Christopher Rosin & Hugh Campbell*
The history of farming is seeded with technological “big bang” moments that have changed the trajectory of whole industries and countries.
Some – such as mechanisation, and the arrival of synthetic fertiliser and pesticides, have transformed agricultural economic and technical systems. Others have involved substitute commodities – artificial flavourings, chemical dyes or synthetic fibres to replace wool – which have threatened the existence of whole farming sectors, including in New Zealand.
The next big disruption is arguably alternative proteins. They promise to introduce a brave new world of environmentally and animal-friendly proteins, produced by microbes in industrial vats or cell division in laboratories.
Proponents argue alternative proteins offer a solution to many of the world’s environmental and social problems.
Notably, the EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health included non-animal proteins as integral to a sustainable diet for a stressed planet, making a significant contribution to climate change mitigation.
Most academic publications reflect this optimism about “promissory science”. They focus on technological advancement and solutions that require more investment of time and funding. In this version of the future, we can have our beef (equivalent) and eat it too.
But what does a shift to alternative proteins mean for farming systems and landscapes in countries where animal protein production sectors are a significant element of rural economies?
For some critics, questions remain as to who benefits, who is substituted out of existence, who captures value and who gets left behind?
With population growth and rising incomes expected to drive a big increase in meat and seafood consumption across Asia in the coming decades, a new report sees opportunities for NZ in alternative proteins, particularly for people with flexitarian diets
— AgResearch (@AgResearchNEWS) July 18, 2023
👉https://t.co/UguYm4Shs7 pic.twitter.com/MyBU1VlyXU
Modelling the future
These questions are particularly important for New Zealand, where agricultural sectors generate 80% of export earnings. In competing with traditional agricultural sector, alternative proteins can change the fortunes of entire sectors and regions.
As part of the Protein Futures NZ project (funded through the Our Land and Water National Science Challenge), we used economic modelling to investigate the impacts of alternative proteins on the primary sector and regional land use in New Zealand.
The first step involved finding credible projections of growth for alternative protein production globally. Because most are not yet produced at commercial scales, expectations of their potential and impacts vary significantly.
This uncertainty is evident in the diverse predictions of experts on primary sector. Their assessments ranged from expecting minimal competition for existing farming sectors to foreseeing the complete replacement of traditional animal-based proteins in New Zealand.
We turned to the market assessments conducted by management consulting groups to model what might happen. These pointed to a range of potential growth for alternative proteins that we captured in four scenarios projected to the year 2050.
The first of the scenarios used current growth trajectories for different forms of alternative protein (plant-based proteins, precision fermentation of protein ingredients, and cellular meat) until 2050. This provided a baseline for comparison.
In this first scenario the growth in global demand for protein outstripped any increases coming from alternative sources. Everyone benefits from the growth in escalating global demand for proteins.
The three other scenarios imagined what would happen to New Zealand’s meat and dairy sectors if there was significant growth in one or more of the alternative protein types.
Our modelling suggested the different alternative proteins would have mixed impact on New Zealand’s agricultural sector. The dairy sector would be particularly sensitive to developments in precision fermentation that produced direct substitutes for casein and whey protein. The number of sheep decreased in scenarios two, three and four while alternative proteins had an inconsistent impact on beef.
Broadly, our modelling showed any significant growth in one or more alternative proteins would result in fewer animals and more plants being grown in New Zealand.
Despite the negative impacts on the meat and dairy sectors, the modelling projected relatively moderate overall economic impacts for New Zealand. Increased production of alternative proteins also showed clear environmental benefits, including lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Time to prepare for alternative proteins
The findings of the project provide much food for thought. At the minimum, artificial proteins will change the world market for some major export sectors.
Our research indicates the need for policy that prepares the primary sector for changing protein markets and governing bodies for changing land use.
We also make the following observations:
• The appeal of alternative proteins lies in their reduced environmental impacts and increased animal welfare. For New Zealand to be competitive in these sectors, producers need to spotlight production practices that mitigate impacts on climate, water, soils, biodiversity and animal welfare.
• There are opportunities to shift production to plant proteins or to plant products that supply the nutrients, usually in a fluid base, which feed the microbes in precision fermentation and the cells in cellular meat.
• New Zealand may also benefit from investment in technologies that take advantage of renewable energy to produce proteins.
History tells us that substitutes for traditional agricultural products can significantly alter the viability of once-profitable commodities.
Alternative proteins will very likely lead to significant shifts in land use alongside improved outcomes for some key environmental and welfare factors. It’s now time to develop policy enabling a resilient response to this impact.
The authors wish to acknowledge the rest of the Protein Futures research team: Jon Manhire, Rob Burton, Stuart Ford, Klaus Mittenzwei, John Reid, Miranda Mirosa, John Saunders, Simon Barber, Sarah O’Connell, Kate Tomlinson, Ann Moriarty, Angus Sinclair Thompson and Brent Paehua. We also thank the industry experts who contributed to interviews.
* Christopher Rosin, Senior Lecturer in Political Ecology, Lincoln University, New Zealand and Hugh Campbell, Professor of Sociology, Gender Studies and Criminology, University of Otago.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
93 Comments
I was under the impression this had already failed. Most of the companies trying this are broke and don’t exist any more. Beyond Meat (who I understand is not a cell based product) but quite similar (alternative protein) was the largest and for a time looked like the goods. Its share price has declined 99% and it has less than a year before it too is bankrupt. Sales were only achieved because people chose to try the product, once it was found to be crap as expected. People didn’t buy again. Farming still has a big future..
You impression is mistaken.
‘A defining moment’: Remilk’s cow-free milk protein secures Israeli approval (dairyreporter.com)
Remilk receives first of kind regulatory green light in canada
It's happening.
The Lancet has since published multiple articles investigating the nutritional inadequacy of the Eat-Lancet diet.
We find that the EAT–Lancet planetary health diet could fall short in multiple micronutrients. Deficiencies in these micronutrients would contribute to substantial public health burdens compared with what would be achievable for a fully nourished population. This new evidence suggests a planetary health diet consisting mostly of minimally processed, healthy plant source foods that is low in animal source foods should not necessarily be assumed to provide adequate nutrients, particularly for minerals such as iron (especially for women of reproductive age), calcium, and zinc. We estimate that to achieve dietary nutrient adequacy (without relying on supplementation or fortification) at the population level requires increased quantities (from the baseline planetary health diet) of nutrient-dense foods such as fish, shellfish, seeds, eggs, and beef; and reduced quantities (from the baseline planetary health diet) of foods high in phytate such as whole grains, pulses, and nuts.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)0000…
Yes, they are mostly bad for you. Watch any nutrition show on TV. They recommend to drink proper milk, the other stuff has almost zero nutritional value and should be avoided. Remember trim milk was good for you (until they found out it makes you fat). It is a marketing scam. Nothing more. They claim a climate crisis and brainwash people into eating stuff that is bad for you ''to save us". Just like trim milk they claimed an obesity crisis and sold you a waste product that made you fatter, and low sugar fizzy drinks, with poisonous sweeter that made you even fatter again. Sucker. Natural food is the only food. This 'food' is far from it.
There is nothing "natural" about drinking the breast milk intended for a baby cow. Have you ever sat down and thought about how bizarre this really is?
If you want to talk about marketing scams, let's start there - the idea that it's natural and normal to do that. Would you drink human breast milk as a (supposedly) grown adult? No? Because breast milk is for babies.
Something else you said I find concerning - are you actually suggesting the climate crisis is a hoax?
Climate change is a natural cycle. That's what I and a growing number of others thing based on the historical evidence, which is really the only reliable evidence. You cannot change it. No point being conned into eating made up crap as an excuse for trying to change something you can do nothing about. Sure, grow more trees, clean up the planet, they are all good objectives. Eat crap grown in a lab. No thanks. It's all for you and the other suckers out there.
Plenty of scientists have trouble with the climate change narrative, however you don't get govt funding or media attention if you're not finding answers that the govt wants.
An interesting read ..
https://centrist.co.nz/too-hot-to-handle-niwas-misleading-temperature-records/
A spot audit of NIWA’s 2023 flagship Annual Climate Summary report and some of its predecessors over the past five years has uncovered multiple major errors that cumulatively exaggerate the impact of climate change and drive public fear.
Based on a detailed analysis of historic newspaper reports containing temperature, rainfall and other weather data and comparing them to NIWA’s published climate summaries, the audit has found
- Claimed temperature records that were never real records
- Claimed rainfall records that were never real records
- NIWA published false information on New Zealand’s biggest historic cyclone, creating a false narrative that Cyclone Gabrielle was bigger and driven by climate change
- Cherrypicked data is being used to exaggerate the apparent frequency of climate records being broken
- The practice of reporting records by month is giving NIWA twelve times more opportunities to claim records in any given location, creating media and public confusion and a sense of relentless overwhelming climate change
- NIWA is unaware of New Zealand’s highest temperatures
- NIWA’s claim that only three days in our history have experienced temperatures higher than 40C is wrong: the real figure is nearly triple that
- That there’s little evidence of climate change increasing extreme maximum temperatures in New Zealand, absolute records from a century ago are still intact
Exactly. The narrative is slowly dying. These science experts are about as right as the economic experts were about inflation and interest rates. It’s becoming very clear. The more wrong they are with their predictions the more extreme their next prediction becomes.
So you would also be claiming that making and eating cheese and yoghurt are also unnatural? Despite many civilisations across the globe making and eating these products for millennia?
When the olden day humans were starving and without food, milk from their pet cow, goat, sheep, camel or llama was probably the only thing keeping them alive. If drinking animal milk kept you from dying, its the most natural thing in the world. Thats why these animals have been farmed for millennia - literally survival of the species.
I'm not talking about a subsistence farmer in 2000bce Mesopotamia, KW. Perhaps it was necessary then. But I'm talking about you, right now. The only reason you eat cheeses is because it gives you a brief moment of pleasure. Does that really justify the 2 million baby cows that are killed every year by the NZ dairy industry alone?
System changes don't happen in a linear fashion, the new technology will attempt to 'break through' many times, before finally finding it's feet and taking over the incumbent. Think of other system changes like from sail boats to steam boats, it doesn't happen everywhere all at once, but develops in niches to start with.
"other system changes like from sail boats to steam boats" Odd you use this as an example of beneficial system change? The shift from sail to steam may have benefited "economy", but it helped set in motion a massive shift to planet wide biosphere destruction. Like the shift to plastic clothes is applauded by vegans, while it poisons the planet.
A better example would be when everyone was told butter was bad for them and they should all eat margarine. Practically everybody switched over as it was supposed to be "healthier". Then 20+ years later they worked out that trans fats were diabolically bad for humans, and countries are now in the process of banning them. I've no doubt the same thing will happen to all these artificial foods being created. As they say "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".
I'm not sure whether you are joking, but this question amused me a lot.
Forgive me if I misunderstood the intent of your post: Assuming you're not joking, do you think it's better to farm with animals in sometimes dubious circumstances (where they might be severely maltreated, for instance) and then slaughter them in sometimes inhumane ways - than not breeding them in the first place?
A lot of "sometimes" there Tui? All people die too. Sometimes in nasty circumstances? Was it better they never existed in the first place? Factory farming is reprehensible, but animal rearing where livestock can exhibit their own natural preferences, in good health? There's nothing wrong with it. If your choice is not it eat real meat, that's your choice.
Saying no is not an option. If you look at the history of wool the rise of synthetics took over 100 years to take it over - but it happened through capital, intellect and the promise of profit. Nothing stays the same and how these products will disrupt tradition is hard to say but I believe they will grow over time and challenge/substitute some areas.
New generations will have a very different outlook on what's good and bad, safe or not, ethical etc.
Change is the only constant.
When it gets to the point where travelling by horse is just as fast as travelling by car (and thats probably not far off with all the 10kmph and 30kmph speed restrictions and speed humps going in everywhere) then I'd love to travel by horse. Sure beats a bicycle or walking. And its climate friendly right? So I could demand that all the Councils start providing horse tracks alongside the cycle ways.
Saying no is definitely an option. People that can afford to eat meat will continue to do so. Meat consumption will fall, no doubt it is already falling because people cannot afford it or have other priorities in food spending. Wool cannot be compared to synthetics, you don't eat wool.
But we all eat synthetics.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969722069340
I can see a time when we export almost no food. If plant based products take over the world we simply cannot compete with cheap mass production. Maybe a few areas will remain cropping but only really for domestic consumption along with enough dairy and beef for local only. At least those products will be top quality and we will have the opportunity to eat well.
But of course that will leave us with very little export dollars earning ability and unless we curtail out imports we will simply go bust. Of course with or without the changes in protein production our total inability to produce anything else useful to the world is pushing us in that direction anyway.
Not really a bright looking future for NZ.
It's a different future and NZ will be a lifestyle destination with income coming in from service, tech, offshore investments and offshore work. If you have the skills you will be able to live here and get paid from offshore.
I'm watching my kids and some of their friends do this and they operate in a different world of income and thought processes, much more international and progressive- the only reason they are here or coming back is family and lifestyle. They pay tax here but nothing is from primary production here.(they consider I'm in a dinosaur industry).
Just look at the stock drench resistance issues looming/here - no one is investing in developments because house pets are a far bigger industry worldwide - no alarm about food in that industry, if there was food prices would be rocketing up and capital following it.
Wake up folks we don't count and anything we grow can be done elsewhere. We do grow good stuff but it's peanuts in the world scene.
I would say there will always be a market for high quality meat and dairy.
In the lower end , i would say vegetable based proteins will take over. it can't be too hard to make something taste as good or better than the cheap rubbery (shark probably) fish fingers.KFC gravy has always been vegetable , no chicken in it .
Dairy , ditto , though i think NZ should look at hybrid dairy vege products , such as Ireland did with spreadable butter.
http://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/countrylife/audio/2018931267/a…
alternative dairy will target the commodity ingredient market. Another advantage, lower carbon emissions. Dairy farmers need to account for their emissions if they like it or not.
NZ inc has nothing to worry about, the ponzi housing madness will make us all rich.
The misallocation for money into the non productive sector will bite hard
Article the other day, seed based cream, had positive taste test
Where does the fuel come from to make these biological processes happen? Animals convert plants which use photosynthesis. A goodly part of the process is free. The sun. Our wonderful Professor Keith Woodford has discussed this on this forum. The price and availability of the fuel to power these chemical processes is key.
Exactly, it's not just energy efficiency, it's about closing nutrient loops as mining virgin materials becomes exponentially more expensive.
The food supply and security problem is a sourcing and logistics problem for current business models, and an opportunity for newer, circular bioregion-based models
Currently we farmers are struggling to get returns for protein that cover our costs. If we consider the 'free' part of the process. To which these other proteins dont really have to the same extent...then we seem to be looking at a more expensive and less quality protein. Less quality as it will be absent of the vitamins and minerals only the animal and plant world seem to be able to make. So...at this point and I do realise the future will change many things. But at this point if we are struggling ...how will a more expensive and less quality protein survive?
Less quality as it will be absent of the vitamins and minerals only the animal and plant world seem to be able to make.
But products that are produced with precision fermentation are made by the animal and plant world. They're just created by other, smaller organisms.
The only ones naive enough to continue to buy heavily processed / synthetic foods are those who have been brainwashed to think that it's the good for the planet.. In reality the product is cheaper to produce, with larger margins and this tag line is used purely to sell the product. Keeping your food source as natural as possible is the only way humans will keep healthy.. There is a reason we have been around for thousands of years. Only recently have we been stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds us... GMO plants also a major concern... Exec Summary. No thanks.
With all the research going on into gut biomes, it should be apparent by now that all the processed foods we have been eating are responsible for a number of serious diseases - its been linked to autism, ADHD, allergies, alzheimers, cancer ....
Also veterinary scientists have proven that consuming pea proteins (like that in Beyond Meat) causes heart disease in dogs (pea protein is the popular protein substitute in cheap pet food), and while dogs are not humans, what are the chances that those pea protein products do the same thing to us? Nobody has ever bothered running clinical trials to find out, the consumers are the experiment, too bad if they are all dead in 20 years.
Now they want humans to give up eating the foods our bodies have naturally evolved to eat and process and convert into the necessary amino acids we require to function, and substitute them for more processed, chemically laden, cheap protein sources from things we were never intended to consume. Pretty sure this is not going to work out well.
Now they want humans to give up eating the foods our bodies have naturally evolved to eat and process and convert into the necessary amino acids we require to function, and substitute them for more processed, chemically laden, cheap protein sources from things we were never intended to consume
This is technically true of all grains as well - we are not evolved to eat them (particularly in the volumes we do now) as they only came into our diet in the last 10,000 years.
My wife hates peas, when she was a kid her dad made her eat them, even tricking her ito eating them. They actually made her nauseous.
20 years later and she's talking to a doctor and relayed some symptoms, turns out classic pea protein allergy. Only allergic to processed pea protein, peas fresh in the garden fine. She's always avoided paracetamol, turns out it often has pea protein as a fuller.
Point of the story pea allergy is a big thing and the percentage who're allergic will notice. May not work out well as you say.
Proponents of alternative proteins mostly sound and read like they sing from the same song sheet - they seem either misinformed and/or more concerned with the bottom line.
We have consumed meat since before fire was discovered. Global life expectancy has steadily increased over the last 60 years, after the World Wars. Look at the Blue Zone people, they all consume red meat (but, quite moderately, averaging 4-5 servings per month) as part of their diets. How could this be - meat eaters who appear to live long healthy lives, as this does not fit with the narrative of the plethora of articles that tell us red meat is bad for us? A hint: if the article tells you the dietary finding is based on an epidemiological study or epidemiological studies, you should ignore it as far as the dietary findings go.
Also, when we talk about our environmental concerns, let's not ignore carbon sequestration in animal farming (especially sustainable practices) and, conversely, let's not downplay the environmental impact of monocropping required for plant-based diets.
No. Blue Zones are zones in which the people, on average, have higher life expectancy and lower middle-age mortality rates. Such zones come about based on, presumably, hard data (i.e. age and mortality rates). There is no hypothesis - they just are [Blue Zones] based on data.
To be clear, an epidemiological study generates a hypothesis but does not test that hypothesis in an experiment. It is problematic when the results of such studies are then used to claim a causal factor (e.g. "meat causes cancer"). At best, epidemiological studies show a correlation, not a cause.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/climate-change/350146680/start-seeks-investment-make-milk-without-cows
There's some interesting work being done on animal-free dairy in Auckland.
The insensitivity of some of these comments is concerning.
There is nothing more tedious than wannabe alpha behaviour, especially when it's the "I eat red meat, therefore I'm a real man" type.
It is objectively wrong to exploit sentient beings like pigs, chickens and cows.
Nothing gives anyone the right to take the life of an innocent being. Even if you raised it. Yes, killing happens in the animal kingdom, but a lion doesn't have a choice, or the moral agency to decide not to. Animals also rape each other and commit infanticide. Does that mean we should do it too?
Animals are here on this planet with us, not for us. Within each beating heart is a soul, and that soul is no different to ours.
Cry me a river. Insensitive...hell yeah thats most decent blokes to a tee. Worse the older they get. Grumpy and blimmin hard yakka. But guess who does the firewood. Who is gona have to fix the water troughs. Get the tractor going again cos the battery is flat. Change the wheel bearings in my trailer. Get on the roof to paint it cos I sure as hell wont. And while up there clean the chimney. He who can hardly walk at times with two metal hips and a new knee. Thats who. He what comes home with a couple of venison to feed the dogs. Sneaks around at night to shoot the pigs that insist on rooting up my paddocks. Yep the bloke that tucks in to meat n veg every night. The guy that is useful. The guy that can fix stuff. The guy that is stronger than me and uses that strength to do shit I cant do. The sort of guy we should respect despite his swearing at the tele every night when he listens to those that know nothing about being physically and mentally strong enough to do the sort of shit that makes this world go round. And guys like that eat meat.
Not really Pigeon...I thought I was being awfully obvious....
I am saying real men need decent food to do the hard physical stuff that makes this world go round. And I for one am extremely greatful for what they do. So I would not criticize them for their choices. You not only criticise but demean them.
Did you not study the food chain in Science at school? All the way up the chain, animals eat other animals. Its how they survive and thrive. Humans occupy a position at the top of the food chain because we eat meat. Otherwise we would have been stuck far lower down the evolutionary scale and the planet would be run by apes and monkeys.
It is a commendable if somewhat naïve attitude to have. We still have to kill huge numbers of sentient beings to produce vegetables. Unfortunately we evolved throughout the Pleistocene period to thrive on meat to a point where it is now practically essential to avoid the metabolic aliments that plague so many humans. The best we can do is farm animals in the most humane way possible. A swift death at the hands of humans is the best way for an animal to depart this world. Most wild animals are torn apart or digested alive.
I recommend you don't get all your facts from Joe Rogan and his guests. I grew up on a farm that produced crops and mutton and it's frankly ridiculous to say that plants require "killing huge numbers" of animals. Veganism isn't perfect but the central point is that you do the least harm possible.
Meat is also not "essential" to the human diet. There are so many studies that back this, let alone the reality of innumerable vegetarians and vegans living healthily into old age, that if you don't believe it, then you're being wilfully ignorant.
I experienced amazing benefits when I changed to a 90%+ animal based diet. Meat, eggs, fish and dairy, plus sunlight. No anxiety, feeling upbeat and calm, almost hyper, colours were more vibrant, eyesight improved, teeth and gums strong, no sunburn, no body odour or flatulence, no pimples and faster healing. Never got COVID or even colds when all those around me were going down.
It is selfish I guess but I would highly recommend it to anyone who was suffering from mental or physical issues. You start to feel superhuman. Feeling suicidal or suffering from gender dysphoria? Just try a carnivore diet for 90 days and you too can be a real man, an apex predator. It dawned on me that this is how a human is supposed to feel, how they always felt before the fall, before the agricultural revolution.
You might be in to something. Never been a vegetarian, never want to. It’s a dumb idea, proper nutrition when on a vege diet is a real challenge. Maybe this is why so many greenies are depressed and angry and think the climate is changing. They just need to eat some meat….who would have thought fixing these issues was so easy.
The argument plant-based causes least harm is misplaced. Monocropping for plant-based diets involves the clearing away of any existing plantation, clearing a layer of topsoil, and then using that field for the sole purpose of maintaining that single crop until the soil is depleted of nutrients. Think about the number of ecosystems that are decimated in each instance. Since you grew up on a farm, you would know then that animal farmlands are generally no good for crop production anyway - they're hilly, exposed to the elements, and, further, vegetation on farmland works harder to absorb carbon when it needs to constantly regrow and renew (this happens when they are stomped and nibbled on by livestock, they in turn also get nutrition from dung and urine and sometimes, the decomposing animal).
On whether meat is essential, there appears to be an increase in the body of research and data on the impact of meat exclusion and mental health (presumably this correlates with the relatively recent (over the last few decades) sharp increase in the popularity of vegan and vegetarian diets), take one: Harvard doctor says animal products are essential for mental health - in blow to veganism: 'The brain needs meat' | Daily Mail Online. I believe meat is essential to the human body, precisely because - far from being wilfully ignorant- of my personal experience (respectfully, I have not encountered one vegan or vegetarian in my life who has made me think "he/she looks healthy and vibrant, I want what he/she has.") and from what I have read and learned.
I don't know where to start with all this. If you're quoting "facts" from the Daily Mail to build your case then your argument is shaky. You could throw in a bit of Piers Morgan and Joe Rogan too.
Monocropping is harmful, you're right there. Shockingly 80-90% of the world's soy crops go towards livestock feed. The Amazon rainforest is being decimated to a large extent just to feed your addiction to meat.
Regarding vegans' health and appearance, I'm surprises you consider Novak Djokovic, Lewis Hamilton, Serena Williams, and Arnold Schwarzenegger (to name a few) to look unhealthy. I personally have run a 2.37hr marathon and a 9.57hr ironman on a vegetarian diet.
Let me help: start from the point the article cites a Harvard-trained doctor, not that it was published by the Daily Mail. The latter is of no relevance to what I am saying. The article is published on lots of different platforms, take your pick. Also, all sources are referenced in that article.
I've never met the people you have named, but no, when I look at them I don't think "health and vibrancy", irrespective of whether they can perform or not (there are athletes who are vegans and vegetarians, sure). Dig a bit deeper about those athletes you have named, they have all talked openly about health and mental struggles.
Anyway, as I said, I was speaking about personal experience, about the people I have met. I have heard ex-vegans and vegetarians describe to me feeling like their cells and their brains came alive again when they ate fish and meat for the first time in years. I look at my family history, generations of omnivores, no picky eaters. My grandparents all lived, independently (at home), into their late 80s (2 into 90s), and two worked professionally until months before their deaths. My parents look at least 10 years younger than most people their age. I do ok: most people also guess I'm about 10 years younger than my age by looking at me, I love being active and used to participate at representative level in a sport. I base my thinking on what I have seen and learnt. Happy to continue to learn.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.