Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35076882›Full record

ArticleAmbio2022

Environmental and public health co-benefits of consumer switches to immunity-supporting food.

Ayesha I T Tulloch, Rachel R Y Oh, Danielle Gallegos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ambio, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

3 authors.

Ayesha I T TullochSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia. Ayesha.tulloch@qut.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5866-1923
Rachel R Y OhSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia.
Danielle GallegosFaculty of Health, Woolworths Centre for Childhood Nutrition Research, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, 4101, Australia.

Funding

Australian Research Council DE170100599
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During COVID-19, there has been a surge in public interest for information on immunity-boosting foods. There is little scientific support for immunity-supporting properties of specific foods, but strong evidence for food choice impacts on other health outcomes (e.g. risk of non-communicable disease) and environmental sustainability. Here, we relate online recommendations for "immunity-boosting" foods across five continents to their environmental and human health impacts. More frequently recommended food items and groups are plant based and have lower land use and greenhouse gas emission impacts plus more positive health outcomes (reducing relative risks of mortality or chronic diet-related diseases) per serving of food. We identify trade-offs between environmental outcomes of increasing consumption of recommended food items, with aquatic environment impacts increasing with food recommendation frequency. People's reliance on the Internet for health information creates an opportunity to consolidate behaviour change towards consuming foods with multiple co-benefits. Our study identifies win-win options for nudging online information-seeking behaviour towards more sustainable choices for terrestrial biodiversity conservation and human health.

Indexed as

COVID-19Public HealthDietFoodFood SupplyHumansBehaviour change interventionsBiodiversity conservationCOVID-19Health psychologySustainable food production and consumption

Identifiers

PMID35076882
PMCPMC8787970

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.