144
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    1
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Significance

          Dietary choices are a leading global cause of mortality and environmental degradation and threaten the attainability of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement. To inform decision making and to better identify the multifaceted health and environmental impacts of dietary choices, we describe how consuming 15 different food groups is associated with 5 health outcomes and 5 aspects of environmental degradation. We find that foods associated with improved adult health also often have low environmental impacts, indicating that the same dietary transitions that would lower incidences of noncommunicable diseases would also help meet environmental sustainability targets.

          Abstract

          Food choices are shifting globally in ways that are negatively affecting both human health and the environment. Here we consider how consuming an additional serving per day of each of 15 foods is associated with 5 health outcomes in adults and 5 aspects of agriculturally driven environmental degradation. We find that while there is substantial variation in the health outcomes of different foods, foods associated with a larger reduction in disease risk for one health outcome are often associated with larger reductions in disease risk for other health outcomes. Likewise, foods with lower impacts on one metric of environmental harm tend to have lower impacts on others. Additionally, of the foods associated with improved health (whole grain cereals, fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, olive oil, and fish), all except fish have among the lowest environmental impacts, and fish has markedly lower impacts than red meats and processed meats. Foods associated with the largest negative environmental impacts—unprocessed and processed red meat—are consistently associated with the largest increases in disease risk. Thus, dietary transitions toward greater consumption of healthier foods would generally improve environmental sustainability, although processed foods high in sugars harm health but can have relatively low environmental impacts. These findings could help consumers, policy makers, and food companies to better understand the multiple health and environmental implications of food choices.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, and fruit juice and incidence of type 2 diabetes: systematic review, meta-analysis, and estimation of population attributable fraction

          Objectives To examine the prospective associations between consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, and fruit juice with type 2 diabetes before and after adjustment for adiposity, and to estimate the population attributable fraction for type 2 diabetes from consumption of sugar sweetened beverages in the United States and United Kingdom. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources and eligibility PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and Web of Knowledge for prospective studies of adults without diabetes, published until February 2014. The population attributable fraction was estimated in national surveys in the USA, 2009-10 (n=4729 representing 189.1 million adults without diabetes) and the UK, 2008-12 (n=1932 representing 44.7 million). Synthesis methods Random effects meta-analysis and survey analysis for population attributable fraction associated with consumption of sugar sweetened beverages. Results Prespecified information was extracted from 17 cohorts (38 253 cases/10 126 754 person years). Higher consumption of sugar sweetened beverages was associated with a greater incidence of type 2 diabetes, by 18% per one serving/day (95% confidence interval 9% to 28%, I2 for heterogeneity=89%) and 13% (6% to 21%, I2=79%) before and after adjustment for adiposity; for artificially sweetened beverages, 25% (18% to 33%, I2=70%) and 8% (2% to 15%, I2=64%); and for fruit juice, 5% (−1% to 11%, I2=58%) and 7% (1% to 14%, I2=51%). Potential sources of heterogeneity or bias were not evident for sugar sweetened beverages. For artificially sweetened beverages, publication bias and residual confounding were indicated. For fruit juice the finding was non-significant in studies ascertaining type 2 diabetes objectively (P for heterogeneity=0.008). Under specified assumptions for population attributable fraction, of 20.9 million events of type 2 diabetes predicted to occur over 10 years in the USA (absolute event rate 11.0%), 1.8 million would be attributable to consumption of sugar sweetened beverages (population attributable fraction 8.7%, 95% confidence interval 3.9% to 12.9%); and of 2.6 million events in the UK (absolute event rate 5.8%), 79 000 would be attributable to consumption of sugar sweetened beverages (population attributable fraction 3.6%, 1.7% to 5.6%). Conclusions Habitual consumption of sugar sweetened beverages was associated with a greater incidence of type 2 diabetes, independently of adiposity. Although artificially sweetened beverages and fruit juice also showd positive associations with incidence of type 2 diabetes, the findings were likely to involve bias. None the less, both artificially sweetened beverages and fruit juice were unlikely to be healthy alternatives to sugar sweetened beverages for the prevention of type 2 diabetes. Under assumption of causality, consumption of sugar sweetened beverages over years may be related to a substantial number of cases of new onset diabetes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change.

            What we eat greatly influences our personal health and the environment we all share. Recent analyses have highlighted the likely dual health and environmental benefits of reducing the fraction of animal-sourced foods in our diets. Here, we couple for the first time, to our knowledge, a region-specific global health model based on dietary and weight-related risk factors with emissions accounting and economic valuation modules to quantify the linked health and environmental consequences of dietary changes. We find that the impacts of dietary changes toward less meat and more plant-based diets vary greatly among regions. The largest absolute environmental and health benefits result from diet shifts in developing countries whereas Western high-income and middle-income countries gain most in per capita terms. Transitioning toward more plant-based diets that are in line with standard dietary guidelines could reduce global mortality by 6-10% and food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 29-70% compared with a reference scenario in 2050. We find that the monetized value of the improvements in health would be comparable with, or exceed, the value of the environmental benefits although the exact valuation method used considerably affects the estimated amounts. Overall, we estimate the economic benefits of improving diets to be 1-31 trillion US dollars, which is equivalent to 0.4-13% of global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2050. However, significant changes in the global food system would be necessary for regional diets to match the dietary patterns studied here.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems.

              We present a unique, biologically consistent, spatially disaggregated global livestock dataset containing information on biomass use, production, feed efficiency, excretion, and greenhouse gas emissions for 28 regions, 8 livestock production systems, 4 animal species (cattle, small ruminants, pigs, and poultry), and 3 livestock products (milk, meat, and eggs). The dataset contains over 50 new global maps containing high-resolution information for understanding the multiple roles (biophysical, economic, social) that livestock can play in different parts of the world. The dataset highlights: (i) feed efficiency as a key driver of productivity, resource use, and greenhouse gas emission intensities, with vast differences between production systems and animal products; (ii) the importance of grasslands as a global resource, supplying almost 50% of biomass for animals while continuing to be at the epicentre of land conversion processes; and (iii) the importance of mixed crop–livestock systems, producing the greater part of animal production (over 60%) in both the developed and the developing world. These data provide critical information for developing targeted, sustainable solutions for the livestock sector and its widely ranging contribution to the global food system.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A
                pnas
                pnas
                PNAS
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
                National Academy of Sciences
                0027-8424
                1091-6490
                12 November 2019
                28 October 2019
                28 October 2019
                : 116
                : 46
                : 23357-23362
                Affiliations
                [1] aOxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, University of Oxford , OX3 7LF Oxford, United Kingdom;
                [2] bNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford , OX3 7LF Oxford, United Kingdom;
                [3] cNatural Resources Science and Management, University of Minnesota , St. Paul, MN 55108;
                [4] dDepartment of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering, University of Minnesota , St. Paul, MN 55108;
                [5] eDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota , St. Paul, MN 55108;
                [6] fBren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California , Santa Barbara, CA 93106
                Author notes
                1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: michael.clark@ 123456ndph.ox.ac.uk or tilman@ 123456umn.edu .

                Contributed by David Tilman, September 24, 2019 (sent for review April 23, 2019; reviewed by Tim G. Benton and Joan Sabate)

                Author contributions: M.A.C. and D.T. designed research; M.A.C. and D.T. performed research; M.A.C., M.S., J.H., and D.T. analyzed data; and M.A.C., M.S., J.H., and D.T. wrote the paper.

                Reviewers: T.G.B., Chatham House; and J.S., Loma Linda University.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7161-7751
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7609-6713
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6395-7676
                Article
                201906908
                10.1073/pnas.1906908116
                6859310
                31659030
                560c8ad5-41d5-4ae9-8a79-2b3d99b28863
                Copyright © 2019 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.

                This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 6
                Funding
                Funded by: Wellcome Trust
                Award ID: 205212/Z/16/Z
                Award Recipient : Michael A. Clark Award Recipient : Marco Springmann
                Funded by: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 100000199
                Award ID: MN-12-083
                Award Recipient : Jason D. Hill
                Funded by: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 100000139
                Award ID: R835873
                Award Recipient : Jason D. Hill
                Categories
                9
                Biological Sciences
                Sustainability Science
                Social Sciences
                Sustainability Science

                food,health,environment,diet,climate change
                food, health, environment, diet, climate change

                Comments

                Comment on this article