ArticleThe American journal of clinical nutrition2025
Greenhouse gas emissions in relation to micronutrient intake and implications of energy intake: a comparative analysis of different modeling approaches.
Article in The American journal of clinical nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The association of food consumption and macronutrient intake with dietary climate impact in Finland: considerations on the role of energy intake.Public health nutrition · 2026Article
- Balancing Environmental Sustainability and Nutrition: Dietary Climate Impact in Relation to Micronutrient Intake and Status in a Swedish Cohort.Current developments in nutrition · 2025Article
- Dietary greenhouse gas emissions and resource use among Bavarian adults: associations with sociodemographics and food choices.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Adherence to the EAT-lancet dietary pattern among older adults in Rwanda and its association with micronutrient intake.Food & nutrition research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHuman diets account for 30% of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE). Reporting dietary GHGE with or without energy standardization yields different outcomes, often resulting in conflicting conclusions regarding associations with micronutrient intake.
objectivesThis study aims to compare methods of reporting dietary GHGE, with and without consideration of energy intake, and their respective associations with micronutrient intake.
methodsData were sourced from the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study, a cohort involving 25,970 participants. GHGE were estimated based on life cycle assessment data. The study explores different methods of reporting dietary climate impact: GHGE per day, GHGE per 1000 kcal, and with different energy adjustments. Association with micronutrient intake was modeled as daily intake and per 1000 kcal using linear regression models.
resultsDiets with higher GHGE per day were associated with a higher daily intake of all 17 examined micronutrients. When energy was included in the model, the results for GHGE per 1000 kcal aligned well with those for GHGE per day. However, using GHGE per 1000 kcal generally showed that higher GHGE were linked to lower daily micronutrient intake. Different methods of adjusting for energy intake yielded estimates with varying directions and magnitudes of associations.
conclusionsThis study highlights the implications of energy intake when assessing the impact of dietary GHGE and demonstrates that the choice of GHGE modeling approach might have important consequences for the results and interpretation. The method of choice for modeling dietary GHGE in relation to micronutrient intake needs to be carefully considered in future studies.
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.