Reducing GHG emissions while improving diet quality: exploring the potential of reduced meat, cheese and alcoholic and soft drinks consumption at specific moments during the day

Abstract

BackgroundThe typical Western diet is associated with high levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and with obesity and other diet-related diseases. This study aims to determine the impact of adjustments to the current diet at specific moments of food consumption, to lower GHG emissions and improve diet quality.MethodsFood consumption in the Netherlands was assessed by two non-consecutive 24-h recalls for adults aged 19–69 years (n = 2102). GHG emission of food consumption was evaluated with the use of life cycle assessments. The population was stratified by gender and according to tertiles of dietary GHG emission. Scenarios were developed to lower GHG emissions of people in the highest tertile of dietary GHG emission; 1) reducing red and processed meat consumed during dinner by 50% and 75%, 2) replacing 50% and 100% of alcoholic and soft drinks (including fruit and vegetable juice and mineral water) by tap water, 3) replacing cheese consumed in between meals by plant-based alternatives and 4) two combinations of these scenarios. Effects on GHG emission as well as nutrient content of the diet were assessed.ResultsThe mean habitual daily dietary GHG emission in the highest tertile of dietary GHG emission was 6.7 kg CO2-equivalents for men and 5.1 kg CO2-equivalents for women. The scenarios with reduced meat consumption and/or replacement of all alcoholic and soft drinks were most successful in reducing dietary GHG emissions (ranging from − 15% to − 34%) and also reduced saturated fatty acid intake and/or sugar intake. Both types of scenarios lead to reduced energy and iron intakes. Protein intake remained adequate.ConclusionsReducing the consumption of red and processed meat during dinner and of soft and alcoholic drinks throughout the day leads to significantly lower dietary GHG emissions of people in the Netherlands in the highest tertile of dietary GHG emissions, while also having health benefits. For subgroups of the population not meeting energy or iron requirements as a result of these dietary changes, low GHG emission and nutritious replacement foods might be needed in order to meet energy and iron requirements.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Blue Water Use of Dutch Diets and Its Association with Health

“…Targeting those foods could lower environmental impact and benefit human health. This is in line with results from a modelling study in the Netherlands showing that reducing the consumption of soft and alcoholic drinks throughout the day leads to significantly lower dietary GHG emissions of people in the Netherlands, while also having health benefits [46]. In addition to this, our results suggest that reducing the consumption of non-alcoholic beverages, such as coffee and tea and fruit-and vegetable juice, during the day could decrease blue water use.…”

Addressing the carbon footprint, healthfulness, and costs of self-selected diets in the USA: a population-based cross-sectional study

“…Potential changers (n=1026) were individuals who reported trying dietary guidance and were estimated to be likely to agree that humans contribute to climate change. These individuals were 16% of the sample (95% CI [15][16][17]. All replacements were made in equal calorie amounts, as estimated from the National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference.…”

“…15 Additionally, a different Dutch study found decreases in GHGE and some improvements in diet quality when reducing consumption of red and processed meat. 16 However, none of these individual studies considered environ mental impacts, diet quality, and diet cost in a substitution analysis. No individuallevel substitution studies have been done in the USA, the country with the second-highest level of GHGE.…”

Risk Benefit Assessment of foods: Key findings from an international workshop

“…The goal may also be to identify the most advantageous intake scenario (Berjia et al, 2014), or to provide a quantitative estimate of the overall health impact. RBA can include only health effects or be "expanded" to include non-health factors such as economy, sustainability and consumer preference (Ocké MC, Toxopeus IB, Geurts M, Mengelers MJB, Temme EHM, 2017; Juliana M. Ruzante, Grieger, Woodward, Lambertini, & Kowalcyk, 2017;Seves et al, 2016;Temme et al, 2013; van de Kamp, Seves, & Temme, 2018).…”