↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the environmental impacts of dietary recommendations

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
60 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
94 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
385 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluating the environmental impacts of dietary recommendations
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, December 2017
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1711889114
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Behrens, Jessica C. Kiefte-de Jong, Thijs Bosker, João F. D. Rodrigues, Arjan de Koning, Arnold Tukker

Abstract

Dietary choices drive both health and environmental outcomes. Information on diets come from many sources, with nationally recommended diets (NRDs) by governmental or similar advisory bodies the most authoritative. Little or no attention is placed on the environmental impacts within NRDs. Here we quantify the impact of nation-specific NRDs, compared with an average diet in 37 nations, representing 64% of global population. We focus on greenhouse gases (GHGs), eutrophication, and land use because these have impacts reaching or exceeding planetary boundaries. We show that compared with average diets, NRDs in high-income nations are associated with reductions in GHG, eutrophication, and land use from 13.0 to 24.8%, 9.8 to 21.3%, and 5.7 to 17.6%, respectively. In upper-middle-income nations, NRDs are associated with slight decrease in impacts of 0.8-12.2%, 7.7-19.4%, and 7.2-18.6%. In poorer middle-income nations, impacts increase by 12.4-17.0%, 24.5-31.9%, and 8.8-14.8%. The reduced environmental impact in high-income countries is driven by reductions in calories (∼54% of effect) and a change in composition (∼46%). The increased environmental impacts of NRDs in low- and middle-income nations are associated with increased intake in animal products. Uniform adoption of NRDs across these nations would result in reductions of 0.19-0.53 Gt CO2 eq⋅a-1, 4.32-10.6 Gt [Formula: see text] eq⋅a-1, and 1.5-2.8 million km2, while providing the health cobenefits of adopting an NRD. As a small number of dietary guidelines are beginning to incorporate more general environmental concerns, we anticipate that this work will provide a standardized baseline for future work to optimize recommended diets further.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 94 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 385 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 385 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 71 18%
Student > Master 70 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 13%
Student > Bachelor 40 10%
Other 26 7%
Other 64 17%
Unknown 63 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 94 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 56 15%
Social Sciences 19 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 5%
Engineering 19 5%
Other 82 21%
Unknown 96 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 595. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 September 2020.
All research outputs
#16,990
of 15,930,014 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#559
of 86,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#731
of 411,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#26
of 946 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,930,014 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 86,208 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 411,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 946 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.