overall.

The paper also explores potential mechanisms. Part of the observed benefit appears to be mediated through lower body weight, as vegetarian and vegan diets are associated with reduced adiposity, an established risk factor for several cancers. However, this explains only part of the effect. Independent dietary factors are likely important, including higher intakes of fibre, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, and lower consumption of red and processed meat. These dietary differences may influence cancer risk through effects on inflammation, insulin resistance, hormonal pathways, and the gut microbiome.

Overall, the findings support the conclusion that more plant-based dietary patterns, including vegetarian and vegan diets, are associated with a lower risk of several cancers. While further research is needed, particularly in vegan populations and across a wider range of cancers, the evidence adds to the growing case for plant-based diets as a central component of cancer prevention.

Fasting mimicking diet in Crohn’s disease

The fasting-mimicking diet (FMD) is a short, periodic, plant-based dietary intervention designed to reproduce the metabolic effects of prolonged fasting while still providing limited nourishment. Typically followed for five consecutive days each month, it is plant-based, low in calories, protein and sugars, and relatively higher in unsaturated fats. Developed and extensively studied by Dr Valter Longo and colleagues, earlier work has shown that FMD can reduce systemic inflammation, improve metabolic health, and promote cellular repair processes. Preclinical studies have also demonstrated effects on gut microbiota, immune regulation, and intestinal regeneration, providing a strong rationale for testing this approach in inflammatory bowel disease.

This 2026 randomised controlled trial evaluates the effects of FMD in adults with mild-to-moderate Crohn’s disease. Participants were assigned either to continue their usual diet or to undertake three monthly cycles of a 5-day FMD, returning to their habitual diet between cycles. 60-70% of participants were also receiving medications for Crohn’s disease.

The findings are notable. Around 70% of participants in the FMD group achieved a clinical response, compared with approximately 44% in the control group, and nearly two-thirds achieved clinical remission. These improvements were seen early, with benefits emerging after just a single 5-day cycle. Alongside symptomatic improvement, there were reductions in objective markers of inflammation, particularly faecal calprotectin, supporting a genuine anti-inflammatory effect.

The intervention also led to improvements in patient-reported outcomes and quality of life, suggesting that the clinical benefits translated into meaningful day-to-day improvements for patients. Although endoscopic data were limited, early signals pointed towards possible improvements in mucosal healing.

Mechanistically, the study provides insight into how FMD may work. The diet was associated with reductions in pro-inflammatory lipid mediators and downregulation of key inflammatory cytokines, including TNF, IL-1β and IL-18. These findings are consistent with earlier research showing that fasting-like states can suppress inflammatory pathways, enhance autophagy, and promote tissue repair. Additional mechanisms may include beneficial shifts in the gut microbiome and increased production of ketone bodies, which have anti-inflammatory effects.

From a practical perspective, the appeal of FMD lies in its feasibility. Unlike many dietary interventions that require continuous restriction, FMD involves only five days of dietary change per month, allowing individuals to maintain their usual eating pattern for the remainder of the time. Adherence in the study was relatively high, and the intervention was generally well tolerated, with mild symptoms such as fatigue and headache being the most common side effects.

There are, however, important limitations. The study was relatively small and open-label, and most participants had mild disease, which may limit generalisability. The benefits also appeared to diminish after a washout period, suggesting that ongoing cycles may be needed to sustain the effect.

Overall, this trial adds to a growing body of evidence that dietary interventions can have clinically meaningful effects in inflammatory conditions.

Updated guidelines on resistance training for adults

This 2026 American College of Sports Medicine position stand makes a compelling case that resistance training should be considered a fundamental component of health for all adults, not just those interested in fitness or performance. Drawing on a large body of evidence (130 systematic reviews and data from more than 30,000 people), it shows that resistance training improves muscle strength, muscle mass, power, endurance, balance, and overall physical function. These changes translate into meaningful real-world benefits, including improved ability to perform daily activities, maintain independence with ageing, and reduce the risk of falls. Beyond musculoskeletal health, resistance training is also associated with reduced mortality and lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and type 2 diabetes, alongside benefits for mental health and sleep.

A key message is that resistance training does not need to be complex to be effective. Many different approaches can deliver similar benefits, and the most important factor is consistency over time. The guideline emphasises that programmes should be tailored to the individual to support adherence, taking into account preferences, confidence, and practical barriers. This represents a shift away from rigid, highly structured prescriptions towards a more flexible and inclusive approach.

For most adults, a practical starting point is to engage in resistance training at least twice per week, targeting all major muscle groups. Exercises can be performed using free weights, machines, resistance bands, or body weight, making the approach accessible in a range of settings, including at home. A small number of sets per exercise is sufficient to begin with, and intensity can be progressed gradually as confidence and strength improve. For those aiming to build strength, using relatively heavier loads and focusing on controlled movements through a full range of motion is effective. For improving muscle mass, increasing overall training volume over time is important, while for enhancing power and functional performance, incorporating faster, more dynamic movements with moderate loads can be beneficial.

Importantly, the guideline challenges several common misconceptions. Training to exhaustion is not necessary to achieve results, and no single type of equipment or programme is superior for all individuals. Complex programming strategies offer little additional benefit for most people compared with simpler approaches. Resistance training is also considered safe for healthy adults across the lifespan when introduced progressively, countering the perception that it is inherently risky or only suitable for younger individuals.

Read this short summary, including advice from the lead author.

Physical activity for public health in the 21st century

This 2026 Nature Medicine paper reframes physical activity as a central pillar of public health while challenging the persistent assumption that it is simply a matter of individual choice. It highlights that despite overwhelming evidence of benefit, global levels of physical activity have not meaningfully improved, with a substantial proportion of adults still failing to meet recommended levels. The authors argue that this stagnation reflects not a lack of awareness, but deeper structural and societal barriers.

A key contribution of the paper is its focus on inequality. Patterns of physical activity vary markedly across countries, genders, and socioeconomic groups, with the greatest disparities seen between wealthier men in high-income settings and poorer women in low-income settings. These differences are not incidental; they reflect unequal access to safe environments, time, cultural acceptance, and financial resources. In this context, physical activity is better understood as something shaped by opportunity rather than simply motivation.

The paper also broadens the scope of why physical activity matters. While traditionally emphasised for cardiovascular and metabolic health, it is shown to have wide-ranging effects across physical and mental health, including immune function, mental wellbeing, and cancer outcomes. This reinforces its role as a foundational determinant of overall health, rather than a niche behavioural factor.

One of the most important insights is the distinction between different domains of physical activity, particularly between leisure-time activity and work- or place-based activity. Leisure-time activity, such as walking, cycling, sport, or exercise, is typically performed by choice, in safer environments, and at intensities and durations that are more consistently associated with health benefits. In contrast, work-related or necessity-based activity, such as manual labour, domestic work, or physically demanding jobs, is often repetitive, prolonged, and performed under conditions of low autonomy, limited recovery, and sometimes physical risk. The paper highlights that these forms of activity do not confer the same health benefits and may, in some cases, be associated with adverse outcomes, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as the “physical activity paradox.”

This distinction has important implications. Public health messaging that treats all movement as equivalent risks obscuring the lived realities of those whose physical activity is driven by necessity rather than choice. For individuals in physically demanding occupations, the issue is not insufficient activity but rather the quality, context, and physiological burden of that activity. Conversely, those with sedentary occupations may have the time and resources to engage in beneficial leisure-time activity, reinforcing health inequalities.

In response, the authors propose a shift towards a systems-based model of “physical activity for health and wellbeing.” This approach recognises that activity patterns are shaped by the environments in which people live and work. Factors such as urban design, transport systems, workplace structures, safety, and social norms all influence whether individuals are able to engage in health-promoting activity.

The practical implication is that improving population health will require more than advising individuals to exercise. It will depend on creating conditions that make beneficial forms of physical activity accessible, safe, and integrated into daily life. This includes designing cities that support walking and cycling, ensuring equitable access to green space, addressing gender and socioeconomic barriers, and rethinking workplace environments to reduce harmful physical demands while enabling healthier movement patterns.

A case for lifestyle interventions in Parkinson’s Disease

Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterised by motor symptoms such as tremor, rigidity, and slowed movement, alongside a wide range of non-motor features including cognitive impairment, sleep disturbance, depression, and autonomic dysfunction. While traditionally managed with pharmacological therapies, there is growing recognition that lifestyle factors play a central role in influencing symptoms, quality of life, and potentially disease progression.

This paper presents a comprehensive review of a “wellness prescription” for Parkinson’s disease, advocating a shift from a reactive, medicalised model of care to a proactive, patient-centred approach grounded in lifestyle medicine. It adopts a biopsychosocial framework, placing the individual at the centre and emphasising that everyday behaviours, particularly exercise, diet, sleep, mental health, and social engagement, are integral to outcomes.

Among lifestyle interventions, physical activity has the strongest evidence base. Regular exercise improves core motor symptoms such as mobility, balance, strength, and gait, and also benefits non-motor symptoms including sleep, pain, cognition, anxiety, and depression. There is emerging evidence that it may influence disease progression. Current guidance supports early and sustained engagement in a combination of aerobic, resistance, balance, and flexibility training. Importantly, enjoyment and adherence are key, with activities such as dance, tai chi, and group exercise offering both physical and psychosocial benefits.

Diet is increasingly recognised as an important modifiable factor in both the risk and progression of Parkinson’s disease. Nutritional challenges are common, with a substantial proportion of individuals at risk of malnutrition due to motor difficulties, gastrointestinal dysfunction, reduced appetite, and interactions with medications such as levodopa. Beyond these practical considerations, dietary patterns appear to influence disease biology. Mediterranean-style and plant-rich diets, high in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, and olive oil, are associated with a lower risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, a later age of onset, slower progression, and reduced mortality. Diet may also exert effects through the gut microbiome, with higher-quality diets linked to increased production of anti-inflammatory metabolites. Although randomised trial data remain limited, current evidence supports a predominantly plant-based, Mediterranean-style dietary pattern as the most beneficial approach.

Other aspects of lifestyle are also critical. Sleep disturbance is common and contributes to poorer cognitive and mental health outcomes, with interventions such as sleep hygiene, light exposure, and behavioural therapies offering benefit. Mental health is central to overall wellbeing, with proactive strategies, including exercise, mindfulness, and social engagement, helping to reduce depression and anxiety, which are highly prevalent in Parkinson’s disease. Mind–body approaches such as yoga, meditation, and tai chi show evidence of improving both motor and non-motor symptoms, as well as reducing stress and inflammation.

The paper also highlights the importance of social connection and a sense of purpose. Social isolation is common and associated with worse outcomes, while engagement in meaningful activities and supportive communities can improve quality of life and potentially influence disease trajectory. Broader aspects of wellbeing, including sexual health, general medical care, and self-management skills, are also emphasised as essential components of a holistic approach.

Overall, the review argues that lifestyle interventions should be considered core to the management of Parkinson’s disease rather than optional adjuncts. It calls for a fundamental shift towards integrating exercise, diet, and other lifestyle strategies into routine care from diagnosis, empowering individuals to take an active role in their health and supporting a more holistic approach to living well with Parkinson’s disease.

Half the calories from crops lost in feeding farm animals

The global food system is a major driver of climate change, biodiversity loss, and water use, yet it fails to deliver equitable nutrition. As highlighted in UK government food security reports, rising food insecurity alongside diet-related disease reflects systemic inefficiency rather than a lack of production. This paper examines how effectively global croplands are used to produce food for human consumption.

The central finding is that only around half of the calories grown on croplands are ultimately available to feed people. While global crop production increased significantly between 2010 and 2020, much of this growth was diverted towards feeding farm animals and non-food uses such as biofuels, rather than direct human consumption. As a result, gains in food availability have lagged behind increases in production.

A major source of inefficiency is the conversion of crops into animal products, particularly beef. Large quantities of feed are required to produce relatively small amounts of meat, meaning most of the original calories are lost from the food system. The greatest loss of calories (39.7%) is through production of beef, which only provides 9% of animal-sourced calories (excluding fish).

The scale of this loss is substantial. Croplands produce enough calories to feed far more people than the current global population, yet nearly half of this potential is lost through inefficient use. Shifting towards more plant-based diets or even replacing beef could significantly increase the number of people that could be fed.

Overall, the paper argues that the challenge is not producing more food, but using what we already produce more effectively. We have the ability to ensure every person on this planet has sufficient calories and nutrients to live healthy lives, we just need to ensure there is equitable distribution of food.

Plant-based alternatives to animals foods to improve planetary health

This new paper, Novel Plant and fungi-based Alternatives Support Nutritional Adequacy of Diets and Reduce Their Environmental Impacts, provides important evidence that plant-based meat and dairy alternatives can play a practical and effective role in supporting a shift away from animal-sourced foods, without compromising overall diet quality.

Using a realistic UK “basic basket” that reflects how people actually eat, the authors modelled small, achievable changes, replacing processed meats, milk, or yogurt with plant-based alternatives, and assessed the impact on nutrition, environmental outcomes, and cost.

A key finding is that targeted substitutions with plant-based alternatives can maintain nutritional adequacy across the whole diet. Despite concerns about these foods being ultra-processed, most products assessed were classified as “healthy” using nutrient profiling models, and overall diets continued to meet recommended nutrient intakes in most scenarios . In some cases, nutritional quality even improved, with increases in fibre and reductions in energy intake and saturated fat, particularly when replacing processed meats. While certain micronutrients such as iodine or vitamin B12 may be lower in some products, these differences had minimal impact when considered within the context of the whole diet.

The environmental benefits were consistent and meaningful. Across all substitution scenarios, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and water use decreased, even with relatively small dietary changes . This reinforces the idea that shifting away from animal products, even partially, can contribute significantly to climate and sustainability goals.

Importantly, the study highlights that plant-based alternatives offer a realistic pathway for change. Unlike whole food plant-based diets, these products are designed to mimic the taste, texture, and convenience of meat and dairy, helping to overcome common behavioural barriers such as familiarity, cooking skills, and social norms. The modelling approach, focusing on single, incremental substitutions, reflects how people actually change their diets, rather than assuming complete dietary overhauls.

Cost remains a key limitation. While plant-based dairy alternatives were often comparable or cheaper, plant-based meat alternatives were consistently more expensive, which may limit accessibility and uptake, particularly among lower-income groups. The authors emphasise that without policy action to improve affordability, the full public health and environmental potential of these foods may not be realised.

Overall, this study makes a strong case that plant-based meat and dairy alternatives can serve as a useful and pragmatic bridge in dietary transition. When carefully selected, they enable reductions in animal food consumption while maintaining nutritional adequacy and delivering environmental benefits, supporting a gradual and achievable move towards more sustainable, plant-forward diets.

Read this article for more information about plant-based meat alternatives.

Updated food-based dietary guidelines from the Netherlands

The new Dutch dietary guidelines are bold, taking both health and planetary sustainability into consideration.

The core of the “Wheel of Five” remains unchanged but there has been an update to quantities of various food groups. The recommendations include:

• Eating Plenty of vegetables, fruit, legumes, and whole grains
• Limiting intake of salt, saturated fat, and sugar
• Increasing legumes intake to 250g per week
• Reducing meat consumption from a maximum of. 500g to 300g/week (with ≤100g red meat). This is less red meat than recommended in the Eat-Lancet Planetary Health Diet.
• Halving cheese intake from 40g to 20g per day
• Whilst still including dairy, encouraging alternating with fortified plant-based alternatives.

These guidelines demonstrate real leadership from the Dutch Government, helping to put scientific evidence into action. We hope the UK Government follow suit.

See you back in May.

Please follow my organisation ‘plant-based health professionals UK’ on Instagram @plantbasedhealthprofessionals and facebook. You can support our work by joining as a member or making a donation via the website.

The power of healthy habits for people living with multiple sclerosis

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune condition affecting the brain and the spinal cord. Conventional pharmaceutical treatments slow the progression but rarely reverse and cannot cure the disease. People living with MS often explore diet and lifestyle interventions as a means of managing their symptoms and reducing reliance on medication and increasingly, lifestyle interventions are recognised as beneficial by medical professionals.

The impact of diet on multiple sclerosis 

We know that people living with MS can benefit from increasing the proportion and variety of healthy plant foods in the diet i.e. fruit, vegetables, whole grains, beans, nuts and seeds, whilst limiting or avoiding animal-derived and processed foods. 

Dr Roy Swank, a pioneer of dietary approaches in MS, used a diet low in saturated fat that limited meat consumption and emphasised fruit and vegetable consumption. His observational study is the longest ever reported on diet and MS, following his patients for up to 34 years. The results suggested that patients adhering to his dietary protocol had significantly less neurological disability and longer lives. 

Subsequent studies have shown that these positive results are likely to be explained by the fact that a plant-based diet is rich in nutrients that reduce inflammation and thus leading to improvements in symptoms. In contrast diets high in meat and saturated fats promote inflammation and in general worsen symptoms and quality of life. Dairy may also have a negative impact on symptoms.

The impact of the gut microbiome

Growing evidence suggests that the health of the gut microbiome is a key factor in the development and progression of MS, especially given its importance in maintaining a healthy immune system. Diet is the main determinant of gut health, with a fibre and polyphenol-rich plant-based diet being essential. Meat heavy diets reduce the number of healthy bacterial species in the gut and thus adversely affect the immune system. In contrast plant-based diets support the growth of a variety of healthy gut bacteria, which are associated with better immune health and lower levels of inflammation. 

A randomised study demonstrated that the adoption of a plant-rich, anti-inflammatory diet led to reduced levels of inflammation in the gut of people with MS and that this was also associated with improvements in visual symptoms.

Specific nutrients to emphasise

People living with MS may benefit from higher blood levels of vitamin D, aiming for 100-150nmol/l. This will usually require supplementation, along with judicious exposure to the sun.

Long-chain omega-3 fatty acid supplementation in some, but not all, studies has been shown to reduce fatigue, relapse rate and disability. This can be in the form of high potency fish oil or cold pressed flaxseed oil (20-40mls daily). 

Healthy lifestyle habits

Alongside a healthy, fibre-rich diet, all aspects of lifestyle are important for reducing symptom burden and disability and improving quality of life in people with MS. Regular physical activity, managing stress using mindfulness and meditation techniques, adequate sleep and avoiding tobacco and other toxins all support better health and wellbeing in people with MS. 

Programs such as ‘Overcoming MS’, which support people to adopt healthy lifestyle habits have been hugely valuable. They provide community and purpose along with essential information.

Inspiring hope

To raise awareness of the power of healthy habits, we published two case histories highlighting the remarkable potential of lifestyle changes, including a whole food plant-based diet, to improve symptoms and quality of life, allowing for the discontinuation of medication. This is not the first report of such successes. Dr Saray Stancic, a US-based physician has also previously charted her experience of reversing severe disability from MS using a whole food plant-based diet and lifestyle approach. 

We fully appreciate that not all people living with MS can expect to have such positive results, but these same lifestyle habits are key for reducing the longer term risk of cardiovascular disease and certain cancers, conditions with a higher incidence in people living with MS.

Resources

PBHP UK factsheet on multiple sclerosis

Healing from the Inside Out: Managing autoimmune disease with a whole-food plant-based diet by Karen Lee

Vegfest Free Birmingham 2026

Saturday April 25th 2026 10am – 7pm
at Edgbaston Cricket Ground Edgbaston Rd, Birmingham B5 7QU

Plant-Based Health Professionals UK will be holding a panel discussion and a stall at VegFest free.

Lifestyle Medicine in Practice online series:
Mainstreaming Lifestyle Medicine through Group Clinics

Monday 20 April, 20:00–21:00 (BST)

This interactive online session explores how group clinics can be used to deliver lifestyle medicine more effectively in practice.

Led by Claire Lynch, with guest speaker Georgina Craig, the session will introduce the concept of group clinics, how they work in real-world settings, and why they are increasingly being used to support behaviour change and expand reach without increasing clinician workload.

We will cover:

• What group clinics are and how they run in practice
• How they can help mainstream lifestyle medicine in clinical settings
• The evidence and real-world examples behind this approach
• Resources and training available to support implementation

There will be time for questions and shared discussion, with opportunities to reflect on how this approach could apply to your own work.

About the speaker

Georgina Craig is National Director of The Experience Led Care Programme and has over 33 years’ experience supporting health service redesign and innovation. She leads work to spread group clinics across England and Wales, working closely with NHS England and Welsh Government to support this person-centred approach to care.

This session is part of our ongoing member programme to support practical implementation of lifestyle medicine.

Not a member? Please join us here.

Everything you need to know about ultra-processed foods on a plant-based diet

By Isabelle Sadler, PBHP UK Research Assistant, MSc Nutrition Student

Navigating the world of UPFs can be confusing. What foods should we avoid and in what quantities? Much of the food available in supermarkets is processed in some way, and convenience foods can play a role in busy lives. Plus, some commonly used foods, such as plant milks or meat alternatives, are classified as ultra-processed.

Below we answer some of the most common questions we receive.

What is an ultra-processed food?

Different classification systems have been developed to describe foods by their degree of processing. The NOVA system is most commonly used, developed by researchers at the University of São Paulo, Brazil.

NOVA categorises food into four groups based on processing (see Figure 1 below). Ultra-processed foods make up group 4; these are industrial formulations, characterised by extensive processing, made from cheap industrial ingredients, and combined with additives. Flavours, colours, emulsifiers, and other additives are used to make the food look, smell, and taste good, often hyper-palatable, as well as to extend shelf-life. Examples include carbonated soft drinks, flavoured yoghurt, hot dogs, sausages, desserts, and ready-to-eat meals. Infant formulas, plant-based dairy and meat alternatives, breakfast cereals, and breads are also considered ultra-processed foods under NOVA.

While NOVA is widely used in research and public health policy work, it does receive criticism. Classification is based on the degree of processing, and not nutritional quality, which means the categorisation of foods can seem inconsistent. This can make the system confusing, and it’s not always easy to apply in practice.

Are all ultra-processed foods unhealthy?

Diets high in UPFs are generally associated with an increased risk of several chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease (CVD), type 2 diabetes and some cancers. However, when we break this down by type of ultra-processed food, the health impacts can be strikingly different.

In 2023, a cohort study found that processed animal meats and sugar-sweetened beverages were most strongly associated with increased risk of developing cancer and cardiometabolic diseases. In contrast, plant-based meat alternatives were not associated with increased risk, and even showed a trend toward a lower risk.

More recent research has also shown that the health effects of ultra-processed foods vary depending on the type of food. A 2024 analysis of three large U.S. cohort studies, involving more than 206,000 participants followed for nearly 30 years, found that higher overall UPF intake was associated with an 11% higher risk of CVD. However, the associations differed by food category: sugar-sweetened beverages and processed meats showed consistent increased risk, while breads, breakfast cereals, yoghurts, and some savoury snacks were associated with lower CVD risk.

Similarly, a 2024 study of over 311,000 participants in Europe found that each 10% increase in UPF intake was associated with a 17% higher risk of type 2 diabetes overall. Yet again, the results varied by food type: processed animal products, savoury snacks and sweetened beverages were associated with higher risk, whereas breads, breakfast cereals and plant-based alternatives were linked with lower risk.

These foods differ greatly in their nutritional quality and ingredients, and those that are linked to lower risk of chronic diseases, such as breakfast cereals and whole-grain breads, can add valuable nutrients, including fibre, iron and B vitamins. Therefore, simply classifying them as unhealthy because of their level of processing can be misleading.

Are plant-based meat alternatives ultra-processed and unhealthy?

Based on the NOVA classification system, most plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) are considered ultra-processed foods. However, current evidence suggests that consuming these products may not be associated with an increased risk of chronic diseases. They may also offer health benefits over the consumption of red or processed meat.

Read our full article for more evidence on plant-based meat alternatives here.

Can I drink processed plant-based dairy alternatives?

Plant-based drinks are often classified as ultra-processed because they undergo industrial processing and may contain ingredients such as emulsifiers or stabilisers. However, they do not share many of the characteristics of ultra-processed foods that are typically linked with poorer health outcomes. For example, most are not high in salt or saturated fat, and they are not designed to be hyper-palatable or easy to overconsume. Choosing unsweetened varieties can also help avoid added sugars. Additionally, some of their processing is beneficial, such as the addition of vitamin D, calcium, and iodine.

Evidence also suggests they can support good cardiometabolic health. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 trials found that replacing cow’s milk with soya milk, regardless of the presence of added sugars, led to reductions in non-HDL cholesterol, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and small reductions in LDL cholesterol and C-reactive protein. This is despite soya milk being classified as an ultra-processed food, and dairy milk being classified as minimally processed.

Consumers often perceive organic or less processed products as healthier. However, in the UK organic plant milks are typically not fortified, meaning they may lack nutrients such as calcium and iodine.

Should I be worried about emulsifiers in plant-based drinks?

Some plant-based drinks contain small amounts of emulsifiers, such as gellan gum, to improve texture and prevent separation.

There has been growing interest in how certain food additives might influence health, particularly gut health. However, at present there is not enough evidence to suggest that people without specific gastrointestinal conditions, such as irritable bowel syndrome, need to avoid emulsifiers altogether. Gellan gum, one of the most common emulsifiers used in plant drinks, is considered safe by food safety authorities and is used in small amounts.

For people living with inflammatory bowel disease, avoiding emulsifiers may be beneficial. A recent randomised controlled trial in people with mild to moderately active Crohn’s disease found that those following a low-emulsifier diet were more likely to achieve symptom improvement and remission over eight weeks compared with a control group. However, much of the existing evidence on how emulsifiers may affect the gut microbiome and intestinal barrier comes from laboratory and animal studies, and more human research is needed.

It is also important to consider overall dietary patterns. Diets high in ultra-processed foods may contain much larger amounts of emulsifiers overall. In contrast, a diet based largely on whole plant foods, with occasional foods containing small amounts of emulsifiers (such as plant drinks), is less likely to have the same impact.

For those who prefer to avoid emulsifiers, various plant milks are available without them. However, these products are not always fortified, so it is important to ensure nutrients such as calcium, iodine and vitamin D are obtained from other sources.

Read our complete guide to plant-based milks here.

What about plant-based cheese alternatives?

Plant-based cheese is also classified as ultra-processed. However, like many foods in this category, its nutritional value varies widely depending on the ingredients used.

Many commercial plant-based cheeses are made primarily from coconut oil and starches. These products can be relatively high in saturated fat and salt, typically contain little protein or fibre, and may contain a range of additives, so they fit better with the accepted definition of UPF.

However, other varieties are based on whole plant foods, such as cashews or tofu. These options tend to offer a more favourable nutritional profile. For example, cashew-based cheeses may contain more protein and unsaturated fats, and tofu-based cheeses can provide a useful source of plant protein.

Some plant-based cheeses are also fortified with important nutrients such as vitamin B12, calcium and iodine.

Do plant-based diets contain more ultra-processed foods than other diets?

Not necessarily. In fact, several studies show that consumption of ultra-processed food tends to be very similar, sometimes identical, across plant-based diets and diets that include animals.

Some studies have shown a higher intake of UPF in vegans and vegetarians, which is likely related to the fact that plant-based dairy and meat alternatives are categorised as ultra-processed. These often replace animal-based meat and dairy in the diet, many of which are considered minimally processed foods spanning NOVA groups 1-3.

A plant-based diet can be very high or very low in ultra-processed foods, depending on the choices someone makes, just like any dietary pattern. For example, a minimally processed plant-based diet may include foods such as vegetables and fruits, whole grains, beans and lentils, tofu and tempeh, and nuts and seeds. Whereas a plant-based diet high in UPFs might rely heavily on vegan ready meals, plant-based burgers or sausages, confectionery and snack foods, and sugary drinks.

What should I look out for on food labels?

Rather than focusing solely on whether a food is ultra-processed, it can be more helpful to consider its nutritional quality.

Some things to look out for include:

• High levels of added sugar
• High salt content
• High saturated fat
• Very low fibre
• High in calories

Foods that combine high sugar, salt or fat with low fibre are more likely to contribute to poorer health outcomes. This aligns with the conclusions of an evidence review by the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, that states most of the negative health impacts of UPFs are related to higher calorie, salt, sugar and fat intake.

You can also look at the ingredient list. Very long lists with many unfamiliar ingredients may suggest a highly processed product, although lots of ingredients does not automatically mean it is unhealthy.

Should I try to avoid ultra-processed foods completely?

For most people, the goal does not need to be complete avoidance, but rather building a diet that is mostly made up of minimally processed plant foods. Small amounts of processed foods can still fit within a healthy dietary pattern.

Recommended reading

Ultra-Processed or Ultra-Confused? A Data Sheet for Evidence-Based Choices on UPFs | ProVeg International

Are all ultra-processed foods bad? A critical review of the NOVA classification system by Jimmy Chun Yu Louie

Unpacking the Evidence on Ultra-Processed Foods & Plant-Based Meat: A Summary for Healthcare Professionals by PAN International

Ultra-processed food and cancer | World Cancer Research Fund

Plants First Healthcare Coalition launch statement

Serving Up Change

A new coalition launches to support the healthcare sector to pioneer the best in sustainable, delicious plant-rich meals.

We are excited to announce the launch of a groundbreaking new coalition, supporting and empowering healthcare organisations to adopt delicious, nutritious and sustainable plant-rich food cultures.

The Plants First Healthcare Coalition (PFHC) is formed of five founding members: Greener By Default, MyNutriWeb, ProVeg UK, Plant-Based Health Professionals UK, and Real Zero. Together, we bring a wealth of experience to support the healthcare sector in increasing plant-based meal provision, benefi ting people and the planet, and maintaining choice.

A culmination of several years of working in partnership, the founding organisations have come together to share their expertise as a single coherent offering, including business case development, culinary and service staff training, recipe development, sector engagement, choice architecture, behavioural nudges, healthcare professional training and food culture change. We have a successful track record of implementing food change in healthcare settings, schools and other institutions.

The coalition has already delivered a milestone invitation-only event, bringing together sector leaders to champion, spotlight and share existing excellence in the sustainable diet space. This work will continue with the aim of building a shared roadmap for achieving a world class plant-rich food offering in UK health services.

Pilot programmes are currently taking place in 10 NHS hospital trusts with more to start over the coming months.

Philip Shelley, NHSE National Lead For Net Zero Food says:
“If we are to drive positive change across healthcare, then partnership working will be at the core of any success. The Plants First Healthcare Coalition has worked tirelessly to drive a collated approach to plant-rich menus across our NHS sites. This has included educational events, workshops and supplier engagement. If we are to have a purposeful and long standing change of direction, then support for choice and healthier outcomes should be prioritised.”

If you’d like to learn how we can support sustainable food culture change in your healthcare setting – get in touch at info@plantsfirsthealthcare.com

NEW WEBSITE COMING SOON

Coalition partners:

Plant-Based Healthcare Professionals UK, Shireen Kassam
“PBHP UK is delighted to join forces with other sector leaders in bringing the very best in sustainable, plant-rich meals to healthcare settings in the UK. Our combined expertise and experience as coalition members make us the ideal collective to champion a shift towards healthy and sustainable diets. We look forward to collaborating with and supporting healthcare catering leaders, professionals and suppliers on the journey to build a positive, world-class plant-rich food culture.”

Greener By Default, Heidi Fritz
“Greener by Default is thrilled to take our work with UK hospitals to the next level alongside our dynamic coalition partners, with whom we share a deep commitment to building greener, healthier, and more inclusive healthcare settings and a belief that, together, we can amplify our impact far beyond what any of us could achieve alone.”

ProVeg UK, Sophia Millar
“ProVeg are delighted to bring our expertise in transforming large-scale public food systems to the healthcare space, joining forces with a wealth of food industry and healthcare experts to drive plant-rich innovation. With people and the planet at the heart of what we do, together we’re pioneering a systemic shift to embed healthy, sustainable nutrition at the core of healthcare provision.”

Real Zero, Adrian Byrne
“Delivering plant-rich food in the healthcare setting is a high-impact intervention that benefi ts people and planetary health and delivers incredible value for money for the public purse. We are hugely excited to be working alongside our ground-breaking coalition partners to deliver world-class, evidence-based, sustainable food solutions across the NHS. As a coalition, we have a shared vision that rightly places food and food services at the heart of patient care and believe that together, we can scale the pace and impact of our work beyond what we would achieve individually.”

MyNutriWeb, Tanya Haffner
“Delivering a delicious plant-rich food culture in healthcare, is one of the most powerful and lowest cost interventions that we can be implementing to improve patient outcomes, cut environmental impact and reduce healthcare costs – all within existing food and nutrition standards and maintaining full patient choice. The triple wins for people, planet, and the NHS budget, make it an essential high impact game changing healthcare strategy for the benefi t of all. MyNutriWeb is privileged to be collaborating with progressive stakeholders and change makers in the NHS including food service dietitians and the Plants First Healthcare Coalition to help make this vision a lasting reality.”

Review of the plant-based nutrition and lifestyle medicine news March 2026

Cancer and brain health are the main themes of this month’s review. Plus a reminder that genetics are not our destiny and that diets can be healthy AND sustainable.

Healthy lifestyles can improve heart health even when high genetic

Heart disease remains the top killer of men and women globally, yet 90% of cases could be prevented if we addressed modifiable risk factors.

This new study investigated the combined impact of diet and lifestyle on the risk of coronary heart disease. While we know that both genetics and lifestyle influence cardiovascular risk, fewer studies have looked at how these factors interact, particularly in the context of plant-based dietary patterns.

Researchers analysed data from 7,764 participants in the long-running Rotterdam Study, following them prospectively for several decades to track the development of coronary heart disease. The investigators applyed a validated lifestyle score that incorporated a healthy plant-based diet in combination with non-smoking, adequate physical activity and moderate sleep duration, alongside polygenetic risk score.

The results showed that higher adherence to this healthy plant-based lifestyle was associated with a significantly lower risk of developing coronary heart disease. For every increase in the score reflecting healthier behaviours, the risk of coronary heart disease fell. Participants with the highest adherence to the healthy plant-based lifestyle had a 22% lower risk of developing coronary heart disease compared with those with the poorest adherence.

Importantly, adherence to a healthy plant-based lifestyle benefited all genetic risk groups. However, participants with a high genetic risk benefited the most with a 44% reduction in risk compared to participants with a low or intermediate genetic risk who showed a 20% reduction in risk. Once again, these data confirm that genes are not our destiny.

The accompanying editorial highlights an important point. Lifestyle behaviours rarely occur in isolation. People who follow a healthier diet are also more likely to be physically active, avoid smoking and maintain good sleep patterns. Looking at these behaviours together therefore provides a more realistic picture of how lifestyle influences cardiovascular health.

Taken together, these findings reinforce a powerful public health message. A diet rich in whole plant foods, combined with other healthy lifestyle habits, can substantially reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. Even for individuals with an unfavourable genetic profile, lifestyle choices remain a powerful tool for protecting long-term health. This is of particular importance for South Asian. New data from the MASALA study in the US show that South Asians have a significantly higher risk of heart disease and type 2 diabetes, which also occur much earlier in life, compared to all other ethnicities. Thus, tailored and earlier prevention strategies are required with intensive risk factor management.

Do vegan diets increase the risk of colorectal cancer?

One of the largest studies of its kind on diet and cancer saw a hugh amount of media attention. The analysis brings together data from nine different studies, 3 different continents and includes 1,645,555 meat eaters; 57,016 poultry eaters; 42,910 pescatarians; 63,147 vegetarians; and 8,849 vegans. Participants were followed for a median of 16 years.

Although the results support prior literature and shows that vegetarian diets lower the risk of five different cancer type, there are also some surprising results.

Vegetarians in this cohort had a reduced risk of pancreatic, breast, prostate, and kidney cancers, and multiple myeloma. This lower risk was explained, in part, by lower body weight. However, they also had a higher risk of squamous cell oesophageal cancer, which is not easily explained, but could be due to lower intakes of B vitamins. Prior studies have identified B vitamins to be important for preventing oesophageal cancer

For those following a vegan diet, there were just too few numbers of each cancer type to draw firm conclusions. However a surprising finding was that vegans had an increased risk of colorectal cancer.

As the authors themselves point out, this should be interpreted with caution since the results for vegans were based on just 93 cases across all the studies with some studies having fewer than 10 cases. When the first 4 years of follow-up were excluded, the higher risk of colorectal cancer was no longer significant. This suggests that some people already had the early stages of cancer present prior to entry into the study as there is a long lead time prior to cancers becoming clinically apparent. In addition, as pointed out in this excellent video by Mic the Vegan, the models reported adjusted for body mass index (BMI). If you accept that a lower BMI is a result of the vegan diet rather than a confounder then this association with colorectal cancer disappears. In addition, when BMI was not adjusted for, vegans also had a lower risk of prostate and breast cancers.

However, it is worth noting that a very plausible reason for the higher risk of colorectal cancer in vegans is the low calcium intakes across most of the cohorts analysed. Adequate calcium intake has long been known to protect against colorectal cancer.

The lower calcium intake in vegans is likely a reflection of the fact that these studies were from the 1990’s and 2000’s when fortified vegan products were not widely available. Modern day analysis of vegans shows that calcium intakes are now adequate.

Another points to note are that this study did not report on total cancer risk, only site specific risk. Prior analyses, including from the EPIC-Oxford study and Adventist Health Study-2, have clearly shown a reduced risk of total cancer in both vegetarian and vegans, with a greater reduction in vegans. In addition, omnivores in the current analysis had relatively low intakes of meat compared to current typical Western diets. The study did not consider diet quality and vegans were identified based on what they do not eat (animal-sourced foods), rather than what they were eating – which of course is not always healthy.

The take home message remains unchanged. Diets high in fruit, vegetables, whole grains, beans, nuts and seeds are best for cancer prevention. Vegan diets need to be appropriately supplemented with vitamin B12 and certain nutrients need extra focus such as calcium, vitamin D, iodine, selenium and zinc.

Physical activity in cancer survivors

This study examines the impact of physical activity in cancer survival. While there is strong evidence that regular exercise reduces the risk of developing cancer, there has been less research on whether physical activity improves survival after a diagnosis, particularly for cancers other than breast, prostate and colorectal cancer.

Researchers analysed data from six large cohort studies involving more than 17,000 cancer survivors diagnosed with bladder, endometrial, kidney, lung, oral, ovarian or rectal cancer. Participants were followed for an average of almost 11 years after diagnosis, allowing the researchers to examine how levels of leisure-time physical activity related to the risk of dying from cancer.

The findings were striking. Even small amounts of moderate to vigorous physical activity after a cancer diagnosis were associated with a lower risk of cancer mortality for bladder, endometrial and lung cancer. Higher levels of activity, double or triple the recommended amount, were associated with reductions in mortality for oral cancers.

Perhaps the most encouraging finding was that becoming active after diagnosis appeared to be beneficial even for people who had previously been inactive. Lung and rectal cancer survivors who met physical activity guidelines after diagnosis had a lower risk of cancer mortality regardless of their activity levels before diagnosis. This reinforces an important message for patients: it is never too late to start moving.

As with most observational studies, the findings cannot prove cause and effect. People who are able to be physically active may already be healthier than those who are not. However, the results remained broadly consistent even after accounting for factors such as smoking, cancer stage and treatment.

Overall, this research strengthens the case for physical activity as an important component of cancer survivorship care. Alongside good nutrition and other lifestyle measures, regular movement may play a meaningful role in improving long-term outcomes for people living with and beyond cancer.

An opportunity for breast cancer prevention

A major new analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study provides a stark reminder of the growing global impact of breast cancer and the urgent need to prioritise prevention. The study analysed trends from 1990 to 2023 across 204 countries and territories, making it one of the most comprehensive assessments of breast cancer worldwide.

Breast cancer remains the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women globally and a leading cause of cancer death. Although survival has improved in many high-income countries due to earlier detection and better treatment, the overall number of cases continues to rise as populations grow and age.

What is often overlooked is the extent to which breast cancer is preventable. The study estimates that around 28% of the global burden of breast cancer is attributable to modifiable risk factors. The largest contributors include dietary risks, tobacco exposure, high blood glucose, excess body weight, alcohol consumption and low levels of physical activity.

Looking ahead, the projections are concerning. By 2050, the number of new breast cancer cases each year is expected to increase to around 3.5 million globally, with deaths rising substantially as well. Much of this increase will occur in low- and middle-income countries where access to screening, diagnosis and treatment remains limited.

These findings highlight an uncomfortable truth. While advances in treatment are improving survival, far less attention is given to preventing cancer in the first place. Policies that support healthier diets, increased physical activity and reduced alcohol consumption could prevent a significant proportion of cases.

Diet and brain health

Interest in how diet influences brain health continues to grow, and several new papers this month add to the evidence that what we eat may play an important role in the risk of cognitive decline and dementia.

A systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis examined the relationship between plant-based dietary patterns and the risk of cognitive impairment and dementia across seven prospective studies involving more than 220,000 participants. The overall findings suggested that people who followed plant-based diets more closely tended to have a lower risk of cognitive impairment and dementia. However, the most important message from this analysis was that diet quality matters. Healthy plant-based diets rich in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes and nuts were associated with a lower risk, while plant-based diets high in refined grains, sugary foods and ultra-processed products were associated with a higher risk. In other words, simply eating “more plant foods” does not guarantee protection if those foods are heavily processed.

A second study combined analyses from large prospective cohorts in the United States and the United Kingdom with a broader meta-analysis of cohort studies examining plant-based diets and dementia risk. Once again, the results highlighted the importance of diet quality. Participants with the highest adherence to healthy plant-based diets had a substantially lower risk of developing dementia, while those with diets characterised by less healthy plant foods had a higher risk. Foods most strongly associated with lower dementia risk included vegetables, legumes, nuts and beverages such as tea and coffee. In the pooled analysis, those most closely following a healthy plant-based dietary pattern had around a 21% lower risk of dementia compared with those with the lowest adherence, while unhealthy plant-based diets were associated with a 24% higher risk.

A third paper offered a more cautionary perspective. Using data from cohorts in China, Europe and the United States, researchers reported that more restrictive vegetarian diets in older adults, particularly vegan diets, were associated with a higher risk of cognitive impairment, while pescatarian diets appeared to be associated with lower risk. The authors suggested that nutritional inadequacy could partly explain these findings, particularly with respect to nutrients such as vitamin B12, vitamin D, iron and long-chain omega-3 fats. Importantly, however, the study did not directly measure nutrient status and did not distinguish clearly between healthy and unhealthy plant-based dietary patterns, meaning the findings need to be interpreted carefully.

Taken together, these studies reinforce a key point that is often lost in discussions about plant-based diets. The question is not simply whether a diet is vegetarian, vegan or plant-based in name, but whether it is a high-quality dietary pattern centred on minimally processed plant foods. The strongest evidence continues to suggest that diets rich in vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, nuts and other whole plant foods are associated with better cardiometabolic health and, increasingly, with better brain health as well. At the same time, the more cautionary findings remind us that plant-based diets need to be well planned, particularly in older adults, to ensure adequate intake of key nutrients such as vitamin B12.

Parkinson’s disease and dairy – is there a link?

A new systematic review and meta-analysis has examined whether dairy consumption is associated with the risk of Parkinson’s disease. Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative condition affecting almost 12 million people worldwide, and the number is expected to more than double by 2050. Identifying modifiable lifestyle factors that influence risk is therefore an important public health priority.

This review analysed nine observational studies from the United States, Europe and Asia, including more than 630,000 participants and over 4,000 cases of Parkinson’s disease. The researchers found that people with the highest intake of dairy had a 21% higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease compared with those consuming the least dairy. When milk alone was examined, the association remained significant, with a 13% higher risk among those with higher milk consumption. Interestingly, the relationship appeared stronger in men than in women.

Not all dairy products were associated with risk. The analysis did not find a significant link between Parkinson’s disease and fermented dairy products such as yoghurt, or with cheese, butter or ice cream. This suggests that the type of dairy consumed may be important, with the strongest signal seen for plain milk.

The reasons for this association are not yet fully understood, but several explanations have been proposed. One possibility relates to the gut–brain axis. Changes in the gut microbiome may influence the misfolding and spread of alpha-synuclein, a protein that accumulates in the brains of people with Parkinson’s disease. Another theory is that milk may lower levels of uric acid in the blood. Uric acid acts as a natural antioxidant, and lower levels have been linked to greater vulnerability to neurodegeneration. Environmental contaminants such as pesticide residues in dairy products have also been suggested as a possible contributor.

It is important to interpret these findings cautiously. The evidence comes from observational studies, which means the research can identify associations but cannot prove cause and effect. Dietary intake was also typically measured only once and relied on self-reported food questionnaires, which can introduce error. Nevertheless, the consistency of the findings across multiple large studies means the potential link between milk intake and Parkinson’s disease warrants further investigation. It is worth noting that prior studies using Mendelian randomisation and the lactase gene variant to predict for intakes of dairy have found that higher intakes are associated with an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease. This suggests that a causal relationship is indeed possible.

Taken together, this research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that dietary patterns may influence the risk of neurodegenerative disease. While more research is needed to clarify mechanisms and causality, it highlights the importance of considering diet as part of a broader strategy to reduce the burden of chronic disease.

When it comes to dairy, we know it is not required in the diet, 75% of the worlds population is lactose intolerant (the natural state in humans), dairy may increase the risk of prostate cancer and of course its production is terrible for the environment and the animals. If we apply the precautionary principle we should be moving away from consuming dairy, especially when we have healthier alternatives in the form of plant drinks.

European diets and sustainability

A new paper examined how closely European diets align with the planetary health diet, a framework designed to support both human health and environmental sustainability. The researchers analysed dietary data from nine European countries, comparing current eating patterns with the dietary targets proposed by the EAT–Lancet Commission.

The study included 16,083 adults with sample sizes ranging from 519 in the UK to 3703 in Portugal. Across all countries studied, the findings showed a clear gap between current diets and what would be considered both healthy and environmentally sustainable. In general, people consumed far more red and processed meat, dairy and added sugars than recommended, while intake of whole grains, legumes, nuts, fruits and vegetables fell well below suggested levels. These patterns were consistent across much of Europe, highlighting how deeply entrenched animal-based and ultra-processed food consumption remains in modern diets.

More specific quantification of food groups showed average intakes of 189.6 ± 24.6 g/d for vegetables and 177.1 ± 47.7 g/d for fruits, followed by 66.2 ± 13.6 g/d for tubers, 31.5 ± 19.5 g/d for whole grains, 27.5 ± 12.8 g/d for legumes, 5.2 ± 3.2 g/d for nuts, and 14.0 ± 7.4 g/d for unsaturated oils. For animal-based foods, mean intakes were 263.8 ± 85.6 g/d for dairy, 82.5 ± 10.5 g/d for total red meat (40.4 g/d from beef and lamb and 42.0 g/d from pork), 49.9 ± 17.8 g/d for poultry, 22.8 ± 7.0 g/d for eggs, 38.6 ± 17.4 g/d for fish and seafood, and 28.2 ± 9.3 g/d for saturated fats. The mean intake of added sugars was 54.6 ± 9.5 g/d.

The UK data reflected this broader pattern and showed some of the lowest scores for adherence to the planetary health diet. Compared with the planetary health diet targets, UK diets were characterised by excessive intake of red and processed meat, poultry, eggs, sugar and saturated fat and insufficient consumption of plant foods such as legumes, nuts and whole grains. Fruit and vegetable intake also remained below optimal levels.

The overall message from the study is clear: achieving diets that are both healthy and environmentally sustainable will require substantial shifts in food consumption across Europe. This requires joined up policy and regulation across farming, healthcare, retail and public sector catering. We are still hopefully that the National Food Strategy for the UK, likely due for publication in the summer, will address these key issues. Read our collaborative Ten Point Plan recommendations for the National Food Strategy team.

Micronutrient adequacy of plant-based meat alternatives

Concerns are often raised about the nutritional adequacy of plant-based diets, particularly with respect to micronutrients such as iron, zinc, vitamin B12 and iodine. At the same time, plant-based meat alternatives have attracted criticism because they are often classified as ultra-processed foods. Critics argue that replacing animal products with these alternatives could worsen diet quality or increase the risk of nutrient deficiencies. A new randomised controlled trial helps address some of these concerns by directly comparing micronutrient intake and status in people consuming plant-based meat alternatives with those eating animal-based meats.

In this eight-week trial, 89 adults were randomly assigned to consume either plant-based meat analogues or animal-based meat as their primary protein source while otherwise maintaining their usual diet. Researchers assessed both dietary intake and blood markers of micronutrient status before and after the intervention. Overall, the study found that replacing animal meat with plant-based meat alternatives did not lead to clinically meaningful declines in micronutrient status. Key nutrients often highlighted as potential concerns in plant-based diets, including iron and zinc, remained within normal ranges, and there were no significant differences between the groups at the end of the study. Some nutrients, including dietary fibre, were higher in the plant-based meat group, reflecting the plant ingredients used in these products.

A remaining concern about plant-based meat alternatives is the higher sodium content. Of course, when people eat meat they tend to add salt when cooking for added flavour, so the differences may not be as wide as expected. Interestingly, the SWAP-Meat study comparing beef with Beyond meat products did not find a detrimental effect on blood pressure from the potential higher sodium intake, at least in the short term.

While the current study was relatively short and cannot address long-term health effects, it provides useful evidence that plant-based meat alternatives, if used as part of a varied diet, may offer a practical way for people to reduce their intake of animal products without increasing the risk of nutrient deficiencies. Read our article on plant-based meat alternatives.

See you back in April!

Please follow my organisation ‘plant-based health professionals UK’ on Instagram @plantbasedhealthprofessionals and facebook. You can support our work by joining as a member or making a donation via the website.

Rethinking Easter: choosing lentils instead of lamb

By Shireen Kassam, Founder and Director of Plant-Based Health Professionals UK

Health Benefits of Lentils

Lentils are edible seeds of the legume family that grow in pods. They are nutritional powerhouses that provide an excellent source of plant-based protein, fibre, and essential vitamins and minerals such as iron, magnesium, B vitamins, zinc, and folate. Higher intakes of lentils and other legumes have been associated with better cardiometabolic health, lower risk of cancer and a reduction in premature mortality. Lentils have a low glycaemic index, helping to stabilise blood sugar levels, reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes and improving glucose control in people with diabetes. Lentils have also been shown to have anti-inflammatory and anti-microbial properties, while promoting gut health and immune function.

Health Concerns around Lamb

In contrast, consumption of red meat such as lamb has been consistently associated with adverse health outcomes, including an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes and cancer. In fact, the World Health Organisation has classified red meat as a group 2a carcinogen – a probable cause of cancer. These negative impacts on health are due, in part, to the presence of saturated fat and haem iron in lamb, plus the generation of cancer-causing chemicals when cooking red meat at high heat. In addition, lamb lacks beneficial nutrients such as fibre and other anti-inflammatory and antioxidant compounds present in plant foods that support gut health and immune function.

The Environmental Impact of Lamb

The environmental consequences of raising ruminant animals, such as lamb, for food is staggering. Not only is there the issue of carbon emissions, but methane emissions from burps and manure have a greater warming potential and will prevent us from meeting our climate commitments. In the UK, more than 60% of greenhouse gas emissions from farming arise from the production of red meat and dairy. The production of meat from lamb is hugely inefficient. In the UK around 20% of farmland is dedicated to raising sheep but these roughly 32 million sheep provide only 1% of our energy intake. The conversion of feed for the animals into energy for people is a ratio of 5 to 1. The UK is the sixth largest producer and third largest exporter of lamb, a food we do not need for maintaining good health. This vast amount of land dedicated to raising sheep is leading to the degradation of soil, habitat destruction, water and land pollution and biodiversity loss.

It is often stated that the uplands of the UK (hills, dales, moors and mountains) are not suitable for anything other than grazing animals. This is far from true. These areas could instead be used to grow tree crops (fruit and nuts), rewilded to restore natural habitats, and provide other ecosystem services such as natural flood barriers in watershed management.

Lentils: A Climate-Friendly Protein

Lentils, on the other hand, have an exceptionally low environmental footprint. They require minimal water and land compared to farming animals and can even improve soil health by fixing nitrogen and thus reducing the need for synthetic fertilisers. The production of lentils generates far fewer greenhouse gas emissions than meat production, making them a climate-friendly food choice. By shifting to consuming plant-sources of protein we would free up 75% of farmland in the UK, that is land mass the size of Scotland, which could be used to restore nature and capture carbon.

For food security and sovereignty, we need to vastly increase our domestic production of fruit, vegetables, whole grains and legumes, which this land could also be used for and thus further supporting rural livelihoods. Currently we only dedicate 15% of farmland to growing fruit, vegetables and legumes with the UK relying heavily on imported fruit and vegetables. Even then there is insufficient availability of these foods for people to consume the recommended five portions a day. By opting for lentils this Easter, we take a small but meaningful step toward reducing our ecological impact, preserving the planet for future generations and ensuring our food security.

Ethical Considerations: Compassion Over Tradition

Easter is a celebration of renewal and life, yet the tradition of eating lamb contradicts this message. Millions of lambs are slaughtered for Easter worldwide with more than 2 million killed in the UK at the mere age of six months. Contrast this with the natural lifespan of sheep of around 12 years. These young animals we love to observe in fields around the UK are removed from their mothers and rendered unconscious by firing a metal bolt into their heads or electrically stunned before being killed in a slaughterhouse.

By choosing lentils over lamb, we embrace a more compassionate approach to food. Lentils provide all the nourishment we need without the suffering that comes with meat production. In an age where plant-based alternatives are more accessible and delicious than ever, there is no need to take an animal’s life for our celebrations. Instead, we can honour Easter’s themes of renewal and kindness by embracing plant-based meals that are nourishing for both body and soul.

A Delicious Easter Alternative

Lentils are incredibly versatile and can be used in a variety of Easter dishes. From hearty lentil stews, lentil loaf,  shepherd’s pie to lentil-based curries, there are countless ways to create a festive, flavourful meal without relying on meat. Lentils absorb seasonings beautifully, allowing for a range of culinary possibilities that can delight even the most devoted meat eaters. You can add flavour to meals with onion, garlic, bay leaves, herbs, and vegetable stock during cooking. Puy lentils also add a wonderful texture and boost fibre and protein in salads.

Why not try our 21-day plant-based challenge to receive free tips, email support and recipes for delicious and nourishing plant-based meals?

Eid after Ramadan: a time to celebrate with compassion, health and stewardship

By Dr Shireen Kassam, Founder and Director, Plant-Based Health Professionals UK

Eid al-Fitr follows the most sacred month in the muslim calendar and is a moment of happiness and joy. The word Eid means celebration or festival and Eid al-Fitr is the festival of the breaking of the fast. After a month of fasting, reflection and spiritual renewal, we gather with family and our communities to give thanks, share food and express gratitude for our blessings. It is a celebration rooted in compassion, self-discipline and generosity.

But as we prepare our festive tables, it is worth asking: how do our food choices reflect the very values Ramadan has strengthened within us?

As a Muslim and a physician, I believe that choosing a more plant-based way to celebrate Eid is not only consistent with Islamic ethics, it is a powerful expression of them.

Islamic ethics: moderation, mercy and stewardship

The Qur’an and the Sunnah provide a framework for living that prioritises balance (mīzān), moderation and compassion. The Prophet Muhammad did not eat meat daily; in fact, historical accounts suggest it was consumed occasionally and in moderation. Excess was discouraged. Ramadan itself trains us in restraint and self-control, qualities that should not disappear once the fast ends.

A recent qualitative study of British Muslims explored attitudes to meat consumption and plant-based diets. The researchers found that while meat is often perceived as a “God-given blessing”, participants also recognised the prophetic tradition of moderation and the Islamic duty of stewardship over the Earth. Importantly, environmental responsibility, being “custodians of the earth”, emerged as a core Islamic value, even if not always translated into daily dietary practice.

Health as an Islamic obligation

Islam teaches that our bodies are an amanah – a trust. We are responsible for preserving our health. Yet we know that in the UK, high meat consumption is associated with increased risks of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and certain cancers. The same study highlights that British Muslims face disproportionate rates of diet-related disease and often consume more meat than the national average. The participants also identified health as a key motivator for reducing meat intake. This aligns with the scientific evidence: well-planned plant-based diets are associated with lower risks of heart disease, diabetes, obesity and some cancers. They are also rich in fibre, phytonutrients and antioxidants, nutrients notably absent in animal products.

Rethinking meat as a “blessing”

The study describes how meat is often framed as a blessing, particularly in the context of Eid. Yet a blessing is not something to be exploited without limit. A blessing calls for gratitude, humility and responsibility.

In today’s world of industrial animal agriculture, the scale and conditions of meat production sit uneasily alongside Islamic teachings on mercy towards animals and environmental care. With 85% of farm animals in the UK raised in industrial factory farms, which are known to disregard the rights of animals, eating their flesh can no longer be regarded as desirable.

Eid as an opportunity for leadership

Food is central to Eid celebrations. Hospitality is a cherished part of our culture. But generosity does not require excess meat. A beautifully prepared plant-based feast – fragrant lentil dishes, spiced chickpeas, vegetable biryanis, stuffed vine leaves, fresh salads, dates and desserts – honours our culinary heritage while aligning with our ethics.

The study also highlights the powerful role of community norms and religious leaders in shaping dietary habits. Imagine if our faith leaders spoke more openly about compassion towards animals, environmental stewardship and health as religious responsibilities.

A compassionate celebration

Ramadan and Eid is an opportunity to align our faith with our ethics. As we break our fast for the final time and celebrate Eid, we can extend compassion beyond ourselves, to our communities, to animals and to the planet.

Resources

Vegan Islam

Animal Welfare in World Religion: Teaching and Practice, by Joyce D’Silva

Mulla Z, Coupe N. Halal and healthy: A qualitative study of British Muslim perspectives on meat consumption and plant-based diets. Appetite. 2026 Feb 6;221:108496. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2026.108496

Review of the plant-based nutrition and lifestyle medicine news February 2026

This month I write mainly on nutrition, including the new ACLM and WHO position statements on healthy diets, foods that flare IBD, brain effects of coffee and tea and a HUGE study on vegan children.

American College of Lifestyle Medicine Updated Dietary Position

This way of eating can of course be adapted to different traditional and cultural ways of eating and the ACLM have an enormous amount of resources to support people to adopt healthier eating habits. This includes their complimentary culinary medicine programme.

These guidelines align closely with the Eat-Lancet Planetary Health Diet, relaunched in October 2025. Not only is this way of eating good for our health it will help to support our global food system remain within planetary boundaries. This is also a of key importance to those practicing lifestyle medicine, as there are no healthy people on an unhealthy planet. Lifestyle medicine approaches have the potential to reduce the burden of chronic ill health on healthcare services and hence support greater sustainability.

Updated WHO healthy diet factsheet

It goes on to say ‘In other contexts, consumption of animal source foods is still important to favour nutrient intakes, particularly in children and pregnant/lactating women.’ I do not believe this to be factually accurate given that fully plant-based diets can be adopted at all life stages without a detriment to health (cf the study below discussed on vegan children).

The WHO does acknowledge that healthy diets can vary in macronutrient percentage with carbohydrates ranging from 45-75% of energy intake and in some situations increasing protein intake above 15% of energy. A recent study highlights once again how diet quality matters more than macronutrient intakes, with reduced cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in people obtaining protein and fats from plant-based sources, regardless of the whether the diet is low-carb or low-fat.

Vegan infants grow just fine

A very timely, large and reassuring retrospective study assessing the growth of infants based on the family dietary pattern. Of the 1,198 818 children included, 1.2% (914 790) were raised in vegetarian families and 0.3% (3338) in vegan families. Infants born at 32 weeks or later were included and growth reported in the first 60 days and at 24 months.

The results showed that infants born to vegan mothers had a slightly higher incidence of low birth weight but lower incidence of high birth weight. On average, infants in vegan households were less than 0.5 cm shorter and approximately 100g lighter at birth compared with their counterparts from omnivorous households. These are not clinically meaningful differences. In the first 60 days, there was a slightly higher risk of vegan infants being underweight but no difference in risk of stunting. By 2 years of age, there were no statistically significant differences in growth between the different diet groups. Interestingly, women in the vegan and vegetarian breastfed for a longer duration than omnivorous women. Of note, the study did not provide information on dietary composition of the women during pregnancy.

Overall, these results are very reassuring and suggest that a vegan diet can support healthy growth in infants. The authors suggest that there should be adequate counselling available for parents during pregnancy and infancy to ensure diets are well-planned and I would suggest this important regardless of the chosen diet pattern.

Dietary factors and flares in inflammatory bowel disease

The PRognostic effect of Environmental factors in Crohn’s and Colitis (PREdiCCt) prospective cohort study is the largest to follow patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to investigate environmental, dietary and lifestyle factors associated with flares of the disease.

This report from the study cohort included 2629 participants from 47 UK centres. Dietary information was collected at baseline and participants followed for a median of 4.7 years. The results showed that higher meat intake, both red and white, in people with ulcerative colitis (UC) was associated with a 95% increase in risk of flares, independent of demographic, clinical and biochemical factors. This association was not present in people with Crohn’s disease. No consistent associations were seen for ultraprocessed foods, fibre or polyunsaturated fatty acid intake.

Interestingly, this is not the first study to suggest such an association. Results of the IBD Partner study also showed an increased risk of flares in people with UC, but not Crohn’s, with higher intakes of red meat. The lack of association for people with Crohn’s disease is interesting to note and may reflect the differences in disease pathogenesis. Other aspects of the diet may be more important. For example, a randomised study from King’s College London has shown that reducing/eliminating emulsifiers in the diet is also beneficial in the treatment of Crohn’s disease.

Nonetheless, accumulating evidence suggest that not only are low and meat-free diets, when composed of healthy plant-based foods, associated with a lower risk of IBD but may also be associated with better outcomes for people living with IBD.

Intermittent fasting for adults with overweight or obesity

There are different ways to achieve weight loss but all require a sustained reduction in calorie intake. Intermittent fasting (IF) has gained popularity for both weight loss and purported additional benefits for reducing inflammation and supporting insulin sensitivity.

This updated Cochrane analysis brings together 22 studies, including 1995 participants. The studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster‐RCTs that compared IF (including time‐restricted feeding, periodic fasting, alternate‐day fasting, and modified alternate‐day fasting) with regular dietary advice, no intervention or waiting list in men and women with overweight or obesity, with or without associated comorbid conditions. The minimum duration of the intervention was four weeks, and the minimum duration of follow‐up was six months.

Overall, the results suggest that IF has no clinically meaningful impact on weight loss compared to no intervention, waiting list or usual dietary advice. This does not mean of course that at an individual level a person won’t experience benefits, but within the context of clinical trials, taking all the currently available data, there do not appear to be any specific advantages for IF in achieving weight loss.

It’s useful to remember that lifestyle medicine approaches play an important role in supporting a healthy body weight. However, to achieve clinically meaningful and sustained weight loss, intensive lifestyle interventions are usually needed. Diet and lifestyle interventions in general achieve around 5% reduction in body weight, which is often not sustained in the long-term. This review highlights the role of lifestyle medicine in the era of highly effective anti-obesity treatment (medication and surgery).

National Cancer Plan for England

This month we saw the publication of the new cancer plan for England. It is bold and ambitious. At first look I did not hold out much hope. I was expecting it to focus on pharmaceutical and technological solutions for our poor cancer outcomes. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find a clear focus on cancer prevention. The report suggests that 30% of cancers are preventable although it’s worth noting that global data suggest that figure is closer to 45% if behavioural and metabolic risk factors are considered. Nonetheless, a focus on prevention is hugely welcome.

In an opinion piece in the BMJ, Adam and colleagues argue that cancer should be recognised and managed as a chronic disease within primary care systems, rather than remaining largely confined to specialist follow-up. Although cancer remains a leading cause of death, improvements in treatment mean that millions of people are now living for years or decades after diagnosis. In the UK alone, 3.5 million people are cancer survivors, a figure projected to rise substantially, with one in four adults over 65 expected to have had a cancer diagnosis by 2040.

Despite this growing population, survivorship care remains fragmented and inconsistently delivered. Cancer survivors frequently experience persistent physical symptoms such as pain, fatigue, neuropathy, and late cardiovascular effects, alongside psychological distress, fear of recurrence, financial toxicity, and the practical burden of coordinating complex care. Many report a sense of “abandonment” when discharged from oncology services, and primary care involvement is often reactive rather than structured. The authors suggest that cancer meets established definitions of chronic disease, sharing long duration, ongoing management needs, and common behavioural and environmental risk factors with other long-term conditions.

Since up to two thirds of people with cancer have at least one other chronic condition, and around half live with multimorbidity, integrating cancer into existing chronic disease reviews in primary care is both logical and potentially beneficial. Core elements of survivorship care, including medication review, symptom monitoring, prevention and health promotion, cardiovascular risk assessment, screening for recurrence or new cancers, and coordinated care, closely align with established chronic disease management frameworks. However, significant barriers remain, including limited primary care capacity, lack of dedicated funding, inadequate communication between oncology and general practice, insufficient GP training in survivorship care, and the enduring cultural perception of cancer as an acute or exceptional illness rather than a chronic condition. The authors call for pragmatic trials with economic evaluation, improved digital systems, standardised treatment summaries, risk stratification, and stronger collaboration between primary care, oncology, and third sector organisations. High quality integrated care for people living with and beyond cancer could improve outcomes and quality of life, but will require strategic policy commitment and investment to become routine practice.

Impact of coffee and tea consumption on brain health

This is good news for those of you who enjoy drinking tea and coffee. There is accumulating evidence that these drinks can be part of a healthy diet, assuming they are not consumed with loads of sugar or cream!

This study specifically examined the impact of caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee and tea on brain health. The study included 131, 821 participants from the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, followed for up to 43 years. The results showed that higher caffeinated coffee intake was significantly associated with lower dementia risk (18% reduction) and lower prevalence of subjective cognitive decline (15% reduction). Higher intake of tea showed similar associations with these cognitive outcomes, whereas decaffeinated coffee intake was not associated with lower dementia risk or better cognitive performance. The benefits were observed with intake of approximately 2 to 3 cups per day of caffeinated coffee or 1 to 2 cups per day of tea, with additional intakes not showing further benefits. These impact were independent of genetic risk for dementia and other major risk factors. The results also suggest that caffeine is the reason for the protective effect, given that decaffeinated coffee did not show benefits.

This is not the first study to show a benefit of coffee consumption with a prior umbrella review of meta-analyses finding a 10% reduction in people who drink coffee.

Global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse

There has been a lot of talk about this much delayed report from the UK Government. The state of the planet and its continued destruction is now a direct threat to national security and prosperity. Unless action is taken, it is likely that we in the UK will not be able to maintain food security.

Taken directly from the report ‘The UK does not have enough land to feed its population and rear livestock: a wholesale change in consumer diets would be required. It would also require greater investment in the agri-food sector so that it is capable of innovating in sustainable food production.’ Yet we know if health and agricultural policies were aligned such that our land was used to produce food that promotes health (all the healthy plant foods), our farmers were supported to transition to producing horticultural products and land was managed appropriately i.e. stopped being used graze animals and grow crops to feed animals, we could certainly be self reliant in food production. In fact a transition to a plant-based food system would not only feed the entire population but at the same time release a land mass the size of Scotland that could be returned to nature to recover our biodiversity and also to sequester carbon.

Yet, in the UK, misinformation from the meat and dairy industry remains pervasive. A new report about dairy, from Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board (AHDB) tries to persuade us that dairy is not only important for health but sustainable for our planet. This could not be further from the truth and we have shared an article countering some of the claims made and including a call to action.

The Eat-Lancet planetary health diet provides a global framework by which the food system and diets can feed a global population of 10 billion equitably whilst also keeping within planetary boundaries. It feels like now or never. Read our article on food systems and planetary health.

See you back in March!

Please follow my organisation ‘plant-based health professionals UK’ on Instagram @plantbasedhealthprofessionals and facebook. You can support our work by joining as a member or making a donation via the website.