ArticleEuropean journal of nutrition2026
Co-benefits and trade-offs between environmental impact and diet quality: insights from observational dietary data in a Swedish population.
Article in European journal of nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
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
purposeThis study characterises food and nutrient intake in self-reported diets with varying environmental impacts and evaluates their adherence to dietary guidelines and nutritional adequacy, exploring co-benefits and trade-offs between environmental impact and diet quality.
methodsDietary data were from two population-based cohorts (n = 30 000) of Swedish adults aged 56–70 years. Environmental impact was assessed using an aggregated score based on six environmental indicators. Adherence to dietary guidelines and nutritional adequacy was evaluated against the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations 2023.
resultsIn line with the dietary guidelines, diets with a lower environmental impact had lower intake of red meat, processed meat, sugar-sweetened beverages, high-fat dairy products, saturated fat, sodium and alcohol, alongside higher intake of whole grains, fibre and polyunsaturated fat. Contrary to the dietary guidelines, lower-impact diets had higher intake of sweets and snacks and lower intake of vegetables, fruits and berries, nuts and seeds, and seafood. While lower-impact diets had a lower intake of protein and most vitamins and minerals, adherence to macronutrient recommendations was generally higher, and micronutrient intake was adequate, except for selenium and vitamin D.
conclusionsThis study highlights both co-benefits and trade-offs between environmental and health goals. To prevent negative health effects from diets with lower environmental impact, it is essential to limit foods with low nutritional value (e.g., sweets and snacks) and promote healthy plant-based foods. Potential risks associated with a lower micronutrient intake should be considered, particularly for groups with special requirements, such as children, adolescents, fertile and pregnant women, and the elderly.
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.