Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31659030›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2019

Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods.

Michael A Clark, Marco Springmann, Jason Hill, David Tilman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 281 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
281citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

281 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Sustainable dietary recommendations for the Spanish population.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Effects of red meat taxes and warning labels on food groups selected in a randomized controlled trial.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

221 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michael A ClarkOxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, University of Oxford, OX3 7LF Oxford, United Kingdom; michael.clark@ndph.ox.ac.uk tilman@umn.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7161-7751
Marco SpringmannOxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, University of Oxford, OX3 7LF Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jason HillDepartment of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108.ORCID 0000-0001-7609-6713
David TilmanDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108; michael.clark@ndph.ox.ac.uk tilman@umn.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6395-7676

Funding

Wellcome Trust 205212/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Food choices are shifting globally in ways that are negatively affecting both human health and the environment. Here we consider how consuming an additional serving per day of each of 15 foods is associated with 5 health outcomes in adults and 5 aspects of agriculturally driven environmental degradation. We find that while there is substantial variation in the health outcomes of different foods, foods associated with a larger reduction in disease risk for one health outcome are often associated with larger reductions in disease risk for other health outcomes. Likewise, foods with lower impacts on one metric of environmental harm tend to have lower impacts on others. Additionally, of the foods associated with improved health (whole grain cereals, fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, olive oil, and fish), all except fish have among the lowest environmental impacts, and fish has markedly lower impacts than red meats and processed meats. Foods associated with the largest negative environmental impacts-unprocessed and processed red meat-are consistently associated with the largest increases in disease risk. Thus, dietary transitions toward greater consumption of healthier foods would generally improve environmental sustainability, although processed foods high in sugars harm health but can have relatively low environmental impacts. These findings could help consumers, policy makers, and food companies to better understand the multiple health and environmental implications of food choices.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesDietFoodChronic DiseaseHumansMortalityclimate changedietenvironmentfoodhealth

Identifiers

PMID31659030
PMCPMC6859310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.