Mirjam E van de Kamp1, Corné van Dooren2, Anne Hollander3, Marjolein Geurts4, Elizabeth J Brink5, Caroline van Rossum6, Sander Biesbroek7, Elias de Valk8, Ido B Toxopeus9, Elisabeth H M Temme10. 1. Centre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3721 MA Bilthoven, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: mirjam.van.de.kamp@rivm.nl. 2. Netherlands Nutrition Centre (Voedingscentrum), Eisenhowerlaan 108, 2517 KL The Hague, P.O. Box 85700, 2508 CK The Hague, The Netherlands. Electronic address: dooren@voedingscentrum.nl. 3. Centre for Sustainability, Environment and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3721 MA Bilthoven, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: anne.hollander@rivm.nl. 4. Centre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3721 MA Bilthoven, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: marjolein.geurts@rivm.nl. 5. Netherlands Nutrition Centre (Voedingscentrum), Eisenhowerlaan 108, 2517 KL The Hague, P.O. Box 85700, 2508 CK The Hague, The Netherlands. Electronic address: brink@voedingscentrum.nl. 6. Centre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3721 MA Bilthoven, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: caroline.van.rossum@rivm.nl. 7. Centre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3721 MA Bilthoven, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: sander.biesbroek@rivm.nl. 8. Centre for Sustainability, Environment and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3721 MA Bilthoven, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: elias.de.valk@rivm.nl. 9. Centre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3721 MA Bilthoven, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: ido.toxopeus@rivm.nl. 10. Centre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3721 MA Bilthoven, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Liesbeth.Temme@rivm.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the differences in environmental impact and nutrient content of the current Dutch diet and four healthy diets aimed at lowering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. METHODS: GHG emissions (as proxy for environmental impact) and nutrient content of the current Dutch diet and four diets adhering to the Dutch food based dietary guidelines (Wheel of Five), were compared in a scenario study. Scenarios included a healthy diet with or without meat, and the same diets in which only foods with relatively low GHG emissions are chosen. For the current diet, data from the Dutch National Food Consumption Survey 2007-2010 were used. GHG emissions (in kg CO2-equivalents) were based on life cycle assessments. Results are reported for men and women aged 19-30years and 31-50years. RESULTS: The effect on GHG emissions of changing the current Dutch diet to a diet according to the Wheel of Five (corresponding with the current diet as close as possible), ranged from -13% for men aged 31-50years to +5% for women aged 19-30years. Replacing meat in this diet and/or consuming only foods with relatively low GHG emissions resulted in average GHG emission reductions varying from 28-46%. In the scenarios in which only foods with relatively low GHG emissions are consumed, fewer dietary reference intakes (DRIs) were met than in the other healthy diet scenarios. However, in all healthy diet scenarios the number of DRIs being met was equal to or higher than that in the current diet. CONCLUSIONS: Diets adhering to food based dietary guidelines did not substantially reduce GHG emissions compared to the current Dutch diet, when these diets stayed as close to the current diet as possible. Omitting meat from these healthy diets or consuming only foods with relatively low associated GHG emissions both resulted in GHG emission reductions of around a third. These findings may be used to expand food based dietary guidelines with information on how to reduce the environmental impact of healthy diets.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the differences in environmental impact and nutrient content of the current Dutch diet and four healthy diets aimed at lowering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. METHODS: GHG emissions (as proxy for environmental impact) and nutrient content of the current Dutch diet and four diets adhering to the Dutch food based dietary guidelines (Wheel of Five), were compared in a scenario study. Scenarios included a healthy diet with or without meat, and the same diets in which only foods with relatively low GHG emissions are chosen. For the current diet, data from the Dutch National Food Consumption Survey 2007-2010 were used. GHG emissions (in kg CO2-equivalents) were based on life cycle assessments. Results are reported for men and women aged 19-30years and 31-50years. RESULTS: The effect on GHG emissions of changing the current Dutch diet to a diet according to the Wheel of Five (corresponding with the current diet as close as possible), ranged from -13% for men aged 31-50years to +5% for women aged 19-30years. Replacing meat in this diet and/or consuming only foods with relatively low GHG emissions resulted in average GHG emission reductions varying from 28-46%. In the scenarios in which only foods with relatively low GHG emissions are consumed, fewer dietary reference intakes (DRIs) were met than in the other healthy diet scenarios. However, in all healthy diet scenarios the number of DRIs being met was equal to or higher than that in the current diet. CONCLUSIONS: Diets adhering to food based dietary guidelines did not substantially reduce GHG emissions compared to the current Dutch diet, when these diets stayed as close to the current diet as possible. Omitting meat from these healthy diets or consuming only foods with relatively low associated GHG emissions both resulted in GHG emission reductions of around a third. These findings may be used to expand food based dietary guidelines with information on how to reduce the environmental impact of healthy diets.
Authors: Marlin J Broeks; Sander Biesbroek; Eelco A B Over; Paul F van Gils; Ido Toxopeus; Marja H Beukers; Elisabeth H M Temme Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Sander Biesbroek; Wm Monique Verschuren; Jolanda Ma Boer; Yvonne T van der Schouw; Ivonne Sluijs; Elisabeth Hm Temme Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2019-07-31 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Maite M Aldaya; Francisco C Ibañez; Paula Domínguez-Lacueva; María Teresa Murillo-Arbizu; Mar Rubio-Varas; Beatriz Soret; María José Beriain Journal: Foods Date: 2021-05-02