ArticleNutrition journal2025
Cost and affordability implications of transitioning from current diets to National dietary guidelines and EAT-Lancet recommendations in Argentina: a modelling study.
Article in Nutrition journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent dietary patterns contribute to health issues and pose high demands on the food production system, leading to environmental degradation. This paper aims to analyze the cost and affordability of current diets in Argentina, compared to one diet based on National Dietary Guidelines and 3 variants of diets based on EAT-Lancet Recommendations.
methodsThe methodology proposed by INFORMAS (International Network for Food and Obesity/Non-communicable Diseases Research, Monitoring and Action Support) was used to design six model diets for a reference household, considering the most consumed food products by the Argentinean population and similar healthier and/or more environmentally sustainable options. Nutritional information and prices of food products were obtained from official sources. Monte Carlo Simulations were performed to estimate the average cost of the diets (and variability). Affordability was measured as the percentage of average monthly household income each model diet represents.
resultsOn average the diet based on National Dietary Guidelines was the most expensive (274.95 USD; 95% CI: 274.85-275.05), followed by the current diet (261.84 USD; 95% CI: 261.62-262.06), the flexitarian diet that includes higher amount of animal protein sources (design to be more similar to the current consumption pattern in Argentina) (259.43 USD; 95% CI: 259.30-259.55), and then the vegan diet (256.96 USD; 95% CI: 256.90-257.03). The lowest costs were found for the current isocaloric diet (248.29 USD; 95% CI: 248.06-248.52) and the flexitarian diet with less animal proteins (248.37 USD; 95% CI: 248.26-248.48). Between 53% and 59% of the average income is needed to cover the cost of diets.
conclusionsDiets based on National Dietary Guidelines are on average the most expensive (least affordable), while the least expensive (most affordable) are the current isocaloric diet and the flexitarian diet with fewer animal protein sources, suggesting that there are dietary options that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide health benefits without increasing food expenses.
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.