| Literature DB >> 28923107 |
B Allès1,2, S Péneau3, E Kesse-Guyot3, J Baudry3, S Hercberg3,4, C Méjean3,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sustainability has become a greater concern among consumers that may influence their dietary intake. Only a few studies investigated the relationship between sustainable food choice motives and diet and they focused on specific food groups.Entities:
Keywords: Diet; Dietary patterns; Food choice motives; Sustainability
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28923107 PMCID: PMC5604508 DOI: 10.1186/s12937-017-0279-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr J ISSN: 1475-2891 Impact factor: 3.271
Characteristics of the included and excluded subjects (n = 45,155, Nutrinet-Santé study, 2013)
| Men ( | Women ( | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excluded ( | Included ( | pa | Excluded ( | Included ( | pa | |||||||
| Age (mean SD) | 54.4 | 13.3 | 51.4 | 13.9 | <0.001 | 47.1 | 14.1 | 44.8 | 14.1 | <0.001 | ||
| Educational level (n %) | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||||||
| Primary | 110 | 3.8 | 183 | 2.8 | 361 | 3.5 | 529 | 2.1 | ||||
| Secondary | 1070 | 37.2 | 2065 | 31.2 | 3756 | 36.0 | 7266 | 28.8 | ||||
| Higher education | 1685 | 58.6 | 4361 | 65.8 | 6263 | 60.0 | 17,302 | 68.6 | ||||
| Missing data | 9 | 0.3 | 16 | 0.2 | 59 | 0.6 | 120 | 0.5 | ||||
| Marital status ( | 0.78 | 0.001 | ||||||||||
| Single, divorced, separated or widowed | 578 | 20.1 | 1311 | 19.8 | 3002 | 28.8 | 6717 | 26.6 | ||||
| Living with a partner | 2289 | 79.6 | 5300 | 80.0 | 7420 | 71.1 | 18,456 | 73.2 | ||||
| Missing data | 7 | 0.2 | 14 | 0.2 | 17 | 0.2 | 44 | 0.2 | ||||
| Size of the residential city (n %) | 0.63 | 0.015 | ||||||||||
| Rural | 584 | 20.3 | 1395 | 21.1 | 2299 | 22.0 | 5519 | 21.9 | ||||
| Paris area | 542 | 18.9 | 1227 | 18.5 | 1952 | 18.7 | 4396 | 17.4 | ||||
| Urban, 20,000–200,000 inhabitants | 518 | 18.0 | 1253 | 18.9 | 1902 | 18.2 | 4660 | 18.5 | ||||
| Urban, < 20,000 inhabitants | 461 | 16.0 | 988 | 14.9 | 1551 | 14.9 | 3737 | 14.8 | ||||
| Urban, > 200,000 inhabitants | 762 | 26.5 | 1748 | 26.4 | 2694 | 25.8 | 6833 | 27.1 | ||||
| Missing data | 7 | 0.2 | 14 | 0.2 | 41 | 0.4 | 72 | 0.3 | ||||
a: p-value for t-test for age and for chi2 for every other categorical variables
SD Standard-deviation
Mean food choice dimension scores in the sample, sorted from high to low (n = 31,842, Nutrinet-Santé study, 2013)
| Women | Men | p1 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
| Taste | 9.0 | 0.9 | 8.8 | 0.9 | <0.001 |
| Health | 7.6 | 1.2 | 7.4 | 1.1 | <0.001 |
| Absence of contaminants | 7.5 | 1.5 | 7.4 | 1.3 | <0.001 |
| Local and traditional production | 7.4 | 1,0 | 7.2 | 0.8 | <0.001 |
| Price | 7.4 | 1.1 | 7.1 | 1.1 | <0.001 |
| Ethics and environment | 5.7 | 1,0 | 5.5 | 0.8 | <0.001 |
| Convenience | 5.5 | 1.6 | 5.2 | 1.5 | <0.001 |
| Innovation | 3.5 | 1.4 | 3.6 | 1.3 | <0.001 |
| Environmental limitations | 2.8 | 2.2 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 0.22 |
1:p-value for t-test
s-d: standard-deviation
Dietary patterns obtained by factor analysis using principal component analysis of daily food intakes in the Nutrinet-Santé sample (n = 31,842, Nutrinet-Santé study, 2013)
| Healthy dietary pattern | Traditional dietary pattern | Western dietary pattern | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fruit | 0.44 | 0.07 | −0.21 |
| Vegetables | 0.58 | 0.20 | −0.28 |
| Legumes | 0.27 | −0.09 | 0.05 |
| Potatoes and other tubers | 0.04 | 0.42 | 0.00 |
| Refined starchy food | −0.08 | −0.06 | 0.18 |
| Whole starchy food | 0.60 | −0.27 | −0.01 |
| Cereals, non fatty | −0.22 | 0.71 | 0.01 |
| Fish and seafood | 0.31 | −0.07 | 0.02 |
| Meat | −0.20 | 0.29 | 0.02 |
| Eggs | 0.14 | 0.05 | −0.06 |
| Processed meat | −0.11 | 0.24 | 0.40 |
| Cheese | 0.09 | 0.36 | 0.34 |
| Dairy products, low in sugar | −0.13 | 0.05 | −0.49 |
| Cream based deserts | −0.20 | −0.04 | 0.03 |
| Butter and other added animal fats | 0.08 | 0.43 | −0.05 |
| Vegetable oils | 0.38 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
| Margarine | 0.04 | 0.24 | −0.20 |
| Salad dressings and other dressings | −0.02 | 0.10 | 0.28 |
| Salty snacks | 0.00 | −0.04 | 0.48 |
| Cereals, sweet and fatty | −0.01 | −0.28 | −0.07 |
| Sweet and fatty foods (pastries, biscuits, cookies, chocolate) | −0.23 | −0.07 | 0.37 |
| Sweet products (honey, jam, candy) | 0.13 | 0.38 | 0.02 |
| Sugary drinks | −0.29 | −0.10 | 0.30 |
| Non-alcoholic beverages | 0.44 | 0.01 | 0.04 |
| Alcoholic beverages | 0.12 | 0.22 | 0.53 |
| variance explained (%) | 8.8 | 8.2 | 7.9 |
Associations between dietary patterns and food choice motives dimension scores (n = 31,842, Nutrinet-Santé study, 2013)
| Healthya | Traditionala | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women | Men | Women | Men | |||||
| β | 95% CI | β | 95% CI | β | 95% CI | β | 95% CI | |
| ethics and environment | ||||||||
| 2nd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile |
|
| −0.002 | [−0.061; 0.058] | 0.009 | [−0.015: 0.034] | −0.007 | [−0.065;0.050] |
| 3rd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile |
|
| −0.007 | [−0.077; 0.064] | 0.025 | [−0.002: 0.052] | −0.037 | [−0.106;0.030] |
| traditional and local production | ||||||||
| 2nd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile |
|
| 0.013 | [−0.046; 0.073] | 0.008 | [−0.016; 0.033] | 0.007 | [−0.050; 0.066] |
| 3rd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile |
|
| −0.019 | [−0.089; 0.052] | −0.008 | [−0.035; 0.018] | −0.009 | [−0.078; 0.059] |
| taste | ||||||||
| 2nd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile | 0.016 | [−0.010; 0.043] | 0.041 | [−0.018; 0.100] | −0.001 | [−0.024; 0.020] | 0.038 | [−0.018; 0.096] |
| 3rd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile | 0.022 | [−0.006; 0.050] | 0.011 | [−0.060; 0.083] | −0.011 | [−0.035; 0.012] | −0.002 | [−0.072; 0.067] |
| price | ||||||||
| 2nd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile | −0.015 | [−0.043; 0.013] | −0.025 | [−0.086; 0.036] | −0.001 | [−0.025; 0.020] | 0.010 | [−0.048; 0.069] |
| 3rd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile |
|
|
|
| 0.004 | [−0.019; 0.027] | −0.014 | [−0.079; 0.051] |
| health | ||||||||
| 2nd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile |
|
| 0.003 | [−0.059; 0.065] |
|
| 0.011 | [−0.049; 0.072] |
| 3rd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile |
|
|
|
| 0.003 | [−0.022; 0.029] | −0.059 | [−0.125; 0.006] |
| absence of contaminants | ||||||||
| 2nd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile |
|
| 0.017 | [−0.044; 0.079] | −0.001 | [−0.026; 0.023] | 0.084 | [0.024; 0.144] |
| 3rd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile |
|
| 0.028 | [−0.040; 0.095] | −0.019 | [−0.045; 0.007] | −0.013 | [−0.079; 0.052] |
| environmental limitations (above median vs. under median) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| innovation (above median vs. under median) | −0.010 | [−0.033;0.013] |
|
| −0.011 | [−0.031; 0.008] |
|
|
a: parameters estimated with multivariable linear regression models, 8 food choice dimension scores adjusted for age, education and total energy intake; in bold: statiscally significant
β: linear regression coefficient estimate; 95% CI = Confidence interval
Associations between dietary patterns and food choice motives dimension scores (n = 31,842, Nutrinet-Santé study, 2013)
| Westernb | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Women | Men | |||
| β | 95% CI | β | 95% CI | |
| ethics and environment | ||||
| 2nd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile | 0.014 | [−0.013;0.041] | 0.052 | [−0.009; 0.114] |
| 3rd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile | −0.014 | [−0.043; 0.017] | 0.001 | [−0.071; 0.073] |
| traditional and local production | ||||
| 2nd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile | −0.009 | [−0.036; 0.017] | 0.040 | [−0.021; 0.103] |
| 3rd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile | 0.012 | [−0.017; 0.042] | 0.064 | [−0.009; 0.014] |
| taste | ||||
| 2nd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile | 0.007 | [−0.017; 0.033] | 0.002 | [−0.059; 0.063] |
| 3rd tertile of score vs. 1st tertile |
|
| 0.046 | [−0.028; 0.119] |
| health | ||||
| 2nd tertile of score |
|
|
|
|
| 3rd tertile of score |
|
| −0.145 | [−0.214; 0.075] |
| absence of contaminants | ||||
| 2nd tertile of score | 0.005 | [−0.021; 0.033] | 0.019 | [−0.045; 0.083] |
| 3rd tertile of score | −0.006 | [−0.034; 0.023] | −0.001 | [−0.070; 0.069] |
| environmental limitations (above median vs under median) | 0.011 | [−0.010; 0.032] |
|
|
| innovation (above median vs under median) | −0.001 | [−0.021; 0.033] | 0.045 | [−0.010; 0.099] |
b: parameters estimated with multivariables linear regression models, 7 food choice dimensions scores + age, education and total energy intake; in bold: statiscally significant
β: linear regression coefficient estimate; 95% CI = Confidence interval; 95% CI = Confidence interval