Comparison of food recommendations varying in sustainability: Impact on dietary intake and motivation to follow recommendations

Abstract

Food recommendations increasingly focus on sustainability in addition to nutritional value. By providing participants with standard versus sustainable (plant-based) dietary recommendations for 3 weeks, the present research tested the impact of recommendations on dietary compliance. Furthermore, predictors of food intake were tested across food categories. Participants in the sustainable diet condition complied less with recommendations as compared to those in the standard diet condition and were less motivated to continue complying after the intervention. Taste was the main predictor of intake across food categories. Together, this stresses the importance of considering factors stimulating consumers' compliance when formulating food recommendations.

Nutritional content, protein quantity, protein quality and carbon footprint of plant-based drinks and semi-skimmed milk in the Netherlands and Europe

“…Compared to soy drink, semi-skimmed bovine milk has a higher consumer acceptance, due to e.g. its lower price, better fit with current consumption habits and better taste (37) (38) . All in all it can be concluded that for both bovine milk and fortified (but not unfortified) soy drink, there is a place in a sustainable diet.…”

Factors that facilitate consumer uptake of sustainable dietary patterns in Western countries: a scoping review

“…Figure 1 details the article retrieval results (Page et al, 2021). Nineteen studies used a cross-sectional design (MacMillan Uribe et al, 2012;Vanhonacker et al, 2013;Grunert et al, 2014;Vainio et al, 2016;Hoek et al, 2017;Van Loo et al, 2017;Myers and Pettigrew, 2018;Grasso et al, 2019;Culliford and Bradbury, 2020;de Koning et al, 2020;Jodice and Norman, 2020;Vega-Zamora et al, 2020;Ali et al, 2021;Broeckhoven et al, 2021;Eustachio Colombo et al, 2021;Grasso et al, 2021;Hopkins et al, 2022;Mellor et al, 2022;Schiano et al, 2022), one was a randomized control trial (RCT) (Veltkamp et al, 2017), and one was a case study (Ramsing et al, 2021). The cross-sectional studies predominantly used qualitative surveys and interviews, although several used quantitative surveys (Grasso et al, 2019;de Koning et al, 2020;Jodice and Norman, 2020;Ali et al, 2021;Broeckhoven et al, 2021) or a combination of quantitative and qualitative surveys (MacMillan Uribe et al, 2012;Vainio et al, 2016).…”

“…three in Australia (Hoek et al, 2017;Myers and Pettigrew, 2018;Hopkins et al, 2022), and two in the UK (Culliford and Bradbury, 2020;Mellor et al, 2022). In addition, five studies were conducted in Northern and Western European countries, including Belgium (Vanhonacker et al, 2013), Finland (Vainio et al, 2016), The Netherlands (Veltkamp et al, 2017), Spain (Vega-Zamora et al, 2020), andSweden (Eustachio Colombo et al, 2021). Six studies were carried out across multiple European countries (Grunert et al, 2014;Van Loo et al, 2017;Grasso et al, 2019;Ali et al, 2021;Broeckhoven et al, 2021;Grasso et al, 2021) and one was conducted globally (de Koning et al, 2020).…”

“…Sample sizes ranged from 34 participants (Mellor et al, 2022) to 4,408 participants (Grunert et al, 2014). Methods of participant recruitment varied among studies; however, online recruitment via social media and emails was evident in the majority of study designs (Grunert et al, 2014;Hoek et al, 2017;Veltkamp et al, 2017;Grasso et al, 2019;de Koning et al, 2020;Jodice and Norman, 2020;Hopkins et al, 2022;Mellor et al, 2022). Other methods included specific market research agencies (MacMillan Uribe et al, 2012;Vanhonacker et al, 2013;Van Loo et al, 2017;Grasso et al, 2019Grasso et al, , 2021Schiano et al, 2022),street recruitment (Vega-Zamora et al, 2020) and paper advertisements (Myers and Pettigrew, 2018).…”

“…The types of sustainable foods or dietary patterns in the studies varied, including general SD choices or subtypes of SD choices. For instance, the majority focused on a combination of a broad range of food and dietary pattern choices justified by the authors as being more sustainable, such as organic food, alternative protein sources, and eating less meat (MacMillan Uribe et al, 2012;Vanhonacker et al, 2013;Hoek et al, 2017;Veltkamp et al, 2017;Grasso et al, 2019;Culliford and Bradbury, 2020;Broeckhoven et al, 2021;Eustachio Colombo et al, 2021;Grasso et al, 2021) Three studies focused on the general uptake of plant-based protein (Vainio et al, 2016;Van Loo et al, 2017;de Koning et al, 2020), while some specifically focused on plant-based milk (Schiano et al, 2022), sustainable plant production methods (Ali et al, 2021), or the reduction of meat intake (Ramsing et al, 2021). In addition, one study focused on sustainable seafood consumption (Jodice and Norman, 2020), some studies explored entomophagy (Myers and Pettigrew, 2018;Hopkins et al, 2022), including the perspective of seniors (individuals over the age of 65) (Myers and Pettigrew, 2018), and a study explored algae consumption (Mellor et al, 2022).…”