You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Nutrients
  • Systematic Review
  • Open Access

22 February 2022

Sustainable Diets as Tools to Harmonize the Health of Individuals, Communities and the Planet: A Systematic Review

,
and
1
Department of Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Podiatry, Universidad de Sevilla, 41015 Seville, Spain
2
Instituto de Biomedicina de Sevilla, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, CSIC, Universidad de Sevilla, 41015 Seville, Spain
3
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, 41015 Seville, Spain
4
Alimentta, Think Tank para la Transición Alimentaria, 18320 Santa Fe, Spain
This article belongs to the Special Issue Examining Linkages among Food Insecurity, Food Systems, and Public Health

Abstract

Background. Climate change and global health are inextricably linked. Thus, health systems and their professionals must adapt and evolve without losing quality of care. Aim(s). To identify health and environmental co-benefits derived from a sustainable diet and promotion strategies that favor its implementation. Methods. A systematic search for articles published on sustainable diets and human/planetary health published between 2013 and 2020 was conducted on the databases PubMed, Cinahl, Scopus and Trip from 4 to 7 May 2020 in accordance with the PRISMA guideline. Results. A total of 201 articles was retrieved, but only 21 were included. A calorie-balanced diet mainly based on food of plant origin that would allow the attainment of 60% of daily caloric requirements and a low protein intake from animal foods (focusing in fish and poultry) could significantly reduce global morbi-mortality and the dietary environmental impact maintaining a framework of sustainability conditioned by the consumption of fresh, seasonal, locally produced and minimally packaged products. Discussion. The implementation of sustainable diets requires working on the triangulation of concepts of food–health–environment from schools and that is permanently reinforced during all stages of the life by healthcare workers, who should establish the appropriate modifications according to the age, gender and health situation.

1. Introduction

It is expected that human-induced global warming will increase the mortality rate by approximately 250,000 deaths between the third and the fifth decade of this century []. The United Nations launched in 2015 the Sustainable Development Goals as a universal call to action to end poverty, climate change and inequality by the year 2030. The fact that climate change and global health are inextricably linked means that health systems and their professionals must adapt and evolve to face this challenge without losing quality of care [].
Since 2008, the attendees of the Consortium of Universities for Global Health (CUGH) discussed the lack of competencies and standardized study plans to guide programs oriented to global health [], and healthcare professions have progressively become aware of the importance of this challenge at the level of humanity. Currently, there are already initiatives and proposals to include climate change in the curricula of nurses []; its inclusion in medical education has also been proposed [], and the form of food production and consumption and its relationship with the environment has also been fiercely debated by nutritionists [].
Despite this, there is scarce evidence of the inclusion of the sustainability dimension in the dietary recommendations carried out by the different health professionals, who still focus mostly on clinical outcomes only [].
Today, living sustainably should be regarded as a healthy habit; therefore, it should be promoted by health professionals through the promotion of public health. However, there is scarce literature on how to specifically promote sustainable eating patterns. Consequently, the content of this review could be a good starting point to inform and encourage further studies.
Healthcare workers, as nutrition counselors, have an essential role in the nutritional education of patients (therapeutic objectives) and communities (preventive objectives), which positions them as a social speaker for the promotion of a healthy and sustainable diet. However, the way of eating not only has an impact on population health but also has an important environmental impact. The food we consume and the ways in which it is produced, packaged or transported from one side of the world to the other have an energy and environmental cost measured in terms of greenhouse emissions (GHEe), use and deterioration of land and water or loss of biodiversity, among others [].
Sustainable diets have been defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as diets with low environmental impact that contribute to food and nutritional security and a healthy life for present and future generations. This type of diet improves protection and respects for biodiversity and ecosystems, is culturally acceptable, economically fair, accessible, affordable, nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy, and allows the optimization of natural and human resources [].
The aim of this study is to evaluate the available scientific literature in order to promote sustainable diets in the professional practice of healthcare workers, requiring the following: (1) to determine what environmental impact is derived from each type of food, (2) to identify health and environmental co-benefits derived from a sustainable diet, (3) and to identify promotion strategies that favor the implementation of sustainable dietary patterns.

2. Materials and Methods

This is a systematic review with a narrative synthesis approach. In order to guarantee the methodological quality, this review was elaborated following the new version of PRISMA checklist guidelines published in 2020, and its flow chart for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases and registers only [].

2.1. Search Strategy

A serial search was carried out on the following databases, in the same order in which they are mentioned: PubMed, Cinahl, Scopus and Trip database. We defined two search strategies to obtain the maximum possible number of articles in relation to the objectives set. Both strategies were implemented in each search engine, selecting the one that produced the greatest number of results. Thus, the strategies finally assigned to each search engine were: “Sustainable diet” AND healthy diet for PubMed and Trip database and Sustainab* AND health AND (food OR nutrition OR diet) for Cinahl and Scopus databases. Both strategies were used in the databases, but in each database, only one strategy was optimal (it obtained more articles and contained the articles obtained with the alternative strategy). Therefore, we have reported the optimal strategy for each database.
The strategy descriptors health, food, nutrition and diet are Mesh terms. The key term “sustainable diet” was added using quotation marks to achieve a better targeted search since without them the variety and number of articles was endless. In the corresponding search in Cinahl and Scopus, better results were observed applying the truncation to the term sustainable. In this way, we would include the articles that discussed sustainability in food and had a relation with health.
The search strategy alone yielded an unmanageable number of results for the scope of this study. Therefore, criteria were established to limit the number of studies to be included, ensuring that they were recent and that the subject was consistent with the objectives set. For this purpose, built-in filters were used as help tools for the different databases, and then we resorted to reading the title, abstract or full text through different phases. The filters incorporated in the search engines used allowed directing the search according to the inclusion criteria described below and fundamentally allowed selecting original articles, languages and publication dates: the rest of the criteria were evaluated by the authors. The articles included were published between 2013 and 2020, in English or Spanish, and provided relevant information catering to one or more of our objectives focusing on the health–environment pair. We excluded articles based on animal models or in vitro studies, focused on the transport/distribution of food, management of waste derived from the agri-food system, and those that only dealt with economic aspects or political analysis, and only surveyed the opinion of the population, editorials, letters to the editor, conference reports, reviews, book chapters, conference papers, erratum, books, letters and notes.
The process of inclusion was carried out through a two-round process. In the first round, the process of search and selection of articles was carried out by two of the three authors (TOK and RMR, separately) in two working sessions (4 to 5 May 2020). Both of them applied the exclusion criteria to the initially obtained raw results and identified duplicate articles. The third author was reserved for cases in which there was no consensus between the first two authors, although their participation was not necessary. Once the selection was completed, they were jointly reviewed in a second round and included under joint approval (6 to 7 May 2020).

2.2. Extraction of Information

The articles selected were divided into three parts, each assigned to an author, according to three objectives proposed. Information was extracted regarding the country where the study was carried out, its design and number of subjects included if applicable and the most relevant results that could help answer one or more of the questions formulated in the “Objectives section”. This information was used to compile Table 1. Information was also extracted from journals that published studies including the journal title, year of publication and the best quartile if they were indexed in more than one category. Once completed, each author reviewed the other’s work in order to detect possible errors in data transcription or the absence of relevant information.
Table 1. Features and main findings of articles selected.
The methodology used does not require the participation of human beings and is therefore exempt from evaluation by an ethics committee.

3. Results

In total, 201 records were obtained by adding the four databases consulted. The flow chart (Figure 1) shows the registration number per database and its evolution through the selection process. Finally, 21 reports were obtained and each of them was reported in a different study.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of studies evaluated in the systematic review based on the PRISMA 2020 statement [].
Year of publication ranged from 2013 to 2019, although the year with the highest production was 2018 (8/21). All articles selected were included in the first or second quartile of Journal Citations Reports (JCR), and all of them were English-language journals.
Most of the studies were performed with people or secondary data from European countries, with an outstanding participation of Dutch authors, notwithstanding Iran, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Three papers involved a multicountry or global approach.
To respond to objective one, seven articles were found, and to respond to objectives two and three, 12 and 13 were selected, respectively, most of them being useful to respond to more than one objective. Table 1 shows the articles selected including the nationality, design and main findings.
Regarding the methods carried out, only six studies were observational studies, mainly cross-sectional and frequently used data generated by surveys and secondary data. The most used methodological design was the creation of predictive models to infer possible changes in the environmental or health impact derived from alternative eating patterns.

4. Synthesis and Discussion

Some authors are convinced that health professionals are the key to promoting a healthy and sustainable future through their educational duty. Therefore, incorporating the dimension of sustainability is essential in nutritional counseling; however, a successful educational intervention requires prior training and conceptual mastery of the subject [,].

4.1. Determining the Weight of Food Types in Environmental Impact

It is essential to be clear on the environmental impact of foods or diets when establishing consumption recommendations. Different environmental-impact indicators have been used that determine in what sense land, water or the atmosphere are affected. Among them, greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe) have been considered a good proxy for this total environmental load, but this is not the only parameter to have in account.
Thus, Black et al. (2015) considered foods that are minimally processed, locally grown/sourced, organic, seasonal, with less/minimal packaging and vegetarian options as environmentally sustainable []. Several authors have adopted the mean values of the footprint in the form of environmental from Springmann et al. (2018) so they could be considered as reference values []:
  • The GHG footprint is higher for beef and lamb (~30 gCO2eq/g), pork (~3 gCO2eq/g), eggs, milk, rice and palm oil (~1–2 gCO2eq/g).
  • The freshwater footprint is higher for animal-sourced products, sugar, legumes and rice (0.5–1 m3/kg).
  • The cropland use is high for legumes, vegetable oils and oil crops, nuts and seeds and animal-sourced products (5–11 m2/kg).
  • The nitrogen footprint is high for animal-sourced products, cereals (wheat, rice, maize), oil crops, nuts and seeds and fruits and vegetables (10–50 kg N/kg).
In general, the way to measure GHG emissions derived from consumed food is through data sets prepared by public or private entities using the LCA technique. For example, Temme EH et al. (2015) used an external dataset produced by “Blonk Consultants” []. LCA is a technique for assessing the environmental burdens associated with all stages of a product’s life, in this case from farm to fork. As the authors acquired this information from external sources, it is not detailed exactly what this technique consists of.
The studies establish the current diet of the Dutch population based on the Dutch National Food Consumption Survey and in general they all agree that a marked consumption of meat, milk and cheese regardless of age range and sex. Thus, the Dutch diet is rich in SFA and with low consumption of α-linoleic acid, fiber, EPA and DHA. In addition, in women aged 31–50 years, Fe deficiency was observed [,].
In the Netherlands, where National recommendations involve food groups included in the Wheel of Five according to Health Council of the Netherlands’s dietary guidelines, GHGe associated with food was studied in women and men aged between 7 and 69 years. Meat and cheese contributed about 40% and drinks (including milk and alcoholic drinks) 20% to GHGe of daily diets. Major differences between high- and low-GHGe diets were in meat, cheese and dairy consumption as well as in soft drinks (girls, boys and women) and alcoholic drinks (men). Of those, differences in meat consumption determined the differences in GHGe most []. Subsequently, similar results were published by Van der Kamp in 2018, showing that the reduction of meat during dinner to less than half or the partial or total substitution of unhealthy drinks (soft drinks and alcohol) for water were measures that could significantly decrease the emission of greenhouse gases derived from the Dutch diet [].
Results have been reported in the same line from Australia where fresh and processed meat were high contributors (33.9%) to the total dietary GHGe; among them, red meat and poultry contributed 18.8% and 10.9%, respectively [].
Although products of animal origin seem to be those that produce the greatest environmental impact, not all could have the same weight, since some studies show an improvement in the environmental impact when removing meat, but not when removing fish from the diet []. From the productive sector, an effort is also being made in innovation to study the intestinal microbiome of ruminants with the aim of raising cattle with lower methane production, although at the moment it is an option under development that has not yet led to definitively consistent results [].
On the other hand, foods derived from plants (fruits, vegetables, legumes) have been shown to have less impact on the emission of GHGe, which is why they seem to be interesting foods to include in sustainable diets [,]. More specifically, Hendrie et al. (2016) observed that fruit (3.5%) and vegetables (6.5%) were the two smallest contributors to total dietary GHGe [].
The results presented above explain why various authors found a positive correlation of the total dietary GHGe with total energy and total grams of food consumed [,].

4.2. Sustainable Diet and Health-Environment Co-Benefits

Pollution and environmental deterioration directly affect our health but also the quality of the food we eat []. Thus, there is increasing evidence of the high exposure to environmental contaminants to which we are exposed from birth, since many of them accumulate in breast milk []. In addition, environmental pollution is related to the emerging appearance of different types of diseases such as those that have an autoimmune basis [].
If the evolution of climate change continues, it is estimated that by 2050, global food availability will be reduced, triggering health problems such as malnutrition, stunted growth or anemia, which will lead to the death of 529,000 people worldwide. Nevertheless, the model predicts that Asian countries would reach the greatest mortality rate [].
Springman (2018) has conducted other global predictive models based on three dietary modifications: reduced meat consumption, appropriate caloric intake control and healthy diets defined by the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems in the guideline recommendations. As a result, the importance of health-environment co-benefits of a sustainable diet became evident (Table 1). Although no strategy proved to be perfect at a global level, they provided partial improvements at different levels depending on the socio-economic development of the countries. Nevertheless, the choice of an appropriate strategy in each case always led to a reduction in premature mortality equal to or greater than 10% [].
On the other hand, studies have focused on dietary patterns in specific countries. Thus, a study analyzing and modeling the Dutch dietary pattern shows that adapting the current Dutch diet to nutritional recommendations makes it healthier, but not significantly more sustainable. Therefore, it requires making the effort to choose low-GHGe foods to achieve health–environment co-benefits [].
The health impact of a sustainable diet has also been assessed through the disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) indicator, which reflects the number of healthy life equivalent years lost due to poor health status or disability. In Switzerland, it has been reported that a transition from the current Swiss diet to a pattern better adjusted to national recommendations (guidelines of Swiss society of nutrition) was the most sustainable option involving 36% lesser environmental footprint and 2.67% lower adverse health outcome (DALYs) compared with the current diet. This transition implies a slight increase in fruits and vegetables (from 265 and 239 to 325 and 291 g capita−1 day−1, respectively) and a more important increase in nuts and legumes (from 5 and 24 to 26 and 50 g capita−1 day−1, respectively). In addition, it decreased the consumption of roots and tubers (from 230 to 149 g capita−1 day−1) and a significantly decreased consumption of meat, fish, eggs and vegetable oil (from 129, 15, 25 and 71 to 33, 6, 18 and 26 g capita−1 day−1). The environmental footprint was quantified, showing a reduction of 54% in GHG emission, 32% in land use and 26%, 33% and 34% in water, nitrogen and phosphorus footprints, respectively [].
There is also information on health–environment co-benefits in Mediterranean countries. The traditional Mediterranean diet (MD) has been widely listed as a healthy dietary pattern that offers protection against cancer, cardiovascular diseases and cognitive improvements []. In Spain, greater MD adherence would reduce GHG emissions (72%), land use (58%), energy consumption (52%), and water consumption (33%) []. Even if this adherence were focused only on a university population, environmental improvements could be observed []. In France, it would mean a 20% decrease in GHG emission [] and up to 50% in Italy according to a study conducted with high school students [].
The traditional Japanese cuisine is characterized by a high consumption of soybean, fish, seaweed, vegetables, fruit, and green tea (always cooking fresh and seasonal producer). However, since 1975, the Western eating pattern has been gaining importance in the Japanese diet, rich in processed and animal-origin food. According to Oita et al. (2018), the optimization of current feeding patterns in Japan toward the traditional Japanese cuisine has resulted in significant environmental benefits in terms of nitrogen footprint (55% reduction) []. It has been reported that, in Iran, to decrease the water footprint derived from food production and consumption while maintaining optimal and healthy nutritional status, it was more effective to plan the diet following the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDAs) from available dietary guidelines [].

4.3. Strategies to Promote Sustainable Diets

4.3.1. Identification of Sustainable Dietary Patterns

High industrialization and the purchase of low-quality raw materials has meant that these types of foods can be produced and marketed at low cost, making them very affordable to low-income consumers []. Therefore, it is of interest to assess whether some of the dietary patterns historically associated with different societies or cultures meet the patterns of sustainable diets; if so, it should be promoted.
The substitution of animal foods for those of plant origin as a fundamental step in the transition to a sustainable diet is widely proposed. However, the consumption of meat is culturally rooted, and some authors are committed to educating in the consumption of good quality meat rather than eradicating its consumption []. There is sufficient scientific evidence to affirm that vegetarian diets in their variants (vegan, flexitarian, pescatarian, ovolacto-vegetarian) are healthy eating patterns. From an eco-sustainable point of view, it improves many indicators of environmental impact [,,]. Therefore, it should be promoted to spread the adherence of these patterns. However, to adopt a vegetarian and especially vegan eating pattern, it is necessary to have access to a wide variety of plant-based foods, and people must know how to combine them, otherwise they may have certain nutritional deficiencies. On the other hand, psychosocial issues such as the possible stigmatization of this eating pattern can be a barrier to its implementation [].
The literature frequently refers to the benefits reported by predictive models that totally eliminate meat from consumers’ menus. Thus, we should not lose sight of the fact that these are mathematical models that do not include socio-cultural factors and, therefore, ignore a fundamental indicator for establishing a sustainable dietary pattern: acceptability. In this sense, de Boer et al. (2014) advocate not to remove all meats from the diet, due to its significance in the Dutch diet. Instead, they propose reducing its consumption and, when this is carried out, choosing better-quality meat [].
The nutritional quality of meat is associated with the saturated fat content. The higher it is, the less healthy it is to eat. However, we normally talk about meat referring to different animal species (pork, beef, lamb, chicken, etc.) without qualifying the importance of the cut (lean parts of a species can be healthier than fatty parts of another one) and the livestock feeding, which can influence its corporal composition [].
It should be pointed out that there are dietary patterns that are highly acceptable in each country of the world due to their traditional character. Even though they have many differences, they are characterized by a main consumption of plant-based foods, a diet rich in fish consumption, and a minimal, although existing, contribution of meat. Among them, and without prejudice to the existence of other examples, we have been able to identify the Mediterranean diet [,,,] and the traditional Japanese diet, washoku []. Both are characterized by a predominance of plant-origin foods (for example, cereals, legumes, olive oil and moderate alcohol, etc.), associated with longevity and listed as UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage, and both of them have been shown to be sustainable diets in a mathematical modeling study, where the New Zealand diet was also evaluated, which, although it could be optimized to reduce its environmental impact, could have fewer associated health benefits []. These types of diets can be easily culturally adapted to geographies where they are not native, thus allowing them to extend their benefits on health and the environment.
Thus, the different patterns of sustainable diets observed seem to have something in common. They allow the establishment of a balanced caloric intake, defined as one in which carbohydrates account for 55–60% of daily caloric requirements, 30–35% of calories from fatty foods and 10–15% of calories from protein foods.
Carbohydrates are provided through foods of plant origin (legumes, farinaceous and fruits) to which vegetables (pigmented colored vegetable, leafy green and cruciferous) are added to increase the consumption of fiber and antioxidants with low calorie intake.
Calories derived from fatty foods come from oily fish, nuts and vegetable oils whose consumption is also associated with important vitamins such as E and D.
Calorie consumption to cover protein needs (0.8 gr/kg/day) would already be partially covered thanks to whole grain cereals, legumes and nuts; therefore, a high consumption of foods of animal origin is not necessary, focusing on fish and poultry due to their low saturated fat content. In fact, it is not even necessary to consume foods of animal origin to cover protein needs, as a correct vegan diet has shown []. However, we are aware that, as some authors pointed out, many cultures have meat consumption integrated into their eating pattern [], so veganism is not the option that best suits these communities.

4.3.2. Promotion in Clinical Practice and at the School Environment

In order to include the dimension of sustainability in the nutritional management of the patient, as well as in the promotion of healthy lifestyles for the general population, it is important that the healthy and sustainable alternatives identified above are listed in clinical practice guidelines and dietary guidelines.
Nutritional counseling is a routine practice to a greater or lesser extent for different health professionals, and particularly for nurses. They should take into account the age, gender and educational level of the people that they are addressing. Each sector of the population may require specific indications since there are different consumption patterns based on the demographic variables [,,].
On the other hand, children have at least one meal a day in their school environment and the behaviors learned at these ages are more strongly maintained over time, turning the school into a strategic point.
Although schools in Australia integrate environmental awareness into their educational programs through gardening activities, 28 of 33 primary and secondary school cafeterias evaluated in Australia sold sugary drinks and unhealthy fatty foods. No schools fully followed nutritional and sustainable quality guidelines []. Hence, the school surroundings must be consistent with the educational intervention in order to have a successful promotion of sustainable diets. In this sense, it would be important to pay attention to the content in vending machines and the school menus. Donati et al. (2016) analyzed the menu of Italian schools, observing a drift from the Mediterranean pattern to the Western industrial one [].
For all of the above, we encourage all healthcare professionals, especially those working in schools, to consider sustainability when carrying out a patient counseling menu review, the promotion of healthy lifestyles and/or applying diet therapy as a therapeutic tool.
It should be noted that the selection of only Spanish and English in the search is associated with an information bias.
Many studies were based on predictive models using publicly available government information. It is difficult to assess the quality of the information derived from this type of record, which is sometimes published in aggregate form. We have not found tools to evaluate the methodological quality and risk of bias of studies based on mathematical models with a predictive character from secondary data.
In addition, this type of study does not take into account cultural factors that affect the acceptance of the proposed dietary pattern. These studies may not be the methodology that provides the most scientific evidence. However, they are plausible when dealing with global health issues due to the magnitude of the facts studied.
The complexity of global health issues makes it difficult to encompass all the variables involved. For example, although meat production has been shown to have a higher environmental cost than vegetable production, eating locally produced meat may be more sustainable than eating vegetables imported from the other side of the globe.

5. Conclusions

The Western eating pattern and the consequent food production system not only endangers the health of people but also the planet. It is therefore highly advisable to redirect the habits and lifestyles of consumers, in which healthcare workers involved in nutritional counselling have a great task at hand through educational activities and health promotion.
A balanced calorie diet based on plant-based foods that can meet the needs of most micronutrients, fiber, carbohydrates, and most of fat and protein is ideal. The supply of protein of animal origin (prioritizing poultry and fish and taking care of the quality of the product) should be implemented in small quantities to ensure protein requirements of 0.8 g/kg/day and make the appropriate adaptations according to the level of physical activity. It could significantly reduce global morbidity and mortality associated with chronic diseases, reducing the environmental impact of food production and maintaining a framework of sustainability conditioned by the consumption of fresh, seasonal, locally produced and minimally packaged products.
This often does not mean implementing new eating patterns, but rather returning to those that have been traditionally practiced. For this reason, it is necessary to bet on a sustainable diet, with existing varieties, which allows citizens the possibility of choosing.
Consolidating the implementation of sustainable diets requires working on the triangulation of concepts of food–health–environment from children in schools, and that is permanently reinforced during all stages of the life, both for the healthy and ill, by healthcare workers (HCW), who should establish the appropriate modifications according to the age, gender and health situation.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Quantitative Risk Assessment of the Eff Ects of Climate Change on Selected Causes of Death, 2030s and 2050s; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/134014/9789241507691_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 12 April 2020).
  2. Kruk, M.E.; Gage, A.D.; Arsenault, C.; Jordan, K.; Leslie, H.H.; Roder-DeWan, S.; Adeyi, O.; Barker, P.; Daelmans, B.; Doubova, S.V.; et al. High-quality health systems in the Sustainable Development Goals era: Time for a revolution. Lancet Glob. Health 2018, 6, e1196–e1252, Erratum in Lancet Glob. Health 2018, 6, e1162; Erratum in Lancet Glob. Health 2021, 9, e1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Jogerst, K.; Callender, B.; Adams, V.; Evert, J.; Fields, E.; Hall, T.; Olsen, J.; Rowthorn, V.; Rudy, S.; Shen, J.; et al. Identifying interprofessional global health competencies for 21st-century health professionals. Ann. Glob. Health 2015, 81, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. McDermott-Levy, R.; Jackman-Murphy, K.P.; Leffers, J.M.; Jordan, L. Integrating Climate Change into Nursing Curricula. Nurse Educ. 2019, 44, 43–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Maxwell, J.; Blashki, G. Teaching about Climate Change in Medical Education: An Opportunity. J. Public Health Res. 2016, 5, 673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Coad, J.; Pedley, K. Nutrition in New Zealand: Can the Past Offer Lessons for the Present and Guidance for the Future? Nutrients 2020, 12, 3433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Alberdi, G.; Begiristain-Zubillaga, M. The Promotion of Sustainable Diets in the Healthcare System and Implications for Health Professionals: A Scoping Review. Nutrients 2021, 13, 747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. FAO; WHO. Sustainable Healthy Diets—Guiding Principles; FAO: Rome, Italy; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  9. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Benedetti, I.; Laureti, T.; Secondi, L. Choosing a healthy and sustainable diet: A three-level approach for understanding the drivers of the Italians’ dietary regime over time. Appetite 2018, 123, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Black, J.L.; Velazquez, C.E.; Ahmadi, N.; Chapman, G.E.; Carten, S.; Edward, J.; Shulhan, S.; Stephens, T.; Rojas, A. Sustainability and public health nutrition at school: Assessing the integration of healthy and environmentally sustainable food initiatives in Vancouver schools. Public Health Nutr. 2015, 18, 2379–2391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Blas, A.; Garrido, A.; Unver, O.; Willaarts, B. A comparison of the Mediterranean diet and current food consumption patterns in Spain from a nutritional and water perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 664, 1020–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Brink, E.; van Rossum, C.; Postma-Smeets, A.; Stafleu, A.; Wolvers, D.; van Dooren, C.; Toxopeus, I.; Buurma-Rethans, E.; Geurts, M.; Ocké, M. Development of healthy and sustainable food-based dietary guidelines for the Netherlands. Public Health Nutr. 2019, 22, 2419–2435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Chen, C.; Chaudhary, A.; Mathys, A. Dietary Change Scenarios and Implications for Environmental, Nutrition, Human Health and Economic Dimensions of Food Sustainability. Nutrients 2019, 11, 856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Cobiac, L.J.; Scarborough, P. Modelling the health co-benefits of sustainable diets in the, U.K.; France, Finland, Italy and Sweden. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 73, 624–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. de Boer, J.; Schösler, H.; Aiking, H. “Meatless days” or “less but better”? Exploring strategies to adapt Western meat consumption to health and sustainability challenges. Appetite 2014, 76, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Donati, M.; Menozzi, D.; Zighetti, C.; Rosi, A.; Zinetti, A.; Scazzina, F. Towards a sustainable diet combining economic, environmental and nutritional objectives. Appetite 2016, 106, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fresán, U.; Martínez-Gonzalez, M.A.; Sabaté, J.; Bes-Rastrollo, M. The Mediterranean diet, an environmentally friendly option: Evidence from the Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra (SUN) cohort. Public Health Nutr. 2018, 21, 1573–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Hendrie, G.A.; Baird, D.; Ridoutt, B.; Hadjikakou, M.; Noakes, M. Overconsumption of Energy and Excessive Discretionary Food Intake Inflates Dietary Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Australia. Nutrients 2016, 8, 690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Kramer, G.F.; Tyszler, M.; Veer, P.V.; Blonk, H. Decreasing the overall environmental impact of the Dutch diet: How to find healthy and sustainable diets with limited changes. Public Health Nutr. 2017, 20, 1699–1709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Masset, G.; Vieux, F.; Verger, E.O.; Soler, L.G.; Touazi, D.; Darmon, N. Reducing energy intake and energy density for a sustainable diet: A study based on self-selected diets in French adults. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014, 99, 1460–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Oita, A.; Nagano, I.; Matsuda, H. Food nitrogen footprint reductions related to a balanced Japanese diet. Ambio 2018, 47, 318–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Sáez-Almendros, S.; Obrador, B.; Bach-Faig, A.; Serra-Majem, L. Environmental footprints of Mediterranean versus Western dietary patterns: Beyond the health benefits of the Mediterranean diet. Environ. Health 2013, 12, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Sobhani, S.R.; Rezazadeh, A.; Omidvar, N.; Eini-Zinab, H. Healthy diet: A step toward a sustainable diet by reducing water footprint. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 3769–3775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Springmann, M.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Robinson, S.; Garnett, T.; Godfray, H.C.; Gollin, D.; Rayner, M.; Ballon, P.; Scarborough, P. Global and regional health effects of future food production under climate change: A modelling study. Lancet 2016, 387, 1937–1946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Springmann, M.; Wiebe, K.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Sulser, T.B.; Rayner, M.; Scarborough, P. Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: A global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planet. Health 2018, 2, e451–e461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Temme, E.H.; Toxopeus, I.B.; Kramer, G.F.; Brosens, M.C.; Drijvers, J.M.; Tyszler, M.; Ocké, M.C. Greenhouse gas emission of diets in the Netherlands and associations with food, energy and macronutrient intakes. Public Health Nutr. 2015, 18, 2433–2445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. van de Kamp, M.E.; Seves, S.M.; Temme, E.H.M. Reducing GHG emissions while improving diet quality: Exploring the potential of reduced meat, cheese and alcoholic and soft drinks consumption at specific moments during the day. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. van de Kamp, M.E.; van Dooren, C.; Hollander, A.; Geurts, M.; Brink, E.J.; van Rossum, C.; Biesbroek, S.; de Valk, E.; Toxopeus, I.B.; Temme, E.H.M. Healthy diets with reduced environmental impact?—The greenhouse gas emissions of various diets adhering to the Dutch food based dietary guidelines. Food Res. Int. 2018, 104, 14–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Wilson, N.; Nghiem, N.; Ni Mhurchu, C.; Eyles, H.; Baker, M.G.; Blakely, T. Foods and dietary patterns that are healthy, low-cost, and environmentally sustainable: A case study of optimization modeling for New Zealand. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e59648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Beauchemin, K.A.; Ungerfeld, E.M.; Eckard, R.J.; Wang, M. Review: Fifty years of research on rumen methanogenesis: Lessons learned and future challenges for mitigation. Animal 2020, 14 (Suppl. S1), s2–s16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Iribarne-Durán, L.M.; Peinado, F.M.; Freire, C.; Castillero-Rosales, I.; Artacho-Cordón, F.; Olea, N. Concentrations of bisphenols, parabens, and benzophenones in human breast milk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806 Pt 1, 150437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhao, C.N.; Xu, Z.; Wu, G.C.; Mao, Y.M.; Liu, L.N.; Dan, Y.L.; Tao, S.S.; Zhang, Q.; Sam, N.B.; Fan, Y.G.; et al. Emerging role of air pollution in autoimmune diseases. Autoimmun. Rev. 2019, 18, 607–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Di Nisio, A.; Foresta, C. Water and soil pollution as determinant of water and food quality/contamination and its impact on male fertility. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2019, 17, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Sánchez-Sánchez, M.L.; García-Vigara, A.; Hidalgo-Mora, J.J.; García-Pérez, M.Á.; Tarín, J.; Cano, A. Mediterranean diet and health: A systematic review of epidemiological studies and intervention trials. Maturitas 2020, 136, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hargreaves, S.M.; Raposo, A.; Saraiva, A.; Zandonadi, R.P. Vegetarian Diet: An Overview through the Perspective of Quality of Life Domains. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Scollan, N.D.; Price, E.M.; Morgan, S.A.; Huws, S.A.; Shingfield, K.J. Can we improve the nutritional quality of meat? Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2017, 76, 603–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Mariotti, F.; Gardner, C.D. Dietary Protein and Amino Acids in Vegetarian Diets—A Review. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.