The Climate and Nutritional Impact of Beef in Different Dietary Patterns in Denmark

Mogensen, Lisbeth; Trolle, Ellen

doi:10.3390/foods9091176

Cited by 17 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Not surprisingly this has led us to consider eating meat as natural, normal, necessary, and nice [ 2 ]. It is only recently that meat came under intense scrutiny which increasingly highlighted the detrimental impact of meat production and consumption on animal welfare, human health and the environment [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. However, despite this scientific evidence, meat demand is expected to further increase in the coming years [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ], putting intense strain on our already exhausted ecosystems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animals Like Us: Leveraging the Negativity Bias in Anthropomorphism to Reduce Beef Consumption

Choueiki

Geuens

Vermeir

2021

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our current work contributes to the literature of meat consumption reduction. Capitalizing on the inherent humanizing characteristic of anthropomorphism coupled with leveraging negativity bias, we created a novel approach to reduce meat-eating intention. Using on-pack product stickers, we compare an anthropomorphic message stressing the capacity to experience pain with two other anthropomorphic messages that have been used before in the literature (intelligence and pro-social behavior of animals). We find that an on-pack pain anthropomorphic sticker reduces purchase intentions of the meat product and intention to consume meat in general and is more effective than stickers displaying pro-social or intelligence messages. We also show that the pain message’s negative impact on purchase intention is serially mediated by anticipatory guilt and attitude towards meat. In addition, we show that the differential effectiveness of the anthropomorphic messages can be explained by the negativity bias. That is, when the pro-social and intelligence messages were formulated in a negative way (as is pain), all three messages were equally effective at reducing intention to purchase meat and increase intention to reduce meat consumption.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animals Like Us: Leveraging the Negativity Bias in Anthropomorphism to Reduce Beef Consumption

Choueiki

Geuens

Vermeir

2021

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If beans had been substituted for beef in the diet of Americans, it would have achieved ~46–74% of the GHG emissions target for 2020 and would have freed up 42% of US cropland, or nearly 700,000 km 2 ( 31 ). In Denmark, substituting legumes for beef would reduce GHG emissions and land use by 8–12 and 5–7%, respectively ( 32 ). Adherence to plant-forward diets such as the planetary health diet recommended by the EAT-Lancet Commission ( 7 ) are considered more environmentally sustainable but can be more expensive ( 33 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of Legume Purchases and Consumption in the United States

Semba

Rahman

et al. 2021

Front. Nutr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Legumes are an inexpensive, healthy source of protein, fiber, and micronutrients, have low greenhouse gas and water footprints, and enrich soil through nitrogen fixation. Although higher legume consumption is recommended under US dietary guidelines, legumes currently comprise only a minor part of the US diet.Objectives: To characterize the types of legumes most commonly purchased by US consumers and patterns of legume purchases by state and region, seasonality of legume purchases, and to characterize adults that have a higher intake of legumes.Methods: We examined grocery market, chain supermarket, big box and club stores, Walmart, military commissary, and dollar store retail scanner data from Nielsen collected 2017–2019 and dietary intake from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2017–2018.Results: The five leading types of legumes purchased in the US were pinto bean, black bean, kidney bean, lima bean, and chickpea. The mean annual per capita expenditure on legumes based on grocery purchases was $4.76 during 2017–2019. The annual per capita expenditure on legumes varied greatly by state with highest expenditure in Louisiana, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and lowest expenditure in Washington, New York, and Wisconsin. There were large regional differences in the most commonly purchased legumes. Of 4,741 adults who participated in the 24-h dietary recall in NHANES, 2017–2018, 20.5% reported eating any legumes in the previous 24 h. Those who consumed legumes were more likely to be Hispanic, with a higher education level, with a larger household size (all P < 0.05), but were not different by age, gender, or income level compared to those who did not consume legumes.Conclusion: Although legumes are inexpensive, healthy, and a sustainable source of protein, per capita legume intake remains low in the US and below US dietary guidelines. Further insight is needed into barriers to legume consumption in the US.

show abstract

“…According to ISO 14040-14044 [ 37 , 38 ] guidelines, following the principle of excluding equivalent activities for LCA comparison, a cut-off criterion was applied to production of infrastructure and machinery, transport of the meals to the school, packaging end of life and waste food disposal, which are assumed to be similar for all the items. In addition, due to a lack of data and to the relatively low influence on the final value [ 28 ], system boundaries do not include the cooking of the meals and the refrigeration/heating of the meals before consumption.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The life cycle impact assessment results, covering multiple impacts in quantitative terms, facilitate the identification of hotspots (i.e., the main life cycle stage and activities causing significant impacts) to derive strategies for life cycle management to improve the environmental performances of product and promote the shift towards sustainable agriculture and food production systems including more sustainable food consumption patterns via environmental certification and labelling schemes [ 24 ]. Studies aimed to analyse the environmental impact of food have been conducted by many authors [ 23 , 25 ], but they generally focused on a single product or at least few items [ 5 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]. On the other hand, additional studies aimed to compare a wide variety of fresh food items, carrying out a systematic literature review of GHG emissions [ 2 , 31 ], but without considering the nutritional aspects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Impact of Meals: How Big Is the Carbon Footprint in the School Canteens?

Volanti

Arfelli

Neri

et al. 2022

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The inhabitants of the world are expected to grow by two billion in the next two decades; as population increases, food demand rises too, leading to more intensive resource exploitation and greater negative externalities related to food production. In this paper the environmental impact of meals provided in school canteens are analysed through the Life Cycle Assessment methodology, in order to evaluate the GHGs emissions released by food production. Meals, and not just individual foods, have been considered so as to include in the analysis the nutritional aspects on which meals are based. Results shows that meat, fish and dairy products are the most impacting in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, with values that shift from 31.7 and 24.1 kg CO2 eq for butter and veal, to 2.37 kg CO2 eq for the octopus, while vegetables, legumes, fruit and cereals are less carbon intensive (average of 3.71 kg CO2 eq for the considered vegetables). When the environmental impact is related to the food energy, the best option are first courses because they combine a low carbon footprint with a high energy content. The results of the work can be used both by the consumer, who can base the meal choice on environmental impact information, and by food services, who can adjust menus to achieve a more sustainable production.

show abstract

The Climate and Nutritional Impact of Beef in Different Dietary Patterns in Denmark

Cited by 17 publications

References 61 publications

Animals Like Us: Leveraging the Negativity Bias in Anthropomorphism to Reduce Beef Consumption

Animals Like Us: Leveraging the Negativity Bias in Anthropomorphism to Reduce Beef Consumption

Patterns of Legume Purchases and Consumption in the United States

Environmental Impact of Meals: How Big Is the Carbon Footprint in the School Canteens?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About