Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29141975›Full record

ReviewAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2017

Dietary Strategies to Reduce Environmental Impact: A Critical Review of the Evidence Base.

Bradley G Ridoutt, Gilly A Hendrie, Manny Noakes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Sustainability and cost of typical and heart-healthy dietary patterns in Australia.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Bradley G RidouttCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Agriculture and Food, Victoria, Australia.
Gilly A HendrieCSIRO Biosecurity and Health, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Manny NoakesCSIRO Biosecurity and Health, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The food system is a major source of environmental impact, and dietary change has been recommended as an important and necessary strategy to reduce this impact. However, assessing the environmental performance of diets is complex due to the many types of foods eaten and the diversity of agricultural production systems and local environmental settings. To assess the state of science and identify knowledge gaps, an integrative review of the broad topic of environment and diet was undertaken, with particular focus on the completeness of coverage of environmental concerns and the metrics used. Compared with the 14 discrete environmental areas of concern identified in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, the located journal literature mainly addressed greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and, to a lesser extent, land and water use. Some relevant concerns were rarely addressed or not addressed at all. In the case of GHG emissions, changes in land use and soil carbon stocks were seldom considered. This represents a disconnect between the science informing strategic climate action in the agricultural sector and the science informing public health nutrition. In the case of land and water use, few studies used metrics that are appropriate in a life-cycle context. Some metrics produce inherently biased results, which misinform about environmental impact. The limited evidence generally points to recommended diets having lower environmental impacts than typical diets, although not in every case. This is largely explained by the overconsumption of food energy associated with average diets, which is also a major driver of obesity. A shared-knowledge framework is identified as being needed to guide future research on this topic. Until the evidence base becomes more complete, commentators on sustainable diets should not be quick to assume that a dietary strategy to reduce overall environmental impact can be readily defined or recommended.

Indexed as

AgricultureConservation of Natural ResourcesDietFood SupplyGreenhouse EffectHumansclimate changedietary guidelinesenvironmental impact assessmentgreenhouse gas emissionsland uselife cycle assessmentsustainable dietUnited Nations Sustainable Development Goalswater use

Identifiers

PMID29141975
PMCPMC5682998

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.