Sustainable healthy diet modeling for a plant-based dietary transitioning in the United States

Abstract

The potential environmental and nutritional benefits of plant-based dietary shifts require thorough investigation to outline suitable routes to achieve these benefits. Whereas dietary consumption is usually in composite forms, sustainable healthy diet assessments have not adequately addressed composite diets. In this study, we build on available data in the Food4HealthyLife calculator to develop 3 dietary concepts (M) containing 24 model composite diet scenarios (S) assessed for their environmental and nutritional performances. The Health Nutritional Index (HENI) and Food Compass scoring systems were used for nutritional quality profiling and estimates of environmental impact were derived from previously reported midpoint impact values for foods listed in the What We Eat in America database. The diets were ranked using the Kruskal‒Wallis nonparametric test, and a dual-scale data chart was employed for a trade-off analysis to identify the optimal composite diet scenario. The results showcased a distinct variation in ranks for each scenario on the environment and nutrition scales, describing an inherent nonlinear relationship between environmental and nutritional performances. However, trade-off analysis revealed a diet with 10% legumes, 0.11% red meat, 0.28% processed meat and 2.81% white meat could reduce global warming by 54.72% while yielding a diet quality of 74.13 on the Food Compass Scoring system. These observations provide an interesting forecast of the benefits of transitioning to an optimal plant- and animal-based dieting pattern, which advances global nutritional needs and environmental stewardship among consumers.

Fig. 1

Domain contribution (%) to Food Compass Scores of the various diet scenarios.

Fig. 2

Contribution (%) of dietary risk components to HENI scores of the various diet scenarios.

Fig. 3. Estimated environmental impacts of diet scenarios.

a Global warming short term, global warming long term, land occupation, total ecosystem quality damages. b Fossil energy use, freshwater ecotoxicity and ionizing radiation. c Mineral resource use, freshwater acidification, terrestrial acidification, and freshwater eutrophication. d Ozone layer depletion, fine particulate matter formation and human toxicity(cancer and non-cancer).

Fig. 4. Nutritional-environmental trade-off analysis.

a Scaled food compass score and global warming b Scaled food compass score and ionizing radiation c Global warming and HENI scores d Ionizing radiation and HENI scores.

Fig. 5. Nutritional-environmental trade-off analysis.

a Scaled food compass score and freshwater eutrophication b Scaled food compass score and human health damage c Freshwater eutrophication and HENI scores d Human health damage and HENI scores.

Fig. 6. Rank of diets under the HENI and FCS characterization schemes (1= highest quality rank; 24 = lowest quality rank).

See supplementary data 1 (Sheets SD1-S3, SD1-S4, SD1-S5) for details on composition of diet scenarios.

Fig. 7. Summary of Methodological Framework.

M = Model; S = Scenario.