ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2026
Identifying the most sustainable foods using two different approaches: a priori versus a posteriori.
Article in European journal of clinical 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify the most sustainable foods by using both an a priori sustainability score and a posteriori cluster analysis, comparing the results across key sustainability dimensions.
methodsData were sourced from 2553 Portuguese adults (18+ years) who completed two non-consecutive 24-h recalls during the most recent National Food, Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey of 2015-2016. Culturally acceptable food items were selected for analysis (based on consumption frequency and quantity) and evaluated for health-related nutritional attributes (NOVA-classification and Nutrient-Rich Food Index 9.3), environmental impact (greenhouse-gas emissions and land use from the SHARP-Indicators Database) and cost (retail prices). The a priori approach used a sustainability score, while the a posteriori approach employed cluster analysis.
resultsA total of 366 food items were selected as culturally acceptable (covering 75% of total daily energy intake). Both methods identified sustainable foods as those that combine high nutrient-density and low processing levels with low environmental impact and cost. The a priori approach identified 96 items as sustainable, while the a posteriori analysis revealed 144 items, showing variations in food categories. Unprocessed and minimally processed foods were prevalent in both methods, but the a posteriori approach yielded a higher proportion. Nutrient-richness, environmental impact and cost were significantly better for the most sustainable foods in both approaches.
conclusionThese findings underscore the importance of using multiple methods to capture the complexity of food choices in the context of sustainability, offering insights for developing sustainable dietary guidelines that balance health-related nutritional, environmental and economic factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41896412What 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.