Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31756252›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2020

The Water Footprint of Diets: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Francesca Harris, Cami Moss, Edward J M Joy, Ruth Quinn, Pauline F D Scheelbeek, Alan D Dangour, Rosemary Green

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 160 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Francesca HarrisDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Cami MossDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Edward J M JoyDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Ruth QuinnThe School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Pauline F D ScheelbeekDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Alan D DangourDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Rosemary GreenDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Leverhulme Trust · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 205200/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Agricultural water requirements differ between foods. Population-level dietary preferences are therefore a major determinant of agricultural water use. The "water footprint" (WF) represents the volume of water consumed in the production of food items, separated by water source; blue WF represents ground and surface water use, and green WF represents rain water use. We systematically searched for published studies using the WF to assess the water use of diets. We used the available evidence to quantify the WF of diets in different countries, and grouped diets in patterns according to study definition. "Average" patterns equated to those currently consumed, whereas "healthy" patterns included those recommended in national dietary guidelines. We searched 7 online databases and identified 41 eligible studies that reported the dietary green WF, blue WF, or total WF (green plus blue) (1964 estimates for 176 countries). The available evidence suggests that, on average, European (170 estimates) and Oceanian (18 estimates) dietary patterns have the highest green WFs (median per capita: 2999 L/d and 2924 L/d, respectively), whereas Asian dietary patterns (98 estimates) have the highest blue WFs (median: 382 L/d per capita). Foods of animal origin are major contributors to the green WFs of diets, whereas cereals, fruits, nuts, and oils are major contributors to the blue WF of diets. "Healthy" dietary patterns (425 estimates) had green WFs that were 5.9% (95% CI: -7.7, -4.0) lower than those of "average" dietary patterns, but they did not differ in their blue WFs. Our review suggests that changes toward healthier diets could reduce total water use of agriculture, but would not affect blue water use. Rapid dietary change and increasing water security concerns underscore the need for a better understanding of the amount and type of water used in food production to make informed policy decisions.

Indexed as

DietFood PreferencesAgricultureAnimalsConservation of Natural ResourcesDiet, HealthyHumansNutrition PolicyRainWaterWater SupplyWaterfood consumptionplanetary healthsustainable dietswater use; environmental footprint

Identifiers

PMID31756252
PMCPMC7442390
OpenAlexW2991461001

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.