Comparison of Environmental Impact and Nutritional Quality among a European Sample Population - findings from the Food4Me study.

Christie Walker, Eileen R Gibney, Stefanie Hellweg
Author Information
  1. Christie Walker: Institute of Environmental Engineering, ETH Zurich, 8093, Zürich, Switzerland. walker@ifu.baug.ethz.ch.
  2. Eileen R Gibney: Institute of Food and Health, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland.
  3. Stefanie Hellweg: Institute of Environmental Engineering, ETH Zurich, 8093, Zürich, Switzerland. ORCID

Abstract

This study evaluates the relationship between environmental impacts and diet quality through several environmental and nutritional indicators, using data from over 1400 participants across seven European countries in the Food4Me study. Comparisons of environmental impacts and dietary quality were evaluated across country, gender groups, and dietary patterns. While there was clear variability within the different subsets, there were large differences observed in both dietary quality and environmental impacts between cultures, genders, and dietary patterns. Individuals abstaining from red meat consistently had lower impacts in combination with lower consumption of harmful nutrients (saturated fats, sodium, and sugars) while maintaining average intake of beneficial nutrients. A 'best practice' diet with low impacts, adequate nutrient intake, and low saturated fats, sodium, and sugars, was constructed from the sample and used as a benchmark. Recorded eating patterns were compared to this recommended diet. On average, intakes of sweets, meats, and drinks should be decreased and intakes of vegetables and cereals increased, at varying rates depending on country and gender. However, the study shows a large spread of eating patterns and recommendations for lowering environmental impacts and increasing nutritional quality vary greatly among individuals.

References

  1. Br J Nutr. 2011 Dec;106(12 ):1899-914 [PMID: 21736781]
  2. Environ Sci Technol. 2016 Apr 5;50(7):3928-36 [PMID: 26914258]
  3. Br J Nutr. 2009 Jul;101 Suppl 2:S29-36 [PMID: 19594962]
  4. Clim Change. 2014;125(2):179-192 [PMID: 25834298]
  5. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Aug 11;16(8):e190 [PMID: 25113936]
  6. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Dec 24;110(52):20888-93 [PMID: 24344273]
  7. Public Health Nutr. 2000 Sep;3(3):357-65 [PMID: 10979155]
  8. Lancet. 2015 Jan 10;385(9963):117-71 [PMID: 25530442]
  9. Nutrients. 2016 Mar 02;8(3):128 [PMID: 26950145]
  10. Int J Sport Nutr. 1996 Jun;6(2):80-92 [PMID: 8744781]
  11. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Jun 09;16(6):e150 [PMID: 24911957]
  12. Science. 2016 Sep 16;353(6305):1202-4 [PMID: 27634509]
  13. Environ Sci Technol. 2013 Nov 19;47(22):12632-47 [PMID: 24152032]
  14. Forum Nutr. 2009;62:vii-viii [PMID: 20081326]
  15. J Nutr. 2016 May;146(5):1068-75 [PMID: 27052541]
  16. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013 Mar;97(3):569-83 [PMID: 23364012]
  17. Environ Sci Technol. 2016 Jul 5;50(13):7019-28 [PMID: 27253510]
  18. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Oct;80(4):1012-8 [PMID: 15447913]
  19. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Apr;91(4):1102S-1108S [PMID: 20181809]
  20. Genes Nutr. 2015 Jan;10(1):450 [PMID: 25491748]
  21. Br J Nutr. 2015 May 28;113(10):1603-14 [PMID: 25866161]
  22. Public Health Nutr. 1999 Sep;2(3A):349-56 [PMID: 10610072]
  23. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2009 Jul-Aug;41(4):232-41 [PMID: 19508928]
  24. Environ Sci Technol. 2017 Oct 3;51(19):11165-11173 [PMID: 28862841]
  25. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Jun;79(6):933-4 [PMID: 15159221]
  26. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007 Feb;61(2):279-86 [PMID: 17035955]
  27. Eur J Nutr. 2016 Mar;55(2):759-769 [PMID: 25893715]
  28. Science. 2015 Jun 12;348(6240):1217 [PMID: 26068844]
  29. Int J Epidemiol. 2017 Apr 1;46(2):578-588 [PMID: 27524815]
  30. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 Jun;99(6):1460-9 [PMID: 24695893]
  31. Environ Sci Technol. 2011 Jul 1;45(13):5761-8 [PMID: 21644578]
  32. J Nutr. 2009 Aug;139(8):1549-54 [PMID: 19549759]
  33. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Apr;65(4 Suppl):1220S-1228S; discussion 1229S-1231S [PMID: 9094926]
  34. J Am Diet Assoc. 2004 Apr;104(4):615-35 [PMID: 15054348]
  35. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014 Jul;100 Suppl 1:490S-5S [PMID: 24898230]
  36. Environ Sci Technol. 2013 Jan 15;47(2):877-88 [PMID: 23189920]
  37. Eur J Nutr. 2008 Apr;47 Suppl 1:17-40 [PMID: 18427858]
  38. J Nutr Metab. 2011;2011:391809 [PMID: 21773020]

MeSH Term

Climate Change
Diet
Energy Intake
Environment
Europe
Feeding Behavior
Female
Humans
Male
Nutritive Value

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0impactsenvironmentalstudyqualitydietarypatternsdietnutritionalacrossEuropeanFood4Mecountrygenderlargelowernutrientssaturatedfatssodiumsugarsaverageintakeloweatingintakesamongevaluatesrelationshipseveralindicatorsusingdata1400participantssevencountriesComparisonsevaluatedgroupsclearvariabilitywithindifferentsubsetsdifferencesobservedculturesgendersIndividualsabstainingredmeatconsistentlycombinationconsumptionharmfulmaintainingbeneficial'bestpractice'adequatenutrientconstructedsampleusedbenchmarkRecordedcomparedrecommendedsweetsmeatsdrinksdecreasedvegetablescerealsincreasedvaryingratesdependingHowevershowsspreadrecommendationsloweringincreasingvarygreatlyindividualsComparisonEnvironmentalImpactNutritionalQualitySamplePopulation-findings

Similar Articles

Cited By (10)