ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2024
Modeled sustainability impacts of increasing pork consumption among adults in the United States.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- ASAS-NANP symposium: mathematical modeling in animal nutrition: agent‑based modeling of nutrient requirements and growth performance in growing-finishing pigs for sustainable production systems.Journal of animal science · 2026Article
- Microbiological Quality and Safety of Fresh Pork Meat with Special Reference to Methicillin-ResistantVeterinary sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.