| Literature DB >> 33086554 |
Sigal Tepper1, Vered Kaufman-Shriqui2, Danit Rivka Shahar3.
Abstract
Identifying the concerns about and attitudes toward adopting a healthy, sustainable diet may facilitate the development of effective implementation policies targeted at changing an individual's dietary choices toward reducing the environmental burden of food systems. This cross-sectional online study was conducted in Israel among 348 adults aged 20-45 who responded to an advertisement posted on several social media platforms. Respondents received a link for the survey after signing informed consent forms. The questionnaire included three sections: concerns regarding food-related sustainability issues, willingness to act ("self"), and expectation that leaders would act upon these issues ("leaders"). Responses were recorded on a 1-4 Likert scale. Health-related issues-healthy food and drink, food prices, food safety, and the quality of health services-were scored the highest, both in the "self" and "leaders" sections. In all items, the expectation that leaders would act was higher than the willingness to act (composite mean ± SD: 3.04 ± 3.11 vs. 2.51 ± 2.47, respectively, p < 0.001). There were significant differences among dietary patterns in all three components. Mapping young adults' concerns about and attitudes toward food-related sustainability issues allows for the identification of leverages that can be further used as focus issues in messages and interventions such as communication, food labeling, and economic incentives.Entities:
Keywords: food policy; health policy; nutrition; obesity; sustainability
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33086554 PMCID: PMC7603225 DOI: 10.3390/nu12103190
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Characteristics of the study population by gender.
| Women | Men | General | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 32.54 ± 10.25 | 30.65 ± 8.73 | 0.068 | ||
| Married | 80 (44.7%) | 73 (43.2%) | 0.799 | 45% | |
| Secular | 128 (71.5%) | 119 (70.4%) | 0.822 | 70% | |
| Urbanization degree | City | 98 (54.8%) | 100 (59.2%) | 0.71 | 60% |
| Peripheral city | 30 (16.8%) | 27 (16%) | 20% | ||
| Village/community dwelling | 51 (28.5%) | 42 (24.8%) | |||
| Persons per room | 0.91 ± 0.34 | 0.9 ± 0.29 | 0.673 | 0.8 | |
| Employment status (working) | 113 (63.1%) | 91 (53.8%) | 0.079 | 67% | |
|
| |||||
| Weight status * | Underweight | 8 (4.8%) | 3 (1.8%) | ||
| Normal weight | 117 (65.7%) | 133 (79.1%) | 0.041 | ||
| Overweight | 42 (23.6%) | 29 (17.3%) | 30.5% | ||
| Obese | 11 (6.2%) | 3 (1.8%) | 17% | ||
| Smoking (yes) | 18 (10.1%) | 18 (10.7%) | 0.855 | 20% | |
| Physical activity (hours per week) | 3.1 ± 2.04 | 3.04 ± 2.37 | 0.835 | ||
|
| |||||
| Eating patterns | Vegetarian/vegan | 40 (22.3%) | 15 (9%) | <0.001 | 13% |
| Flexitarian | 35 (19.6%) | 16 (9.5%) | 23% | ||
| Omnivores | 93 (52%) | 120 (71%) | |||
| Highly animal-based diet | 11 (6.1%) | 18 (10.7%) | |||
| Animal protein (%) ∆ | 54.27 ± 23.18 | 62.83 ± 21.39 | 0.001 | ||
* Self-reported. Total of 346 (2 refused to answer). ∆ Animal protein vs. plant protein consumption was calculated from Food Frequency Questionnaire. ª t-test or chi-square p-value. 1 Age matched data [26,30].
Food-related sustainability concerns ª by gender.
| Women | Men | Total | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item# | Mean | Std | Mean | Std | Mean | Std | ||
| 1 | The amount of food waste | 2.76 | 0.86 | 2.59 | 0.1 | 2.68 | 0.93 | 0.095 |
| 2 | Use of non-recyclable packages for packaging food products | 2.71 | 0.89 | 2.57 | 0.93 | 2.64 | 0.91 | 0.170 |
| 3 | Environmental damage caused by human use of lands and water for food production | 2.70 | 0.1 | 2.56 | 1.0 | 2.63 | 0.96 | 0.155 |
| 4 | The use of pesticides and fertilizers in food production | 2.76 | 0.96 | 2.45 | 0.92 | 2.61 | 0.95 |
|
| 5 | Using too much of the world’s natural resources for food production | 2.65 | 0.89 | 2.50 | 0.94 | 2.58 | 0.92 | 0.130 |
| 6 | Emissions caused by food production | 2.59 | 0.96 | 2.33 | 0.95 | 2.46 | 0.96 |
|
| 7 | The number of packages used in food products | 2.47 | 0.94 | 2.36 | 0.91 | 2.42 | 0.93 | 0.264 |
| 8 | The amount of energy used for transporting food products | 2.23 | 0.89 | 2.02 | 0.90 | 2.13 | 0.89 |
|
| 9 | The amount of energy used when storing food products | 2.13 | 0.87 | 2.01 | 0.84 | 2.07 | 0.86 | 0.177 |
| 10 | The amount of energy used when cooking food products | 2.14 | 0.86 | 1.96 | 0.87 | 2.05 | 0.87 | 0.067 |
Score per item ranged from 1 to 4; overall, the total score for concerns ranged from X to Y. * p for differences between women and men. ª Total mean sorted in descending order. Bolded p-values indicate significant findings at p < 0.05.
Figure 1Food-related sustainability concerns by eating patterns. * Omnivores significantly differ from vegans and flexitarians, ** Omnivores significantly differ from vegans, ^ Omnivores significantly differ from flexitarians. All p-values < 0.05, corrected for Bonferroni multiple comparisons. Full results are in the Supplementary Table S1.
Figure 2Perceptions of the importance of taking action on different aspects of food-related sustainability. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test: all p < 0.0001 (for the difference between self and leaders).
Figure 3Willingness to act (perceptions of “it’s important that I act”) by eating pattern. Only significant items are shown. Items not included are employment of minors in the food industry, food prices, the quality of public health services, food safety, and energy for storing, cooking, and transporting. * Omnivores significantly differ from vegans and flexitarians. ** Omnivores significantly differ from flexitarians. ª Omnivores significantly differ from participants with all other patterns. All p-values < 0.05, Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons.
Characterization of participants by eating patterns.
| Vegetarian/Vegan | Flexitarian | Omnivore | Animal-Based Food | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 31.78 ± 8.99 | 34.6 ± 9.96 | 30.23 ± 9.23 | 34.97 ± 9.76 | 31.53 ± 9.49 | 0.004 |
| Gender (women) | 40 (73%) | 35 (69%) | 90 (42%) | 11 (38%) | 176 (51%) | <0.0001 |
| Secular | 52 (95%) | 40 (78%) | 126 (59%) | 26 (90%) | 244 (70%) | <0.0001 |
| Persons per room | 0.8 ± 0.28 | 0.91 ± 0.28 | 0.93 ± 0.32 | 0.96 ± 0.38 | 0.91 ± 0.32 | 0.037 |
| Employment status (working) | 34 (64%) | 32 (63%) | 109 (51%) | 26 (90%) | 201 (58%) | 0.005 |
| Education (academic) | 12 (22%) | 9 (18%) | 52 (24%) | 6 (21%) | 79 (23%) | 0.850 |
| Weight status (normal) | 45 (82%) | 40 (78%) | 146 (69%) | 17 (59%) | 248 (71%) | 0.152 |
| Smoking (yes) | 5 (9%) | 9 (18%) | 19 (9%) | 3 (10%) | 36 (10%) | 0.429 |
| Physical activity (hours per week) | 3.53 ± 2.67 | 2.46 ± 1.33 | 2.95 ± 2.2 | 4.06 ± 2.39 | 3.07 ± 2.22 | 0.024 |
| Animal protein ∆ (%) | 18.06 ± 19.16 | 50.88 ± 13.69 | 67.6 ± 10.58 | 79.59 ± 7.35 | 58.33 ± 22.78 | <0.0001 |
Data presented as mean ± SD or number (percent). ∆ Animal protein vs. plant protein consumption calculated from FFQ. The source of animal protein for vegetarians is dairy products. ª ANOVA or chi-square p-value. SD: Standard Deviation.