CRETUS Centre, Department of Chemical Engineering, School of Engineering, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Rúa Lope Gómez de Marzoa s/n, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
CRETUS Centre, Department of Chemical Engineering, School of Engineering, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Rúa Lope Gómez de Marzoa s/n, 15782 Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Sci Total Environ. 2022 Feb 10;807(Pt 2):150894. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150894. Epub 2021 Oct 12.
Diet and nutrition are essential factors in promoting good health throughout life. Their role as determinants of chronic non-communicable diseases is widely recognized. Additionally, the demand for food involves relevant environmental burdens that have to be taken into account on the way to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. As an important part of nutrition policy, food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) have been revised. The key question is: Are environmental considerations being incorporated into them? To address this issue, we modeled and compared both the main environmental indicators in terms of carbon footprint (CF) and water footprint (WF), and nutritional quality (according to the Nutrient Rich Diet index, NRD9.3 and a health gain score) of dietary guidelines from Northern and Southern Europe and America. Particularly, the FBDGs compared were Dutch Dietary Guidelines (DDG), New Nordic Diet (NND), Spanish Strategy for Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity Prevention (NAOS), Mediterranean Diet (MD), Italian Dietary Guidelines (IDG) and American Dietary Guidelines (DGA). The IDG and MD offered the best profiles from a climate change perspective (2.04 and 2.21 kgCOeq·day). Overall, DGA had the highest CF (2.98 kgCOeq·day). WF presented greater fluctuations, not only due to daily-recommended amounts, but also because of different climate conditions and production systems of the reference countries. Hence, WF ranged from 1760 L·person·day in IDG to 3181 L·person·day in NAOS. Finally, the nutritional value of MD, which had the highest NRD9.3 (477) and health gain score (178), has been demonstrated when the comparison was made with DDG, the one with the lowest health gain score (97) and DGA, the worst in terms of NRD9.3 (391). To go ahead of the FBDGs that bet on all dimensions of sustainability, multi-criteria analysis is needed. Nutrition and environmental performance are not the only aspects of the problem; economy and sociocultural variables should be considered.
饮食和营养是促进一生健康的重要因素。它们作为慢性非传染性疾病决定因素的作用已得到广泛认可。此外，对食物的需求涉及相关的环境负担，在实现可持续发展目标的过程中必须考虑到这些负担。作为营养政策的重要组成部分，食品为基础的膳食指南（FBDG）已经修订。关键问题是：环境考虑因素是否被纳入其中？为了解决这个问题，我们对北欧和南欧以及美洲的膳食指南的主要环境指标（碳足迹 (CF) 和水足迹 (WF)）以及营养质量（根据营养丰富饮食指数 NRD9.3 和健康收益评分）进行了建模和比较。特别是，比较了荷兰膳食指南 (DDG)、新北欧饮食 (NND)、西班牙营养、体育活动和肥胖预防战略 (NAOS)、地中海饮食 (MD)、意大利膳食指南 (IDG) 和美国膳食指南 (DGA)。从气候变化的角度来看，IDG 和 MD 提供了最佳的饮食指南（2.04 和 2.21 kgCOeq·day）。总体而言，DGA 的 CF 最高（2.98 kgCOeq·day）。WF 呈现出更大的波动，不仅由于每日推荐量，还由于参考国家不同的气候条件和生产系统。因此，WF 从 IDG 的 1760 L·person·day 到 NAOS 的 3181 L·person·day 不等。最后，MD 的营养价值最高，NRD9.3 为 477，健康收益评分 178，与 DDG 相比，MD 具有最高的健康收益评分（97）和 DGA，DGA 的 NRD9.3 最差（391）。为了超越那些在可持续性的所有维度上都下注的 FBDG，需要进行多准则分析。营养和环境绩效不是问题的唯一方面；应该考虑经济和社会文化变量。
