ReviewCurrent nutrition reports2021
A Rapid Review of the Environmental Impacts Associated with Food Consumption in Australia and New Zealand.
Review in Current nutrition reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patterns and Pitfalls of Short-cuts Used in Environmental Management Rapid Reviews.Environmental management · 2024Article
- Dietitians Australia position statement on healthy and sustainable diets.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADG) have been criticised for making only brief reference to sustainability considerations. With the ADG currently under review, the purpose of this rapid review was to determine the environmental impacts associated with food consumption in Australia and New Zealand. RECENT
findingsOf the 20 articles included, greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) were the most common environmental indicator (n = 12), followed by water use and water footprint (n = 7), and carbon footprint (n = 3). Whilst there are commonalities between different environmental indicators such as the large impact of discretionary food consumption on GHGe, cropland scarcity footprint, and water scarcity footprint, there is wide variation in these indicators for other food groups. Furthermore, modelling of current food consumption data to the recommended diet does not necessarily result in improvement of all indicators. The next iteration of the ADG should promote consumption of foods and dietary patterns that are associated with positive health and environmental outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34625922What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.