ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
A matrix approach to visually communicate simultaneously the environmental and health impacts of foods.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Despite an unprecedented wealth of knowledge regarding the environmental and health effects of foods, no studies effectively and simultaneously communicate both characteristics in an easily comprehensible visual format. This work, therefore aims to provide a clear visualization that intuitively demonstrates the relative characteristics of a comprehensive list of foods to encourage more informed decision-making across stakeholders. Methods: Data are aggregated from meta-analyses and reviews regarding the carbon footprint (CFP) and health effects of 30 food groups commonly consumed in the United States of America. The data are then used to categorize food groups as favorable, neutral, or unfavorable to health and as having a low, medium, or high carbon footprint. These classifications are then used to arrange food groups into a three by three color-coded matrix. Results: The resulting visualization simultaneously communicates environmental impacts and health implications of food groups in a single figure. Overall, the visualization indicates plant-based and less processed foods are preferable to animal-based and more processed foods. An exception to the format is made to emphasize the exceptionally large carbon footprint of beef by splitting the lower-right cell into two halves. Discussion: Classification of food groups according to health effects and carbon footprint is consistent with results presented in other studies. The color-coded matrix format quickly and intuitively communicates the tradeoffs made when choosing between different food groups, which may help improve choices for human and planetary health.
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.