Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / Eating Less Meat and the Environment Peer Reviewed Article

Eating Less Meat and the Environment Peer Reviewed Article

Post a Comment
  • Journal List
  • Elsevier Public Health Emergency Collection
  • PMC7256495

Nutrient Res Int. 2020 Nov; 137: 109341.

Meat consumption: Which are the electric current global risks? A review of recent (2010–2020) evidences

Received 2020 Apr 20; Revised 2020 May 10; Accepted 2020 May 17.

Graphical abstract

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is ga1_lrg.jpg

Keywords: Meat consumption, Dietary habits, Climate change, Human wellness, Viruses

Abstruse

Meat consumption has been increasing since the 1960s, just especially from the 1980s decade to today. Although meat means an important source of nutrients, information technology is also evident that a great consumption of this source of proteins has also a negative environmental touch. Livestock product does non only have a negative influence on GHG emissions, but also on the h2o footprint, h2o pollution, and water scarcity. With respect to homo health, in 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) stated that red meat was a probable carcinogen to humans (Grouping 2A), while consumption of processed meat was carcinogenic to humans (Group 1). Most environmental contaminants (PCDD/Fs, PCBs, PBDEs, PCNs, etc.) that are frequently establish in meats are highly soluble in fats. Therefore, avoiding ingesting fats from red meats and meat products, doubtless would help in the prevention, not only of the well-known cardiovascular diseases derived of fats consumption, but likewise of certain kinds of cancers, mainly colorectal cancer. On the other hand, consumption of meat – specially wild meat – is related to virus infections, every bit many viruses take been found in wild meat trade markets. Based on the scientific literature here reviewed, nosotros have noted that the results of the investigations conducted after the statement of the IARC, have corroborated the recommendation of reducing significantly the consumption of blood-red meats and meat products. In turn, the reduction of meat consumption should contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions and their considerable impact on global warming and climate modify. It seems evident that human dietary habits regarding meat consumption in full general, and red meats and wild meats in detail, should be significantly modified down, every bit much and as before long as possible.

1. Introduction

Global warming is a major business of the actual climate change scenario (Marques, Nunes, Moore, & Strom, 2010). Co-ordinate to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), anthropogenic activities accept been the responsible of the increase of ane °C, being 1.53 °C higher between 2006 and 2015 with respect to the temperatures of the pre-industrial era (years 1850–1900) (IPCC, 2019). Moreover, anthropogenic activities are currently increasing the global temperature at a rate of 0.2 °C per decade (IPCC, 2018). Climate models propose that the consequences derived from this increment – higher temperatures in country and oceans, and farthermost meteorological events – would be less dramatic with a 1.5 °C increment than with a ii °C increase, which is the bodily global agreement (IPCC, 2018). Furthermore, the boilerplate temperature over land was 0.66 °C higher than the equivalent global hateful temperature change (IPCC, 2019). Additionally, not all countries would be equally exposed to this temperature increase, being the vulnerability very high for some African countries and low for all the first-globe countries (Yeni & Alpas, 2017).

Up to 23% of the full greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are derived from the agriculture, forestry and other land uses, which are among the major contributors to the global warming (IPCC, 2019). Moreover, agricultural overexploitation – larger farm and field sizes, and more than use of pesticides and fertilizers – is causing a loss of natural biodiversity and habitats (Geiger et al., 2010). Amid agronomical practices, livestock industry is also an of import contributor to the global climate change, contributing betwixt 12% and 18% to the total GHG emissions (Gomez-Zavaglia et al., 2020, Allen and Hof, 2019).

Consumption of meat and meat products means an important source of nutrients – proteins, atomic number 26 and vitamins, among others – to the human diet. However, it is clear that this source of proteins has also a groovy ecology impact (Salter, 2018). With respect to this, it is well known that livestock production does not just have a negative influence on GHG emissions, but also on the water footprint, water pollution and water scarcity (Farchi, De Sario, Lapucci, Davoli, & Michelozzi, 2017). Therefore, it is evident that there is an urgent need to change the current lifestyle and consumption habits, non only for the planet health, but also for the own human being wellness.

Given the importance of this for worldwide, in order to constitute policies that can assistance mitigate the climate alter/global warming, it is essential to get access to all the available information. In relation to this, the nowadays paper was aimed at reviewing the impact of meat product and consumption on global warming and human wellness past focusing, specifically, on dietary habits, homo health, climate change and viral infections. The aim of this review is neither a meta-assay nor a systematic review, but an update and an extension of the previous reviews from our grouping related to this topic (Domingo and Nadal, 2016, Domingo and Nadal, 2017, Domingo, 2017).

2. Search strategy

For this purpose, PubMed (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) and Scopus (https://world wide web.scopus.com) were used as scientific databases, with extensive data on the topic of the present newspaper. Search was carried out with the following search terms: "meat consumption" combined with "global health", "human health", "greenhouse gases", "global warming", "viral infections" and "zoonosis". Up to 68 peer-reviewed articles were used for the present review, being divided for the different section every bit follows: a) thirteen for meat consumption and dietary habits; b) twenty-two for meat consumption and man health; c) xiii for meat consumption and climate change; and d) 20 for meat consumption and viral infections.

3. Meat consumption and dietary habits

In about countries, meat consumption has been increasing since the 1960 south, but particularly from the 1980 s decade to today. While some investigators have suggested that there has been a 204% rise in the supply of meat products (menstruation 1960 – 2010) (Basu, 2015), other recent studies take reported increases in meat consumption as loftier as 500% (1992 – 2016) (Katare et al., 2020). What is articulate is that nutritional habits have notably changed in the last century.

Europe has not been an exception, where the dietary habits have also substantially changed over the years. Recently, Bonnet, Bouamra-Mechemache, Réquillart, and Treich (2020) reported the trends in meat consumption habits in the European continent. While in the 1960 s, protein availability primarily came from plant-derived products such as wheat, present, up to 58% of the protein availability comes from animal-derived products. Consequently, at present, meat products constitute the major source of proteins (28 g of protein/person/day), accounting for 30% of total calories consumption (Bonnet et al., 2020).

Among the different kinds of meats that are available in the markets, poultry and squealer meats have shown the highest increase in consumption (Basu, 2015, Milford et al., 2019). On ane mitt, pig meat consumption has mainly increased in Southeast Asia, while poultry meat consumption has increased in all world regions – mainly in Due north America (Basu, 2015). On the other paw, in recent years cattle meat consumption has remained stable, even decreasing slightly (Milford et al., 2019). According to Salter (2018), in the flow 2014–2016 total meat consumption per capita worldwide was 34.1 kg/yr, being virtually threescore% reddish meats (pork, sheep and beefiness). This fact is concerning considering red meat production, especially beef meat, produces more CO2 emissions than white meat, which is due to the ruminant enteric fermentation (Farchi et al., 2017).

It is also well established that unlike production systems of meat could mean less contamination. Nguyen, Hermansen, and Mogensen (2010) assessed the environmental consequences of unlike beef meat product systems in the European Union. The results showed that beef intensively reared from dairy calves contributed less to the global warming than beef fattened based on suckler herds, which is an extensive production method. Although a less contaminant production arrangement should be primarily chosen to produce meat, there is also an urgent need to change the dietary habits of nigh people, at to the lowest degree in developed western countries, and very especially, to reduce meat consumption.

According to that, nowadays, but about five% of the global population considers themselves as vegetarian, while at that place are much more people (between xiv and sixty%) that define themselves as flexitarian, which ways that they reduce meat consumption, but information technology is not totally eliminated from the nutrition (Kemper, 2020). At that place are a few reasons to switch to a reduced-meat diet. Firstly, some authors (González-García et al., 2018, Sabaté et al., 2015, Scarborough et al., 2014) accept reported lower GHG emissions when a vegetarian diet is followed. For instance, Scarborough et al. (2014) compared the GHG emissions in different nutrition styles, terminal that a high-meat nutrition emitted vii.19 carbon dioxide equivalents per solar day (kgCO2due east/day), while vegetarian diet emitted 3.81 kgCO2e/day. It means most a half of reduction in GHG emissions. The decrease is even greater when post-obit a vegan nutrition: two.89 kgCO2e/day.

In plow, Sabaté et al. (2015) investigated the environmental costs of producing 1 kg of protein from different plant- and meat-based products. The results showed that product of 1 kg of protein from beef needed 18 times more land, 10 times more water, 9 times more fuel, 12 times more fertilizer, and 10 times more pesticides than the same corporeality of proteins obtained from kidney beans. Moreover, production of proteins from chicken or eggs also generates less waste than proteins from beef (Sabaté et al., 2015). In a recent review, González-García et al. (2018), reviewed 21 articles, which were bachelor in the scientific literature. These authors also concluded that diets consequent in vegetables were more environmentally friendly than those mainly constituted by meat products (González-García et al., 2018). These are clear indicators that strong efforts must be done to change the dietary habits of the population to a more eco-friendly lifestyle. Even so, there is even so a lack of awareness of the negative touch on of meat consumption. In a survey conducted in Australia, well-nigh half of the participants (47%) believed that meat was good for the health, while only 0.9% of the participants alleged that environmental concerns influenced their dietary choices (Bogueva, Marinova, & Raphaely, 2017). Additionally, Sogari, Bogueva, and Marinova (2019), conducted a survey in Australia to elucidate consumers' perception of eating insects as a protein source. Results showed that, still, at that place is a low willingness of replacing meat by insects, being neophobia and disgust, the main reasons behind that stance (Sogari et al., 2019). Even the stiff scientific evidence, the environmental benefits of reducing meat consumption are not having an touch on the consumers' dietary habits, which practice not simply have an influence on the environment but, also, on our health.

four. Meat consumption and human being wellness

Another important reason to reduce meat consumption in general, simply especially carmine meats, is directly related with the potential adverse effects of this consumption on man wellness. In 2015, the International Bureau for Inquiry on Cancer (IARC) stated that reddish meat was a likely carcinogen to humans (Group 2A) due to limited prove, while consumption of candy meat was carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) given the sufficient evidence (IARC, 2015).

After publication in 2015 of the IARC monograph, we have conducted a couple of critical reviews on this subject area. Recently, we concluded that epidemiological evidence was strong enough to confirm that intake of red meat or processed meat increased the risks of cancer, and more specifically that of colorectal cancer (Domingo & Nadal, 2017). Moreover, in full general terms, consumption of scarlet meat should be reduced below l grand/day to avoid an increased gamble of prostate cancer, chest cancer, or colorectal cancer. In a previous review, nosotros highlighted the potential relevance of the environmental (chemical) contaminants, which are often plant in meat and meat products, being some of them potentially carcinogenic. Thus, these chemical pollutants could also have some influence on the etiology of some kinds of cancer (Domingo & Nadal, 2016).

In general terms, poultry (white meat) contains lower amounts of environmental pollutants (Domingo, 2017, González et al., 2019, González et al., 2018). Since most of these ecology contaminants (PCDD/Fs, PCBs, PBDEs, PCNs, etc.) are highly soluble in fats, to avoid consuming fats present in ruddy meats and meat products, would help in the prevention not only of the well-known cardiovascular diseases derived of fats consumption, but also of certain cancers.

Since the publication of these reviews (Domingo and Nadal, 2016, Domingo and Nadal, 2017), a number of recent studies have reported adverse wellness outcomes related to the consumption of candy and reddish meat. Colorectal cancer is 1 of the main focuses of the studies found in the literature. A non-significant decrease of colorectal cancer was observed when comparing a cohort of vegetarians/pescetarians with a cohort of meat-eaters (Gilsing et al., 2015). This finding was similar to that previously reported by Tantamango-Bartley, Jaceldo-Siegl, Fan, and Fraser (2013), who noticed that vegan diet conferred a statistically meaning protection on the incidence of cancer in both genders, likewise as for female-specific cancers.

Even different types of cooking practices could also have an effect on the evolution of colorectal cancer. An increased cancer hazard for cooking practices requiring high temperatures - such as grilling or barbequing - has been found (Mehta et al., 2020). In plough, Deoula et al. (2020) conducted a case-control study in club to appraise the human relationship of red and white meat, as well as candy meat with colorectal cancer risk. Results showed a positive association betwixt red meat and colon cancer, but no associations were found for rectal cancer. On the other manus, no significant correlations were found between the consumption of white meat and colorectal cancer. In add-on, industrial processed meat – but not traditionally processed meat – was positively correlated with a college risk of colorectal cancer (Deoula et al., 2020). Other authors have estimated that limiting the consumption of red meat below 100 g per day would non mean a higher adventure of colorectal cancer for both genders (De Oliveira Mota, Boué, Guillou, Pierre, & Membré, 2019).

Other types of cancer, like biliary tract cancer or bladder cancer, for example, have been less studied for this kind of correlation. Makiuchi et al. (2020) performed a study to elucidate the part of crimson meat in biliary tract cancer. Consumption of scarlet meat was negatively associated with the adventure of suffering biliary tract cancer in men. However, in women it was not significantly correlated with the risk. Interestingly, in both genders, a college consumption of poultry meat was non associated with an increased risk of biliary tract cancer (Makiuchi et al., 2020).

In the USA, Ma et al. (2019) conducted a study aimed at elucidating the potential relationship betwixt meat intake and hepatocellular carcinoma in two prospective cohorts. The results showed that higher blood-red meat consumption was associated with an increased risk of 84% of suffering hepatocellular carcinoma, while white meat intake reduced upwardly to 39% the risk of this carcinoma (Ma et al., 2019). In another recent study, Di Maso et al. (2019) plant that following a diet based on vegetables and dairy products had a positive impact on the risk of suffering bladder cancer. In contrast, post-obit a diet with higher red meat consumption showed an increased risk. This run a risk was specially increased when the red meat was stewed or roasted (Di Maso et al., 2019). Finally, considering breast cancer, in a recent investigation conducted by Lo, Park, Sinha, and Sandler (2020), it was plant that consumption of cerise meat increased the take a chance of suffering breast cancer. Even so, in contrast, this risk was significantly reduced if, alternatively, poultry meat was consumed (Lo et al., 2020). Nonetheless, these results are not in accordance with those found by Anderson et al. (2018), who found that red meat consumption was not associated with breast cancer. Anyhow, a recently conducted systematic review, concluded that, in fact, high candy meat consumption was associated with an increased breast cancer risk (Farvid et al., 2018).

In general terms, and based on the above information, it seems evident that following a vegetarian, or a vegan diet, should reduce the incidence of cancers, or at to the lowest degree of some kinds of cancer.

Apart from cancer risk, at that place are other studies that focus on the part of meat consumption on developing other diseases, such as metabolic diseases, which can be likewise increased by red meat consumption (Tantamango-Bartley et al., 2013). In a prospective study conducted in China, it was plant that consumption of red meat, simply not poultry, was positively correlated with a higher incidence of diabetes (Du et al., 2020), results that are in agreement with those from a previous Danish study (Ibsen, Warberg, Würtz, Overvad, & Dahm, 2019), showing that replacement of red meat consumption by fish or poultry were associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes. Even replacing candy red meat with unprocessed blood-red meat was associated with a lower risk of diabetes (Ibsen et al., 2019).

Other diseases, like chronic kidney disease, were also plant to be positively correlated with higher red meat consumption (Huang et al., 2020, Luan et al., 2020, Mirmiran et al., 2020). The risk of suffering chronic kidney disease decreased when cherry-red meat-derived proteins were replaced by other protein sources (Mirmiran et al., 2020). On the other hand, a recent study conducted in Republic of costa rica has shown that consumption of ruby meat has a negative bear upon on the metabolic syndrome, which is associated with increased adventure for type 2 diabetes and/or cardiovascular diseases (Luan et al., 2020). In plow, abdominal obesity and a high fasting glucose might be the responsible of the association between metabolic illness and red meat consumption (Luan et al., 2020). The above findings are in accord with those constitute in a longitudinal written report carried out in China (Huang et al., 2020), in which the authors also reported that red meat intake was associated with an increased run a risk of metabolic syndrome.

Interestingly, consumption of red meat tin even have an impact on life expectancy. Ranabhat, Park, and Kim (2020) conducted a study including results from 164 countries – with information from international organizations – focused on determining whether consumption of red meat could influence the life expectancy. It was noted that although in high-and in centre-income countries, the current intake of red meat is having a negative impact on life expectancy, information technology could non be correlated with life expectancy in depression-income countries (Ranabhat et al., 2020).

5. Meat consumption and climate change

Information technology is well-known that climate alter could have an effect on the meat organoleptic qualities and also on the meat safety (Gregory, 2010). Potential effects of climate alter would be a college bloodshed during send or higher contamination of carcasses with Escherichia coli or Salmonella, which ways an overall reduction of the meat quality (Gregory, 2010).

However, it is important to remember that livestock production is ane of the greatest contributors to the global warming (Allen & Hof, 2019). Therefore, information technology is necessary to quantify and consider the environmental impacts of meat consumption. To practice so, one of the nearly used approaches is the life cycle cess (LCA). In LCA, environmental impacts associated to climate modify, such equally acidification, land and water apply, and eutrophication are assessed. First of all, there is a necessity to establish which dietary habits are more eco-friendly. To do so, recently, a LCA written report was performed on unlike types of meal where authors found that meals with a college environmental bear upon contain red meat (Heard, Bandekar, Vassar, & Miller, 2019).

In another investigation conducted in Denmark, Bruno et al. (2019) used LCA to judge the carbon footprint of four diet scenarios (standard, carnivore, vegetarian and vegan). All activities were taken into business relationship, from the farm product to the consumption. Results showed that carnivore diets emitted more CO2 (one.83 t CO2eq/person/twelvemonth), which means that this kind of diets has the highest environmental affect. By contrast, other diets such as vegetarian or vegan, showed lower emissions (0.89 and 1.37 t COtwoeq /person/year, respectively) (Bruno et al., 2019).

These results are like to those found in a Canadian investigation, where carbon footprint derived from different dietary patterns was assessed (Veeramani, Dias, & Kirkpatrick, 2017). Activities ranging from agricultural output to household processes, such equally cooking or storage, were likewise considered. Dietary habits including beef meat, such as nutrition not containing pork meat and omnivorous nutrition, showed the highest carbon footprint (3160 kg COiieq and 2282 kg COtwoeq, respectively). Other diets, not including beefiness meat, only including other meats, had a carbon footprint 60% lower than that of the no-pork diet (Veeramani et al., 2017). In addition, vegetarian and vegan diets had the everyman carbon footprint (55 and 1015 kg CO2eq, respectively) (Veeramani et al., 2017). In full general terms, most results corroborate that meat products, followed by dairy products, are the foodstuffs with a higher environmental bear upon, which is due to the interest of various agronomic and zootechnical activities (Notarnicola, Tassielli, Renzulli, Castellani, & Sala, 2017).

Having clarified which are the nearly eco-friendly nutrition styles, it is besides of import to specifically assess the environmental impact of meat product. With respect to this, Dougherty et al. (2019) examined the carbon footprint derived from the sheep production in California. These authors evaluated – through an LCA assessment – the environmental bear on of 5 unlike product systems. The results from the LCA showed that carbon footprint ranged from 3.ix to thirty.6 kg CO2east/kg meat, when considering a lamb product on a mass footing, and between 10.iv and 18.1 kg CO2east/kg meat, when considering lamb production on an economical basis. It is also of import to remark that enteric methane emissions contributed upwardly to 72% of the total emissions (Dougherty et al., 2019).

Other authors also establish carbon footprint for other kinds of ruby-red meat. For example, Wiedemann et al. (2015) analyzed the impacts of Australian beef and lamb exported to the Usa. GHG emissions derived from beef production ranged from 23.4 to 27.2 kg COtwoeq/kg beef, while emissions for lamb production were 6.one kg COtwoeq/kg lamb. In that report, it was also noted that enteric emissions contributed from 70% to 75% for beef and lamb, respectively (Wiedemann et al., 2015). Similar results had been reported in a previous report conducted in the USA by Lupo, Clay, Benning, and Stone (2013), where GHG emissions derived from cattle production were estimated to be 22 kg CO2eq/kg carcass. In this example, enteric methane emissions were too the highest contributors to the total emissions (65%) (Lupo et al., 2013).

LCA for pork production system was besides evaluated by Six et al. (2017). These researchers estimated that the carbon footprint for pork production was 4.6 kg COiieq/kg, which is similar to lamb production, just much lower than that estimated for beefiness product. Most emissions came from feed production (Half dozen et al., 2017). This result is also in accordance to that plant in a recent study conducted in Spain, where provender product and transport were found to be the nearly critical stages for environmental burdens (Noya et al., 2017).

On the other paw, white meats such as of rabbit or poultry have a lower carbon footprint when compared to production of red meats (Cesari et al., 2018, 2017). Cesari et al. (2018), analyzed the environmental impact of a rabbit production system. Climate impact for the production of one kg of rabbit was estimated to exist 3.86 kg CO2eq/kg, which is substantially lower to that calculated for beef meat, but similar to that estimated for lamb and pork meats. Cesari et al. (2017) had previously assessed the ecology impact of poultry production. Carbon footprint for poultry production was estimated to be 5.52 kg CO2eq/kg carcass. These results are like to those found for other kinds of white meat, existence also similar for pork and lamb production. Yet, these results are substantially lower than those corresponding to beef production. Overall, the data propose that consuming white meat or red meat (derived from pork and lamb), has a lower environmental impact than the consumption of red meat coming from beefiness.

half dozen. Meat consumption and viral infections

Finally, there is likewise a business organisation between the link of meat and viral infections. Consumption of meat – especially wild meats – is believed to exist related to virus infections, as many viruses take been plant in wild meat trade markets (Cantlay, Ingram, & Meredith, 2017). Ane of the well-nigh extended viral diseases acquired through meat consumption is hepatitis E (HEV) (Alvarado-Esquivel, Gutierrez-Martinez, Ramírez-Valles, & Sifuentes-Alvarez, 2020). The virus is transmitted mainly through those meats that have not been well cooked, beingness the chief reservoirs pigs, wild boars and deers (Lenggenhager and Weber, 2020, Sooryanarain and Meng, 2019). Fortunately, upward to fourscore% of the virions tin can be inactivated by cooking the meats at temperatures higher than sixty °C (Sooryanarain & Meng, 2019). They should reach an internal temperature of 71 °C during 20 min to inactivate the infectious virion (Barnaud, Rogée, Garry, Rose, & Pavio, 2012).

People infected with HEV are more often than not asymptomatic, only some of them can endure severe or lethal effects (Sooryanarain & Meng, 2019). Hepatitis E is commonly nowadays in both developed and developing countries (Alvarado-Esquivel et al., 2020). It has been detected in European countries such as Italia or Spain (Kukielka et al., 2016, Marcantonio et al., 2019). In Italia, HEV has been reported to affect 2.one/100 persons-year, being the probability of becoming infected of six.v% betwixt the participants tested (Marcantonio et al., 2019). Analysis of wild boar and red deer samples was carried out in Kingdom of spain. Upward to 10% of wild boar and sixteen% of ruby-red deer samples independent RNA from HEV (Kukielka et al., 2016). Additionally, 57% and thirteen% of wild boar and red deer, respectively, contained antibodies for HEV, pregnant that a great number of animals have become into contact with the virus (Kukielka et al., 2016).

In Prc, Ma et al. (2010) studied the seroprevalence and distribution of HEV in iii ethnic groups. Seroprevalence of anti-HEV was in a range between 8.9 and 32.9% for the three ethnic groups. This seroprevalence was correlated with the contact with pigs, which are the nearly important reservoir of the virus (Ma et al., 2010). In America, the presence of the virus has also been reported. In the The states, Ditah et al. (2014) studied the seroprevalence of HEV in the population of the country. The seroprevalence was 6% while 0.v% of the population had a contempo exposure to the virus, since immunoglobulin-M was present in the participants. Again, seropositivity was correlated with meat consumption (>ten times/month) (Ditah et al., 2014). In plow, Alvarado-Esquivel et al. (2020) reported the seroprevalence in Mexicans. Antibodies anti-HEV were found in 31.five% of the subjects. This seropositivity was besides associated with consumption of meat from different types (goat, sheep, boar, dove and turkey).

Although HEV is one of the well-nigh important zoonotic diseases worldwide, we cannot overlook 1 of the biggest concerns at the nowadays time. In 2018, potentially novel coronavirus were found in samples from bats and rats in Vietnam. It was observed that 22% of the bat fecal samples presented coronavirus RNA. Moreover, coronavirus RNA was likewise present in four.4% of rat fecal samples tested (Berto et al., 2018). Therefore, zoonosis derived from bat meat consumption is likely to happen, if security measures are not taken. Since Dec 2019, the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is causing struggles throughout the world. Co-ordinate to the most recent literature, the main hypothesis is that this RNA virus could have its origin in a seafood market from Wuhan (Communist china), where vertebrate and invertebrate – wild and farmed – animal are sold (Li, Li, & (Justin), Xie, Ten., Cai, X., Huang, J., Tian, X., & Zhu, H. , 2020). Moreover, there is a belief that an intermediate host was needed for the transmission from animals to humans (Acter et al., 2020). Main routes for man – homo transmission are nosocomial – within an hospital – or during close contact between people through respiratory routes, i.eastward., aerosol produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes (Acter et al., 2020). Air pollution could be also an important route of exposure. In a contempo study conducted in Mainland china, researchers observed a significantly positive correlation between different air pollutants (PMtwo.5, PM10, SO2, CO, NO3 and Othree) with COVID-19 cases (Zhu, Xie, Huang, & Cao, 2020). And so, highly-polluted cities could be a significant source of infection.

The health effects derived from the exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 are mainly respiratory, which include cough, breathing difficulties and fever (Gabutti et al., 2020, Khan and Atangana, 2020, Rothan and Byrareddy, 2020, Sohrabi et al., 2020, Wang et al., 2020). Although a vaccine or a specific treatment has not been found all the same, progresses have been made in this field to observe a skilful treatment (Abd El-Aziz & Stockand, 2020). All the same, the most important is to deport out an early recognition and intervention of the most critical patients (Sun, Qiu, Huang, & Yang, 2020).

Up to date, more than two one thousand thousand people have been already infected and about 200,000 individuals have already dead considering of the SARS-CoV-ii (world wide web.worldometers.info/coronavirus/). Therefore, the global mortality rate is being considerably loftier although it varies notably among countries. Anyway, there is an urgent need to change the dietary habits in order to avoid zoonosis, which could crusade once more another global pandemic sooner than late.

7. Conclusions

In 2015, the IARC established that red meat was a probable carcinogen to humans (Group 2A), while consumption of processed meat was carcinogenic to humans (Group i). Colorectal cancer -among other kinds of cancer- would exist of special concern. Nosotros have here reviewed a number of recent studies regarding some important issues related with the human dietary intake of meats, whose consumption has dramatically decreased increased in recent decades in most countries over the world. Since the point of view of wellness,

The results of a number of investigations conducted subsequently the statement of the IARC have corroborated the clear recommendation of reducing significantly the consumption of cherry-red meats and meat products. Considering red meats can contain of import quantities of fats, to reduce their consumption should be useful for reducing cardiovascular and cancer risks, simultaneously. On the other mitt, a reduction of meat consumption should contribute to the reduction of GHGs emissions and their touch on global warming and climate wellness. In addition, a number of studies conducted in contempo years have demonstrated the important carbon footprint to which red meats contributes.

Lastly, but not the least, the electric current pandemic of COVID-nineteen has suggested that consumption of wild meats tin mean a very serious risk of transmission of viruses from animals to humans. Taking all this into account, it seems evident that for unlike, but important reasons, the human dietary habits regarding meat consumption in general, and cerise meats and wild meats in particular, should be significantly modified downward, as much and as presently as possible. The health of the planet and people require it.

References

  • Abd El-Aziz T.M., Stockand J.D. Contempo progress and challenges in drug development against COVID-xix coronavirus (SARS-CoV-two) - an update on the status. Infection, Genetics and Development. 2020;83(April) doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2020.104327. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Acter T., Uddin N., Das J., Akhter A., Choudhury T.R., Kim S. Evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as coronavirus illness 2019 (COVID-nineteen) pandemic: A global health emergency. Science of The Total Environment. 2020;730 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138996. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Allen A.M., Hof A.R. Paying the price for the meat we swallow. Ecology Science and Policy. 2019;97(Apr):xc–94. doi: x.1016/j.envsci.2019.04.010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Alvarado-Esquivel C., Gutierrez-Martinez V.D., Ramírez-Valles E.G., Sifuentes-Alvarez A. Depression prevalence of anti-hepatitis E virus IgG antibodies in Tepehuanos in Mexico. Annals of Hepatology. 2020;nineteen(2):186–189. doi: 10.1016/j.aohep.2019.08.013. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Anderson J.J., Darwis N.D.Thou., Mackay D.F., Celis-Morales C.A., Lyall D.Chiliad., Sattar N.…Pell J.P. Carmine and processed meat consumption and breast cancer: U.k. Biobank cohort study and meta-analysis. European Journal of Cancer. 2018;90:73–82. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.11.022. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Barnaud Due east., Rogée S., Garry P., Rose Due north., Pavio Due north. Thermal inactivation of infectious hepatitis East virus in experimentally contaminated food. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2012;78(15):5153–5159. doi: x.1128/AEM.00436-12. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Basu S. The transitional dynamics of caloric ecosystems: Changes in the food supply effectually the world. Critical Public Health. 2015;25(3):248–264. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.03.040. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Berto A., Anh P.H., Carrique-Mas J.J., Simmonds P., Van Cuong N., Tue N.T.…Rabaa M.A. Detection of potentially novel paramyxovirus and coronavirus viral RNA in bats and rats in the Mekong Delta region of southern Viet Nam. Zoonoses and Public Wellness. 2018;65(1):30–42. doi: 10.1111/zph.12362. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bogueva D., Marinova D., Raphaely T. Reducing meat consumption: The case for social marketing. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. 2017;29(3):477–500. doi: x.1108/APJML-08-2016-0139. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bonnet C., Bouamra-Mechemache Z., Réquillart V., Treich Due north. Viewpoint: Regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and creature welfare. Food Policy. 2020;February doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101847. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Bruno M., Thomsen Grand., Pulselli F.M., Patrizi N., Marini Grand., Caro D. The carbon footprint of Danish diets. Climatic Change. 2019;156(4):489–507. doi: ten.1007/s10584-019-02508-four. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cantlay J.C., Ingram D.J., Meredith A.L. A review of zoonotic infection risks associated with the wild meat merchandise in Malaysia. EcoHealth. 2017;14(2):361–388. doi: 10.1007/s10393-017-1229-x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cesari V., Zucali Yard., Bava 50., Gislon G., Tamburini A., Toschi I. Ecology touch of rabbit meat: The effect of product efficiency. Meat Science. 2018;145(July):447–454. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.07.011. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cesari 5., Zucali M., Sandrucci A., Tamburini A., Bava L., Toschi I. Environmental impact assessment of an Italian vertically integrated broiler organization through a Life Cycle arroyo. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017;143:904–911. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.030. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • De Oliveira Mota J., Boué G., Guillou South., Pierre F., Membré J.K. Estimation of the burden of disease attributable to ruby-red meat consumption in France: Influence on colorectal cancer and cardiovascular diseases. Food and Chemic Toxicology. 2019;130(February):174–186. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2019.05.023. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Deoula M.South., El Kinany K., Huybrechts I., Gunter M.J., Hatime Z., Boudouaya H.A.…El Rhazi K. Consumption of meat, traditional and modern processed meat and colorectal cancer run a risk among the Moroccan population: A big-scale case–command written report. International Journal of Cancer. 2020;146(v):1333–1345. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32689. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Di Maso Grand., Turati F., Bosetti C., Montella M., Libra Chiliad., Negri E.…Polesel J. Food consumption, meat cooking methods and nutrition diversity and the risk of float cancer. Cancer Epidemiology. 2019;63(August) doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2019.101595. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ditah I., Ditah F., Devaki P., Ditah C., Kamath P.S., Charlton M. Electric current epidemiology of hepatitis Eastward virus infection in the United States: Depression seroprevalence in the National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey. Hepatology. 2014;60(iii):815–822. doi: 10.1002/hep.27219. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Domingo J.L. Concentrations of environmental organic contaminants in meat and meat products and human dietary exposure: A review. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2017;107:20–26. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2017.06.032. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Domingo J.L., Nadal M. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat: What about environmental contaminants? Environmental Research. 2016;145:109–115. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2015.11.031. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Domingo J.Fifty., Nadal One thousand. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red meat and candy meat: A review of scientific news since the IARC decision. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2017;105:256–261. doi: ten.1016/j.fct.2017.04.028. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Dougherty H.C., Oltjen J.W., Mitloehner F.1000., Depeters East.J., Pettey L.A., Macon D.…Kebreab E. Carbon and blue water footprints of California sheep production. Journal of Animate being Science. 2019;97(ii):945–961. doi: 10.1093/jas/sky442. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Du H., Guo Y., Bennett D.A., Bragg F., Bian Z., Chadni M.…Chen Z. Red meat, poultry and fish consumption and risk of diabetes: A 9 year prospective cohort study of the China Kadoorie Biobank. Diabetologia. 2020;63(4):767–779. doi: 10.1007/s00125-020-05091-10. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Farchi S., De Sario M., Lapucci Due east., Davoli M., Michelozzi P. Meat consumption reduction in Italian regions: Wellness co-benefits and decreases in GHG emissions. PLoS I. 2017;12(8):1–19. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182960. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Farvid Chiliad.S., Stern M.C., Norat T., Sasazuki Southward., Vineis P., Weijenberg One thousand.P.…Cho E. Consumption of scarlet and processed meat and chest cancer incidence: A systematic review and meta-assay of prospective studies. International Journal of Cancer. 2018;143(11):2787–2799. doi: ten.1002/ijc.31848. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gabutti Yard., d'Anchera E., Sandri F., Savio M., Stefanati A. Coronavirus: Update Related to the Current Outbreak of COVID-xix. Infectious Diseases and Therapy. 2020;1–thirteen doi: 10.1007/s40121-020-00295-five. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Geiger F., Bengtsson J., Berendse F., Weisser Due west.W., Emmerson M., Morales M.B.…Inchausti P. Persistent negative effects of pesticides on biodiversity and biological command potential on European farmland. Basic and Practical Ecology. 2010;xi(2):97–105. doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2009.12.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gilsing A.Grand.J., Schouten L.J., Goldbohm R.A., Dagnelie P.C., Van Den Brandt P.A., Weijenberg M.P. Vegetarianism, low meat consumption and the chance of colorectal cancer in a population based cohort study. Scientific Reports. 2015;5(July):ane–12. doi: x.1038/srep13484. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Gomez-Zavaglia A., Mejuto J.C., Simal-Gandara J. Mitigation of emerging implications of climatic change on nutrient production systems. Food Research International. 2020;134(April) doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109256. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • González-García S., Esteve-Llorens X., Moreira M.T., Feijoo G. Carbon footprint and nutritional quality of different human being dietary choices. Science of the Total Surround. 2018;644:77–94. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.06.339. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • González Due north., Calderón J., Rúbies A., Timoner I., Castell V., Domingo J.50., Nadal 1000. Dietary intake of arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead past the population of Catalonia, Spain: Analysis of the temporal trend. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2019;132(July) doi: ten.1016/j.fct.2019.110721. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • González North., Marquès M., Nadal M., Domingo J.L. Levels of PCDD/Fs in foodstuffs in Tarragona County (Catalonia, Spain): Spectacular subtract in the dietary intake of PCDD/Fs in the final 20 years. Nutrient and Chemical Toxicology. 2018;121:109–114. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Gregory Due north.G. How climatic changes could affect meat quality. Food Research International. 2010;43(7):1866–1873. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2009.05.018. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Heard B.R., Bandekar Grand., Vassar B., Miller Due south.A. Comparison of life wheel environmental impacts from repast kits and grocery shop meals. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2019;147(November 2018):189–200. doi: ten.1016/j.resconrec.2019.04.008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Huang L.North., Wang H.J., Wang Z.H., Zhang J.Grand., Jia X.F., Zhang B., Ding Chiliad.Q. Clan of reddish meat usual intake with serum ferritin and the hazard of metabolic syndrome in Chinese adults: A longitudinal written report from the China health and nutrition survey. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences. 2020;33(i):19–29. doi: ten.3967/bes2020.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • IARC Carmine Meat and Processed Meat. In IARC Monographs. 2015;Vol:114).. [Google Scholar]
  • Ibsen D.B., Warberg C.K., Würtz A.M.Fifty., Overvad One thousand., Dahm C.C. Commutation of red meat with poultry or fish and run a risk of type 2 diabetes: A Danish cohort study. European Journal of Nutrition. 2019;58(7):2705–2712. doi: 10.1007/s00394-018-1820-0. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • IPCC Global Warming of one.five°C. An IPCC Special Written report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate alter. Ipcc - Sr15. 2018;ii(Oct):17–xx. Retrieved from www.environmentalgraphiti.org. [Google Scholar]
  • IPCC Climate change and land: An IPCC special study on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, nutrient security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Research Handbook on Climate Change and Agricultural Law. 2019;423–449 doi: 10.4337/9781784710644. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Katare B., Wang H.H., Lawing J., Hao Northward., Park T., Wetzstein Thousand. Toward Optimal Meat Consumption. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2020;102(ii):662–680. doi: 10.1002/ajae.12016. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kemper Joya A. Motivations, barriers, and strategies for meat reduction at dissimilar family lifecycle stages. Ambition. 2020;150:104644. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104644. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Khan Grand.A., Atangana A. Modeling the dynamics of novel coronavirus (2019-nCov) with fractional derivative. Alexandria Engineering Journal. 2020 doi: x.1016/j.aej.2020.02.033. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Kukielka D., Rodriguez-Prieto 5., Vicente J., Sánchez-Vizcaíno J.Yard. Constant hepatitis E virus (HEV) apportionment in wild boar and red deer in Spain: An increasing concern source of HEV zoonotic transmission. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. 2016;63(5):e360–e368. doi: 10.1111/tbed.12311. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lenggenhager D., Weber A. Clinicopathologic features and pathologic diagnosis of hepatitis Due east. Human Pathology. 2020;96:34–38. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2019.x.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Li J., Li (Justin) J., Xie X., Cai Ten., Huang J., Tian X., Zhu H. Game consumption and the 2019 novel coronavirus. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2020;20(iii):275–276. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(twenty)30063-3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lo J.J., Park Y.M.Yard., Sinha R., Sandler D.P. Association between meat consumption and risk of chest cancer: Findings from the Sister Written report. International Periodical of Cancer. 2020;146(8):2156–2165. doi: ten.1002/ijc.32547. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Luan D., Wang D., Campos H., Baylin A. Ruby meat consumption and metabolic syndrome in the Republic of costa rica Heart Study. European Journal of Nutrition. 2020;59(ane):185–193. doi: 10.1007/s00394-019-01898-six. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lupo C.D., Dirt D.E., Benning J.L., Stone J.J. Life-Cycle Cess of the beef cattle product system for the Northern Great Plains, USA. Journal of Environmental Quality. 2013;42(v):1386–1394. doi: x.2134/jeq2013.03.0101. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ma Y., Yang Westward., Li T., Liu Y., Simon T.K., Sui J.…Zhang Ten. Meat intake and take a chance of hepatocellular carcinoma in two large US prospective cohorts of women and men. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2019;48(vi):1863–1871. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyz146. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ma Z., Feng R., Zhao C., Harrison T.J., Li M., Qiao Z.…Wang Y. Seroprevalence and distribution of hepatitis E virus in diverse ethnic groups in Gansu province, China. Infection, Genetics and Evolution. 2010;10(five):614–619. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2010.04.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Makiuchi T., Sobue T., Kitamura T., Ishihara J., Sawada Northward., Iwasaki M.…Tsugane Southward. Relationship between meat/fish consumption and biliary tract cancer: The Nihon public health center–based prospective written report. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention. 2020;29:95–102. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-0514. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Marcantonio C., Pezzotti P., Bruni R., Taliani G., Chionne P., Madonna Due east.…Spada E. Incidence of hepatitis East virus infection among blood donors in a high endemic area of Central Italy. Journal of Viral Hepatitis. 2019;26(4):506–512. doi: x.1111/jvh.13049. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Marques A., Nunes M.L., Moore Due south.Chiliad., Strom M.S. Climate alter and seafood safety: Human health implications. Nutrient Inquiry International. 2010;43(7):1766–1779. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2010.02.010. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Mehta S.Southward., Arroyave W.D., Lunn R.M., Park Y.M.Thou., Boyd W.A., Sandler D.P. A prospective analysis of red and candy meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer in women. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention. 2020;29:141–150. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-19-0459. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Milford A.B., Le Mouël C., Bodirsky B.L., Rolinski S. Drivers of meat consumption. Ambition. 2019;141(April) doi: ten.1016/j.appet.2019.06.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Mirmiran P., Yuzbashian E., Aghayan M., Mahdavi Thousand., Asghari M., Azizi F. A prospective report of dietary meat intake and risk of incident chronic kidney illness. Journal of Renal Nutrition. 2020;30(2):111–118. doi: 10.1053/j.jrn.2019.06.008. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Nguyen T.50.T., Hermansen J.E., Mogensen Fifty. Environmental consequences of different beefiness production systems in the EU. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2010;18(8):756–766. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.12.023. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Notarnicola B., Tassielli G., Renzulli P.A., Castellani 5., Sala S. Environmental impacts of food consumption in Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017;140:753–765. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.080. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Noya I., Aldea X., González-García S.K., Gasol C., Moreira Thou.T., Amores 1000.J.…Boschmonart-Rives J. Environmental cess of the entire pork value chain in Catalonia – A strategy to work towards round economy. Scientific discipline of the Total Environment. 2017;589:122–129. doi: x.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.186. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Ranabhat C.L., Park G.B., Kim C.B. Influence of booze and red meat consumption on life expectancy: Results of 164 countries from 1992 to 2013. Nutrients. 2020;12(2):ane–eighteen. doi: 10.3390/nu12020459. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Rothan H.A., Byrareddy S.North. The epidemiology and pathogenesis of coronavirus illness (COVID-19) outbreak. Journal of Autoimmunity. 2020;109(January) [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Sabaté J., Sranacharoenpong K., Harwatt H., Wien Yard., Soret South. The environmental toll of protein food choices. Public Health Nutrition. 2015;eighteen(11):2067–2073. doi: ten.1017/S1368980014002377. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Salter A.M. The effects of meat consumption on global health. Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics) 2018;37(1):47–55. doi: 10.20506/rst.37.i.2739. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Scarborough P., Appleby P.Northward., Mizdrak A., Briggs A.D.M., Travis R.C., Bradbury K.Due east., Central T.J. Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Climate change. 2014;125(ii):179–192. doi: 10.1007/s10584-014-1169-ane. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Six L., De Wilde B., Vermeiren F., Van Hemelryck South., Vercaeren M., Zamagni A.…De Meester South. Using the production environmental footprint for supply concatenation management: Lessons learned from a case study on pork. International Journal of Life Cycle Cess. 2017;22(9):1354–1372. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1249-8. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sogari K., Bogueva D., Marinova D. Australian consumers' response to insects as food. Agronomics (Switzerland) 2019;9(five):1–15. doi: 10.3390/agriculture9050108. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Sohrabi C., Alsafi Z., O'Neill Northward., Khan Grand., Kerwan A., Al-Jabir A.…Agha R. World Health Organization declares global emergency: A review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) International Journal of Surgery. 2020;76(January):71–76. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Sooryanarain H., Meng X.J. Hepatitis E virus: Reasons for emergence in humans. Current Opinion in Virology. 2019;34:10–17. doi: ten.1016/j.coviro.2018.xi.006. [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Lord's day Q., Qiu H., Huang 1000., Yang Y. Lower mortality of COVID-nineteen by early recognition and intervention: Feel from Jiangsu Province. Annals of Intensive Care. 2020;10(1):2–5. doi: 10.1186/s13613-020-00650-2. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Tantamango-Bartley Y., Jaceldo-Siegl Grand., Fan J., Fraser G. Vegetarian diets and the incidence of cancer in a low-risk population. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention. 2013;22(2):286–294. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1060. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Veeramani A., Dias G.M., Kirkpatrick S.I. Carbon footprint of dietary patterns in Ontario, Canada: A example study based on bodily food consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017;162:1398–1406. doi: x.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.025. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Wang C., Horby P.W., Hayden F.G., Gao Yard.F. A novel coronavirus outbreak of global health concern. Lancet. 2020;396(January):470–473. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Wiedemann S., McGahan E., Murphy C., Yan M.J., Henry B., Thoma G., Ledgard Southward. Ecology impacts and resource utilize of Australian beef and lamb exported to the USA determined using life cycle assessment. Periodical of Cleaner Production. 2015;94:67–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.073. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Yeni F., Alpas H. Vulnerability of global food production to extreme climatic events. Food Research International. 2017;96:27–39. doi: ten.1016/j.foodres.2017.03.020. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Zhu Yongjian, Xie Jingui, Huang Fengming, Cao Liqing. Clan betwixt short-term exposure to air pollution and COVID-nineteen infection: Show from China. Science of The Total Environment. 2020;727:138704. doi: ten.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138704. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

leistpatents.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7256495/

Post a Comment for "Eating Less Meat and the Environment Peer Reviewed Article"