ArticleEuropean journal of nutrition2026
Differences in plant- and animal-based protein sources consumed across socioeconomic groups in The Netherlands and their associated environmental impact.
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. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study explored the differences in sources of protein (SOP) consumed across socioeconomic groups in the Netherlands and their environmental impact.
methodsUsing data from the Dutch National Food Consumption Survey 2019–2021, 1746 participants aged 18–79 years were included. Socioeconomic status (SES) was determined by education level. Protein sources included nuts and seeds, dairy, red meat, poultry, processed meats, fish, legumes, meat substitutes, and eggs. Environmental impact (EI) was assessed using data from life cycle assessment (LCA), considering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, land use (LU) and water use (WU). Dietary intake was estimated using two non-consecutive 24-h dietary recalls and reported in g/day; fish consumption was converted to g/w for this study. Linear and logistic regressions were applied to explore the associations between SES (predictor variable) and SOP and EI indicators (response variables).
resultsCompared to the high SES group, individuals with low SES consumed more red meat, processed meat, and dairy (p for trend < 0.05 for all), and less nuts and seeds (p < 0.001), fish (p = 0.004). They were less likely to consume meat substitutes (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found for poultry, eggs, and legumes consumption. Individuals with low SES showed greater total GHG emissions and LU but lower WU (p < 0.05 for all). Across all SES groups, animal-based protein sources (ABPs) contributed the most to GHG emissions, LU and WU, while plant-based protein sources (PBPs) contributed minimally.
conclusionsIndividuals with low SES tend to consume more ABPs, and were associated with greater GHG emissions and LU, whereas total WU was higher among individuals with high SES, due to a greater consumption of water-intensive PBPs, such as nuts and seeds. These findings highlight socioeconomic disparities in dietary patterns and environmental impact that may be relevant for future strategies toward healthier and more sustainable diets.
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.