Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39897535›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2024

Modeled sustainability impacts of increasing pork consumption among adults in the United States.

Zach Conrad, Vincent Repoulis, Catherine Zavela

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Zach ConradDepartment of Kinesiology, William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA, United States.
Vincent RepoulisGlobal Research Institute, William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA, United States.
Catherine ZavelaGlobal Research Institute, William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Little is known about the role of pork in sustainable diet patterns, given that it is often aggregated with other animal proteins or not evaluated at all. To address this gap, this study modeled the sustainability impacts of replacing different protein foods with pork in a nationally representative sample of adults in the United States (US). Methods: Data on dietary intake, greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE), cumulative energy demand, water scarcity footprint, land, pesticides, fertilizer nutrients, food prices, and diet quality were obtained from publicly available repositories. A food substitution model was constructed to evaluate the change in each sustainability impact when 1-3 servings of beef, poultry, seafood, eggs, or legumes were replaced by pork. Results: Modeled substitution of beef with pork was associated with reductions in GHGE, land, pesticides, and fertilizer nutrients by 11-35%, and substitution of seafood with pork was associated with reductions in cumulative energy demand by 6% and diet cost by <1%. All other substitutions led to an increase in sustainability impacts of up to 5%, including all outcomes associated with substituting poultry, eggs, and legumes with pork. Discussion: The US federal government can play an important role in improving data collection methods that distinguish between pork and other meats. This can facilitate further research to evaluate sustainability trade-offs, which can inform clinical practice and public policy to support informed food choices for consumers.

Indexed as

food systemgreenhouse gasporkprotein foodsustainability

Identifiers

PMID39897535
PMCPMC11783847

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.