OBJECTIVES: This review evaluates existing co-benefit models for emission and health outcomes of counterfactual scenarios of reduced meat consumption at a population level. METHODS: A novel assessment process was developed, combining selected measures from the Cochrane Review quality assessment tools, from the PRISMA checklist, and model quality measures identified by the authors during the preliminary phases of the review process. RESULTS: Four emission models and three health outcome models have been identified which show great variation in model characteristics and qualities. The estimated counterfactual scenario emission effects presented in the included studies ranged from a reduction of <3-30 % and reduction in the burden of disease ranged from 1 to 16 %. Meta-analysis could not be conducted due to high heterogeneity of model characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: All co-benefit studies estimated that reducing population meat consumption could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of disease. However, important attention must be paid to nutrition balance and a systematic approach in input and output attribute parameters is recommended for better model quality.
OBJECTIVES: This review evaluates existing co-benefit models for emission and health outcomes of counterfactual scenarios of reduced meat consumption at a population level. METHODS: A novel assessment process was developed, combining selected measures from the Cochrane Review quality assessment tools, from the PRISMA checklist, and model quality measures identified by the authors during the preliminary phases of the review process. RESULTS: Four emission models and three health outcome models have been identified which show great variation in model characteristics and qualities. The estimated counterfactual scenario emission effects presented in the included studies ranged from a reduction of <3-30 % and reduction in the burden of disease ranged from 1 to 16 %. Meta-analysis could not be conducted due to high heterogeneity of model characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: All co-benefit studies estimated that reducing population meat consumption could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of disease. However, important attention must be paid to nutrition balance and a systematic approach in input and output attribute parameters is recommended for better model quality.
Authors: Sharon Friel; Alan D Dangour; Tara Garnett; Karen Lock; Zaid Chalabi; Ian Roberts; Ainslie Butler; Colin D Butler; Jeff Waage; Anthony J McMichael; Andy Haines Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-12-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: An Pan; Qi Sun; Adam M Bernstein; Matthias B Schulze; JoAnn E Manson; Meir J Stampfer; Walter C Willett; Frank B Hu Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-03-12
Authors: Ffion Lloyd-Williams; Martin O'Flaherty; Modi Mwatsama; Christopher Birt; Robin Ireland; Simon Capewell Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Mirko S Winkler; Martin Röösli; Martina S Ragettli; Guéladio Cissé; Pie Müller; Jürg Utzinger; Laura Perez Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Camilla Sjörs; Sara E Raposo; Arvid Sjölander; Olle Bälter; Fredrik Hedenus; Katarina Bälter Journal: Environ Health Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 5.984
Authors: Vivian G M Quam; Joacim Rocklöv; Mikkel B M Quam; Rebekah A I Lucas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Mary Fox; Christopher Zuidema; Bridget Bauman; Thomas Burke; Mary Sheehan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-09-04 Impact factor: 3.390