Hi! I am Deirdre Kent and I live in a retirement village in Waikanae, an hour north of Wellington in New Zealand. For the last 20 years I have been thinking and writing and acting on the topic of New Economics. This site has a lot of blogs about New Economics, including a lot about my last book. However, more recently my passion has been on advocating for Whole Food Plant Based Eating. So here you will find new material on that topic.
Because I am older, I started eating this way for health reasons, although others adopt it for environmental reasons and of course animal welfare reasons. I want to stay alive and I also am glad that eating this way is one of my small contributions to reducing emissions.
I will be blogging here and giving you links to material from the various authorities on this topic.
When it comes to telling the public about their emissions, the aviation industry keeps telling us how much their efficiency has improved. That is they can fly further on a certain amount of fuel. But what they don’t tell us is that their capacity keeps increasing so much that overall their emissions increase. The planes are bigger, they have more routes and there are more planes flying.
The meat and dairy industries have been doing this too. When the scientists at FAO calculated the emissions from the livestock industry in 2006 and found them to be 18% of total global emissions, the industries didn’t take it lying down. Here is a piece from the GRAIN website (GRAIN is an international organisation of small farmers)
“The FAO was blasted by the meat industry after it released a report in 2006 putting livestock’s share of global GHG emissions at 18 per cent. “You wouldn’t believe how much we were attacked”, said Samuel Jutzi, director of the animal production and health division of the FAO. The FAO soon buckled under the pressure and agreed to establish a partnership with the meat industry’s main lobby groups to jointly reassess emissions from livestock. Both the partnership’s Steering Committee and its Technical Advisory Groups are dominated by representatives of meat companies, their lobby groups and scientists funded by meat and dairy companies.
As a result of the FAO’s partnership with industry, it has shifted its focus towards a narrow assessment of “emissions intensity”, in which GHG emissions are examined per unit of output (per kg of meat, litre of milk or unit of protein). Measured this way, animals that are intensively raised for maximum output of meat and milk—by a few million farmers mostly in the US, Europe, Brazil, New Zealand and a few other rich countries—have a lower “emissions intensity” than the animals of poor farmers, which are raised for many more uses and without access to the high protein feed, antibiotics, growth promoters and hormones used by intensive livestock industries. Poor farmers are thus said to suffer from an “emissions intensity gap” and should be pushed into what is termed “sustainable intensification” or, more broadly, “climate smart agriculture”.
So like the aviation industry, for “emissions intensity” read “efficiency”. More efficient but more capacity for doing it!
Unfortunately the difference is that the meat and dairy industries have persuaded the FAO to do this too so we all get figures that are skewed and only a small proportion of the population is even aware that meat and dairy contribute to emissions, particularly big meat and big dairy.
Nearly half of New Zealand’s emissions are from livestock. A shocking 46.1% for the year 2012 as calculated by the Ministry for the Environment. (MfE). A large proportion of this comes from beef and to a less extent sheep. The MfE paper tells us tells us that in 2012 we had 6.4 m dairy cattle, 3.8m beef cattle, 3.1 m sheep and 1 m deer. So a total of 14.3m ruminant livestock.
So I read their paper calculating our emissions, or more accurately skimmed through it, reading the less technical parts of it as it is hundreds of pages long. I was looking for indications of what Global Warming Potential they were using for methane. It was only when I was reading a book by Richard Oppenlander that I saw the statement that methane is 72 times as powerful as carbon dioxide over a 20 year period and checked this out with Prof James Renwick of Victoria University. Yes he said that is the figure that scientists are taking now.
I finally discovered on a Stats NZ site that we do calculate our methane contribution with a GWP of 25 and once again questioned the climate science professor. He answered,
“Yes a GWP of 25 sounds right as they’ll be using GWP100. That’s still the standard under .the UNFCCC so is how we are required to report emissions (as I understand things), even though the science has clearly moved on to the two baskets approach. ”
But then I asked him if I was right to say the percentage contributed by agriculture would rise if methane GWP was 72, and he said no it would fall. So I was wrong, the headline above is misleading now and I will change it.
On this topic there is nothing better than referring to Beef and Lamb New Zealand website itself from which I quote:-
How much red meat are Kiwis currently eating? Based on working estimates, New Zealanders currently eat (carcass weight equivalent) about: 17.2kg beef, 5kg lamb and 0.7kg mutton per capita. In addition, 23.9kg pork and 47.8kg chicken per capita (2017-18 BLNZ Ltd Economic Service) resulting in a total red meat intake 46.8kg (beef + lamb/mutton + pork)
In the last 10 years to 2017-18, per capita figures have changed:
Beef down 38%
Lamb down 45%
Mutton down 72%
Overall reduction of beef/lamb/mutton = 42%
Pork up 15%
Poultry up 40%
Overall reduction all meats = 0%
I find this interesting that even though we reduce our red meat, we are so obsessed with getting our protein from animals that we increase pork and poultry (note they don’t mention fish).
I also find interesting the fact that they have classified pork as red meat, which I don’t think is the public perception. I may be wrong.
So we each eat 46.8kg from red meat and 47.8 kg from chicken or 94.6kg meat.
I am not sure this tallies with the world figures quoted for our country. And all this without dairy consumption to add to our animal protein.
The website of the Poultry Industry Association of NZ (PIANZ) says we kill 125 million birds a year. This tallies well with Stats NZ which gives 124 million, – much the same. This works out at 238 chickens a minute or about four per second are killed day and night. And we would each eat 25 chickens a year.
But wait. PIANZ also states we each eat 20 chickens a year or 37.5 kg chicken. They are produced on 180 farms. That amounts to the meat on 750 drumsticks a year or about 2 a day.
So we presume the discrepancy is that some are exported or just that some are killed. It sounds like there are numerous deaths before they mature what with the forced feeding that makes a third of them painfully lame in the last weeks. They double in weight so quickly that their legs can’t carry them.
The Poultry Industry is growing
Stats NZ also gives the figures for the growth of the poultry industry. There are figures for processed chicken meat for every quarter. Back in the first quarter of 2011, we processed 21,427 chickens whereas the third quarter of 2019 we processed 30,950. It grew every quarter in that period. That is a 44% increase over those eight years.
Of course this is helped along the way by what they would call “improvements in efficiency” as they now slaughter chickens between 34 and 42 days. This means you can raise nearly nine a year by replacing them.
So it seems chicken is becoming more and more popular. With fish, it is stealing the meat market away from red meat.
Most chicken is sold fresh with only about an eleventh of them sold frozen. Our main exporter is Tegel who in 2018 exported $89.6 million while making a total of $615m profits that year.
New Zealand has about 140 meat chicken farmers and 170 commercial egg farmers. The four largest companies are Tegel, Inghams, Brinks and Turks
Climate effects of Chicken
But what about their contribution to climate change? Because poultry have lower greenhouse gas emissions due to their lower enteric methane production rates than ruminant livestock species, many consider poultry to have an environmental advantage compared to many other animal protein sources.
Poore puts the greenhouse gas production per serving at about a sixth of that of beef, but it is still six times a big as a serving of beans. But I guess the problem is not per serving. It is the total. Six servings of chicken produce the same weight of GHGs as one of beef.
I was having a conversation with a friend the other day and somehow we got on to the issue of what I ate. I started eating whole foods plant based with no oil just 10 months ago. Having told this person come out with the fact that I now only need to take 2 meds instead of 6, that my joints had stopped aching, my weight had normalised, my diabetes risk had disappeared and my asthma had gone away, there was a flicker of interest.
But quickly that same person opined that when you die is a matter of luck. And then we went on to talk about something else. Well that set me thinking. I don’t seem to remember studies that said it was just luck how long you live at all! I seem to recall longevity is multifactorial – diet, exercise, social interaction, income, gender and many others.
So let’s just cover diet. And I will look just at the big studies.
Adventist Health Studies The Loma Linda city, east of Los Angeles in California, provides a perfect selection of participants to study because they are Seventh Day Adventists whose diets can be easily categorised according to what proportion animal products are in their diet and then they can be compared with the average Californian. The Los Angeles Times says those people in Loma Linda live almost a decade longer than the rest of us. According to Wikipedia:
“The first major study of Adventists began in 1960, and has become known as the Adventist Mortality Study. Consisting of 22,940 California Adventists, it entailed an intensive 5-year follow-up and a more informal 25-year follow-up.
“…[The] Adventist Mortality Study (1960–1965) did indicate that Adventist men lived 6.2 years longer than non-Adventist men in the concurrent American Cancer Society Study and Adventist women had a 3.7-year advantage over their counterparts. These statistics were based on life table analyses.”
Specifically, comparing death rates of Adventist compared to other Californians:Death rates from all cancers was 40% lower for Adventist men and 24% lower for Adventist women.
But a bigger study the Adventist Health Study 2 was started in 2002 and included 96,000 Seventh Day Adventists in US and Canada, headed by Dr Gary Fraser. The study population is 25 percent African-American and half vegetarian. They were over 30 and all spoke English. Here is what it found:
Vegetarian Adventist men live to an average of 83.3 years and vegetarian women 85.7 years — 9.5 and 6.1 years respectively, longer than other Californians.
– Vegans are, on average, 30 pounds lighter than meat eaters. – Vegans are also five units lighter on the BMI scale than meat-eaters. – Vegetarians and vegans are also less insulin resistant than meat-eaters. – Lean people are also more likely to exercise regularly, eat plants, and avoid cigarettes than overweight people, suggesting that numerous factors are boosting the overall health of these participants. – Pesco-vegetarians and semi-vegetarians who limit animal products, but still eat meat once a week or so, have “intermediate protection” against lifestyle diseases.
When it came to death rates per 1000 person years the vegan group did the best at only 5.40, the lacto-ovo vegetarians had 5.61, the pesco-vegetarians had 5.33, the semi-vegetarians had 6.16 deaths and the non-vegetarians had 6.61 deaths.
A meta-analysis of 95 studies covering 2 million people was published in early 2017 by Dr Dagfinn Aune. He said eating 10 servings of fruit and vegetables a day or 800 gram, would result in a 15% drop in the risk of premature deaths. It lengthens your life. That would be 7.8 million premature deaths prevented every year. Unfortunately the WHO only recommends 400 gm a day, but US recommends 650-800 gm a day. Dr Aune said this study was bad news for the supplement industry. See https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/3/1029/3039477
The EPIC /PANACEA study, a multicentre, prospective cohort study of ten European countries with over 500,000 in it, conducted from 1992 and 2000 found that:
If you ate 5 servings of fruit and veges a day it would give you 4 years extra
If you didn’t smoke you get another 5 years
If you do moderate exercise you get 3 more years
Do all of these and you get 10 healthy years
If you take away alcohol as well, you get 14 years.
But only 3% do it!
The Harvard Nurses Health Study conducted over 35 years had 275,000 participants. The first study was started 1976, the second started in 1989 and was led by Dr Walter Willett, and the third Sept 2016. Walter Willett more recently led the EAT-Lancet study which is about diet and climate change. Between them these studies have made major contributions to our knowledge about diet and health. .
There will be others, but these are a few of the major ones.
In June 2019 the Herald was doing some editorialising on the end of meat. Impossible Burgers had recently made an entry and it was looking like there were going to be more plant based imitation meat appearing on the market soon. They said, “While in New Zealand beef and lamb consumption has fallen, 38 per cent and 45 per cent respectively in the past 10 years, the trend doesn’t spell doom for our $10 billion red meat industry.”
That is a considerable drop, some of which is compensated for by New Zealanders now eating more chicken. No wonder Beef and Lamb has been panicking recently.
The editorial then went on to get excited about the FAO’s prediction that meat consumption will rise globally and that the meat trade is going to increase 20% rise between 2017 and 2027. Ah exports to developing countries, that looks promising.
Oh yes, it’s China. They are taking more of our red meat, much more. But then the Herald editorial goes on to say that this is breathing space for us and “If anything the rise of global demand adds to the challenge to produce meat more sustainably, with less impact on the environment.”
Well I’ve been boning up on what Dr Joseph Poore has been saying and it just doesn’t tally. And what Dr Robert Goodland, formerly of the World Bank where he led the environmental assessment team for 23 years, said. It doesn’t tally with that either. They are both sure there is no such thing as sustainable beef production.
Dr Poore of Oxford University recently published a study of 38,700 commercially viable farms in 119 countries over 40 agricultural products. This represented about 90% of global protein and calorie consumption worldwide. He gathered data from thousands of scientists and his lecture took an hour and a half to listen to.
Climate change is only one of the environmental problems of food systems. The others were freshwater use, water pollution (eutrophication) and air pollution (acidification). Because they were studying emissions farm by farm, he found they varied hugely, even within the same region. For beef, one farm can produce 1000% more emissions of another and use 5000% more land. That is one beef farm can produce 11 times more emissions than another. He was staggered by the variability.
And here is the kicker: “Even the lowest impact beef farms are producing six times more greenhouse gases and using 36 times as much land for growing a fixed weight of protein as farms growing beans and pulses.” His conclusion: “Eating plant based protein and milk delivers more environmental benefits than trying to purchase sustainably produced meat and dairy.”
The Guardian of course gives a great run down of his research findings – “Avoiding meat and dairy is the Single Biggest Way to Reduce your Impact on Earth” (31 May 2018) But they omit his big recommendation: That there be mandatory environmental labelling of food products. He says that nowadays with satellites able to give good data on crop areas, crop identity and crop yields together with farm inspectors looking at fertiliser, crop residues etc, each farmer can provide information to next in food chain. Four possibilities for data on labels – emissions, water scarcity, pesticide toxicity and impact on biodiversity, thought the first two are easier than the second two.
In New Zealand we all know that agricultural emissions are the second biggest sector at 48%. We have a big beef and dairy sector, the latter having expanded into dry regions once irrigation became available. These areas are entirely unsuitable for dairy conversions.
Since the New Zealand government announced in October 2019 that it would not include farm emissions in the Emissions Trading Scheme just yet, I have been wondering how farmers will adapt during this initial trial period. The scheme aims to cut emissions by charging companies a price for each unit of greenhouse gas produced and farmers will be exempt till 2025 while they adapt. Under the scheme, farmers would be responsible for collecting data, reporting it, and paying directly for emissions. If the government doesn’t think they are moving fast enough they will legislate earlier.
People seem to think it is just their farm practices that will have to change. So is it just their farm practices or is it something else as well?
In a significant study by a 37 experts-strong EAT-Lancet commission called Food in the Anthropocene, published in The Lancet in January 2019, there is this astounding statement: “We estimated that changes in food production practices could reduce agricultural greenhouse-gas emissions in 2050 by about 10%, whereas increased consumption of plant-based diets could reduce emissions by up to 80%.” Well, it looks like experts from our agricultural colleges might quibble with that factor, but nonetheless the potential is huge. Even the 11,000 scientists who recently declared a climate emergency wanted us to eat less meat and dairy.
So while we may be the first country in the world to include agriculture in our emissions pricing scheme, the future is in the hands of farmers. The government wants methane emissions down 10% by 2025.
And of course it’s not just methane emissions that have to come down. According to Professor James Renwick (email 2 Nov 2019) “The key thing to do is limit CO2 concentrations as they decide the long-term change in climate. How important methane reductions are depends on what’s happening with CO2 concentrations.
Reducing methane emissions will buy us decreases in methane concentrations over just a few years, but it’s pretty much wasted effort if we continue to let CO2 continue to build up.”
The main agricultural greenhouse gases (GHG) are methane and nitrous oxide. Methane is produced in the rumen of the cows by certain microbes and are naturally present in all ruminant animals. … Nitrous Oxide (N2O) is emitted from soil when urine, faeces and fertilisers are broken down by microbes in the soil.
The EAT-Lancet study, which had 357 references at the end, and was done by an international team of experts from health, agriculture, climate change and politics, puts methane as 56 times as powerful a greenhouse-gas as carbon dioxide over a 20 year period and nitrous oxide as 280 times as powerful. (It also recommended that protein be just 10% of the daily calories)
It’s fairly horrifying to find that over a period of 55 years (1961-2016) there has been a worldwide 89% increase in agricultural emissions (not CO2). That is methane and nitrous oxide mostly. But on that same climatewatchdata site, we have agricultural emissions being only 11.5% of total emissions. That, of all estimates, is the lowest, the highest being from the consultants that Worldwatch commissioned in 2009, at 51%. The FAO in 2006 estimated 18% and revised that down later to 14%. Goodland, one of the Worldwatch Institute’s consultants noted that by then FAO had ‘partnered with international meat, dairy and egg organisations so was no longer objective.’
Wise Response, an environmental organisation comprised mainly of academics, said in their submission on agricultural emissions, “While CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas, keeping global warming less than 2°C or 1.5°C clearly requires control of all greenhouse gases and in particular of methane (CH4) that is the second most significant. As noted in a recent and very detailed comparison of different pathways consistent with the 1.5°C target, “early mitigation of CH4 emissions would significantly increase the feasibility of stabilising global warming below 1.5 °C, alongside having co-benefits for human and ecosystem health”.
They also state that because of New Zealand’s knowledge from agricultural universities to date, “In terms of dairy emissions reduction, anything up to 24% can be done without any drop in farm profitability (i.e. zero marginal cost of abatement). ”
The good thing about this is this. The Interim Climate Change Committee said, “Innovation in the agricultural sector has reduced its emissions intensity (emissions per unit product) by about 20% over the last 25 years. But overall agricultural emissions have increased 13.5% since 1990. The improvements farmers have made have helped keep agricultural emissions relatively stable since 2012”
While Wise Response referred briefly to the benefits of eating less meat and dairy, the sad thing is that as the Western world reduces its meat intake, the developing world is increasing. And that means China and India. Our exports are going increasingly to China and in fact China is New Zealand’s top market for red meat now. It’s just no good for global emissions for a few developed countries to reduce meat and dairy products because they have heard the health message and the environment message. China and all the other developing countries must stop their demand for animal products.
And that is something we can’t control. If we grew less beef and dairy, what would we replace our exports with? A tiny movement is detectable I believe which is reported on by Country Calendar on TVOne and by Country Life from RNZ of farmers experimenting with growing pumpkin seeds and hazelnuts as well.
Oh dear. Spent over an hour experimenting with two types of finger food and both of them failed.
One was too salty and the other too bland and difficult. Here is the salty one. It is called Teriyaki Tempeh with peanut dip, but honestly while it looks attractive, it did have 150 ml of Teriyaki sauce and the bottle is only 250 ml. Moreover I don’t think I could have browned the tempeh fingers so well at the start if I had cooked them in water. So I broke my rule and cooked them in a tablespoon of oil.
The other was a courgette wrap with a hummus, pepper, tofu, sprouts and mushroom filling. It is sprinkled with cumin and nutritional yeast and cayenne. Well I used my mandoline and worked out that I had to use the middle setting for thickness, but honestly I am not that keen on raw mushroom or raw courgette (zucchini). Too fiddly for me for the result.
I have to take a plate of finger food occasionally and apart from gluten free sandwiches, I don’t have much to bring yet. So I might just keep experimenting.
A couple of friends have recently told me they can’t sustain being on a Whole Food Plant Based diet because they get just too hungry. One is normal weight and the other is underweight and doesn’t want to lose weight.
So I thought I would pen an email to the first one, who genuinely wants to change his way of eating. Here goes:
“Hi Robert (not his real name)
I have been thinking about how you might manage to stay eating plant based and not get so hungry. First I don’t know how your partner eats and whether she supports you in your goal. I don’t know who does the cooking or whether you share it.
Then there is a longer one by Jeff Novick which recommends eating foods with low calorie density here. While this is really long and aimed at those who are overweight, it does have some interesting graphics and figures. You might be able to last a little distance of this presentation as it is really too long.
This nice site refers to the movie Forks over Knives in which it is explained how there are two types of receptors in the stomach, stretch receptors and nutrient receptors and how they work. Not a video. Good info for overweight people but still useful for the lean ones like you.
For me, when I am hungry I don’t worry a scrap if I eat a cold kumera or a baked potato or even mashed carrots and parsnips – and sometimes I will whizz up some plant milk with cocoa, peanut butter, vanilla and a banana. That sure is satisfying.
I know you are very active so I really suggest eating a lot of rice, kumeras, beans, lentils, root veges and I know you wouldn’t pig out on walnuts or even good multigrain bread. I have been known to eat a plate of porridge with dates in mid afternoon. Hope this helps!
For a while now I have been reading everything I can get hold of on Vitamin K2. A year or two ago I read Kate Rheaume-Bleue’s e-book “Vitamin K2 and the Calcium Paradox” and I have been hooked ever since. I am a big watcher of YouTube and recently ran across one presentation that stood out from all the others. It was from a microbiologist Dr Kiran Krishnan and it took about 47 minutes.
Dr Krishnan is the Chief Scientific Officer at the Microbiome Labs so he explains the microbiome can manufacture Vitamin K2 from Vitamin K1, given the right bacteria in the bowel. (probably those on a Whole Foods Plant Based Diet, especially younger people, have bodies perfectly capable of doing this conversion) Vitamin K2 is called menaquinone. Dr Krishnan has been studying Vitamin K2, particularly a form of Vitamin K2 called menaquinone MK7, for a decade. In the video he lists all the important functions that it performs in the body. And he says that “We are all subclinically deficient in Vitamin K2” because it is not common in our typical diet.
Contrast our typical Western diet with the diet of Eastern Japan where they eat nattō, a fermented soy bean. (Krishnan cites at least two studies showing high levels of nattō prevents osteoporosis.) You can source a list of natural sources of Vitamin K2 and Nattō is head and shoulders higher other foods, having 1000 mcg of MK7 per 100gm. The others foods are animal based and less than 10% of nattō in terms of Vitamin K2 content e.g. Gouda cheese (73mgm per 100 gm), chicken liver (14.1mgm), eggs (8mgm), butter 20.9mgm, chicken wings 25.3mgm and then there are the processed meat sources like sausages and salami. But these animal sources have it only in the various forms of MK4, the form that doesn’t stick around in the body long because it has a shorter half life.
People often dismiss the possibility of eating nattō because it is slimy and smelly and unfamiliar. In New Zealand it is available in Asian food stores but comes frozen from Japan. I didn’t find it offensive at all so I am now experimenting various ways to make it. I found that in our country it is almost impossible to source organic soy beans so I have to make it from black beans or chickpeas or mung beans.
Now what is this list of functions that Vitamin K2 performs in our bodies?
I won’t go over all his scientific sources, but I will list the diseases that can be avoided. Vitamin K2-MK7 plays a vital role in the following:
That is a long list! Because it activates a protein called osteocalcin, it helps deposit calcium in the bones where it should be. Because it activates a protein called Matrix Gla which loves binding with calcium, it removes calcium from arteries and other soft tissues. In other words it takes calcium and deposits it in the right place in our bodies – in our bones and teeth not our soft tissues. It can slow dow the progression of diabetes. He says it can revive dead or dying mitochondria , which are the power houses producing energy in our muscles. The muscle that has the highest number of mitochondria is your heart so that is why it can improve cardiac output. The improved cardiac output helps every cell get more nutrients and blood. It can revive dead and dying nerve cells.
Remember Vitamin K1 has been known about for a long time. It is available in leafy greens and is necessary for normal blood clotting. We have been taught that Vitamin K exists but few know that Vitamin K2 performs very different tasks from Vitamin K1. Many descriptions fail to differentiate between the two, and they are very different.
There are now a great many studies on Vitamin K2. Dr Krishnan’s group has been doing their research using supplementation with 320 micrograms a day, but many sources say an amount of 50 micrograms/day is enough to improve some health outcomes.
Official Guidelines for Australia and New Zealand
On our Ministry of Health’s website there is no Recommended Daily Intake for Vitamin K2 that I can find. In fact one would be forgiven when reading P147 of their 2006 document Nutrient References for Australia and New Zealand for thinking that only Vitamin K1 was important. It mentions menaquinones only as an offshoot of Vitamin K1 and even says, “The only important molecular form of vitamin K in plants is phylloquinone (vitamin K1) but bacteria can synthesise a family of compounds called menaquinones (vitamin K2).”
On Vitamin K2 it says in 2006, “The only important molecular form of vitamin K in plants is phylloquinone (vitamin K1) but bacteria can synthesise a family of compounds called menaquinones (vitamin K2). The biologic functions of vitamin K-dependent proteins produced in other tissues, notably osteocalcin and MGP are unclear…. Evidence of a possible association of suboptimal vitamin K deficiency with increased risk of adverse outcomes for bone health and bone fracture is under investigation by a number of groups but the outcomes have not been clear cut to date (Binkley & Suttie 1995, Binkley et al 2002, Braam et al 2003, Schaafsma et al 2000, Shearer 1997, Vermeer et al 1995).”.
The guidelines are being reviewed now, according to an email I received from a team member at the National Health and Medical Research Council (of Australia)on 22 October, 2019 .
You can take a supplement of Vitamin D3 and Vitamin K2 by pill, but having read Colin Campbells’s book Whole I prefer eating it in food. So I am ready to make my own nattō and experience the health benefits that the elderly Japanese do when eating it. I have followed a guy called Natto Dad on YouTube and he makes nattō from many sources. Here is one of his. However because I have small house I have bought myself a yoghurt maker and am making it that way. I read this piece from the fellow that is sending me my nattō starter.
And having written all this, I discover Dr Krishnan is actually in a commercial venture selling supplements, so I might have to take his research as having declarations of interest. I knew there was a Microbiome Institute and thought he was from this non-profit.
So I checked different sources. When doing a search for Vitamin K2 on Pubmed I found 3951 studies reported. There are 266 on osteoporosis and 100 on “vascular”, 102 on “calcification” and fewer on Altzheimers, dementia and diabetes. There was nothing where Krishnan was an author. It seems Krishnan publishes on researchgate.net because I found a lot of his articles there.
A review of the literature there summarised the case in 2015. “Vitamin K2 may be a useful adjunct for treatment of osteoporosis, along with Vitamin D and calcium, rivalling bi-phosphonate therapy without the toxicity”. They said the evidence was insufficient for diabetes, arthritis, renal calculi and cancer but it was promising.
So it is an important Vitamin in the body. Even if it just made sure the calcium you absorb from your food is going to the right place, it would significantly reduce your risk of osteoporosis and vascular disease. And that means heart disease and strokes. But it definitely looks as though it does more than prevent heart disease and fractures.
So it’s worth keeping an eye on the new dietary guidelines now that will be coming out of Australia for our use!