ArticlePublic health nutrition2024
Reducing the carbon footprint of diets across socio-demographic groups in Finland: a mathematical optimisation study.
Article in Public health nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of acceptability in dietary optimisation models: a systematic review.Public health nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Carbon tunnel vision and sustainable meat production in the West: A disproportionate focus on dietary greenhouse gas emissions?Food science of animal resources · 2026Review
- Designing Culturally Acceptable, Nutritious, and Low Environmental Impact Finnish Diets with Mycoprotein: A Novel Optimization Approach.Current developments in nutrition · 2025Article
- Nutritionally adequate, healthy, and climate-friendly diets following the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023: an optimization study for Norway.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo characterise nutritionally adequate, climate-friendly diets that are culturally acceptable across socio-demographic groups. To identify potential equity issues linked to more climate-friendly and nutritionally adequate dietary changes.
designAn optimisation model minimises distance from observed diets subject to nutritional, greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) and food-habit constraints. It is calibrated to socio-demographic groups differentiated by sex, education and income levels using dietary intake data. The environmental coefficients are derived from life cycle analysis and an environmentally extended input-output model.
settingFinland.
participantsAdult population.
resultsAcross all population groups, we find large synergies between improvements in nutritional adequacy and reductions in GHGE, set at one-third or half of the current level. Those reductions result mainly from the substitution of meat with cereals, potatoes and roots and the intra-category substitution of foods, such as beef with poultry in the meat category. The simulated more climate-friendly diets are thus flexitarian. Moving towards reduced-impact diets would not create major inadequacies related to protein and fatty acid intakes, but Fe could be an issue for pre-menopausal females. The initial socio-economic gradient in the GHGE of diets is small, and the patterns of adjustments to more climate-friendly diets are similar across socio-demographic groups.
conclusionsA one-third reduction in GHGE of diets is achievable through moderate behavioural adjustments, but achieving larger reductions may be difficult. The required changes are similar across socio-demographic groups and do not raise equity issues. A population-wide policy to promote behavioural change for diet sustainability would be appropriate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.