Evaluation of foods, drinks and diets in the Netherlands according to the degree of processing for nutritional quality, environmental impact and food costs.
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 05 2022
03 05 2022
Historique:
received:
23
09
2021
accepted:
18
04
2022
entrez:
3
5
2022
pubmed:
4
5
2022
medline:
6
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study investigates nutritional quality, environmental impact and costs of foods and drinks and their consumption in daily diets according to the degree of processing across the Dutch population. The NOVA classification was used to classify the degree of processing (ultra-processed foods (UPF) and ultra-processed drinks (UPD)). Food consumption data were derived from the Dutch National Food Consumption Survey 2012-2016. Indicators assessed were nutritional quality (saturated fatty acids (SFA), sodium, mono and disaccharides (sugar), fibre and protein), environmental impact (greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and blue water use) and food costs. The Netherlands. Four thousand three hundred thirteen Dutch participants aged 1 to 79 years. Per 100 g, UPF were more energy-dense and less healthy than unprocessed or minimally processed foods (MPF); UPF were associated with higher GHG emissions and lower blue water use, and were cheaper. The energy and sugar content of UPD were similar to those of unprocessed or minimally processed drinks (MPD); associated with similar GHG emissions but blue water use was less, and they were also more expensive. In the average Dutch diet, per 2000 kcal, ultra-processed foods and drinks (UPFD) covered 29% (456 g UPF and 437 g UPD) of daily consumption and 61% of energy intake. UPFD consumption was higher among children than adults, especially for UPD. UPFD consumption determined 45% of GHG emissions, 23% of blue water use and 39% of expenses for daily food consumption. UPFD consumption contributed 54% to 72% to daily sodium, sugar and SFA intake. Compared with unprocessed or minimally processed foods and drinks, UPF and UPD were found to be less healthy considering their high energy, SFA, sugar and sodium content. However, UPF were associated higher GHG emissions and with less blue water use and food costs. Therefore daily blue water use and food costs might increase if UPF are replaced by those unprocessed or minimally processed. As nutritional quality, environmental impacts and food costs relate differently to the NOVA classification, the classification is not directly applicable to identify win-win-wins of nutritional quality, environmental impact and costs of diets.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35501799
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13282-x
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-13282-x
pmc: PMC9063197
doi:
Substances chimiques
Greenhouse Gases
0
Sugars
0
Water
059QF0KO0R
Sodium
9NEZ333N27
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
877Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Appetite. 2021 Feb 1;157:105007
pubmed: 33075442
Br J Nutr. 2021 Feb 14;125(3):308-318
pubmed: 32792031
Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49:38
pubmed: 26176747
Nutr J. 2020 Aug 20;19(1):86
pubmed: 32819372
Public Health Nutr. 2016 Feb;19(3):530-8
pubmed: 26222226
Popul Health Metr. 2017 Feb 14;15(1):6
pubmed: 28193285
Lancet Planet Health. 2020 Oct;4(10):e437-e438
pubmed: 33038314
Nutrients. 2018 May 09;10(5):
pubmed: 29747447
BMC Public Health. 2018 Feb 20;18(1):264
pubmed: 29458352
Nutrients. 2020 Sep 11;12(9):
pubmed: 32933051
Nutrients. 2021 Feb 20;13(2):
pubmed: 33672720
Public Health Nutr. 2015 Sep;18(13):2311-22
pubmed: 26205679
Obes Rev. 2020 Dec;21(12):e13126
pubmed: 32761763
Cell Metab. 2019 Jul 2;30(1):67-77.e3
pubmed: 31105044
BMJ. 2019 May 29;365:l2289
pubmed: 31142449
BMJ Open. 2018 Mar 9;8(3):e020574
pubmed: 29525772
Nutr Rev. 2018 Dec 1;76(12):861-874
pubmed: 30202944
Public Health Nutr. 2018 Jan;21(1):125-133
pubmed: 28625223
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2000 Dec;54(12):900-17
pubmed: 11114689
Curr Obes Rep. 2014 Jun;3(2):256-72
pubmed: 26626606
Am J Epidemiol. 2003 Jul 1;158(1):14-21; discussion 22-6
pubmed: 12835281
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2018 Mar 4;58(4):639-650
pubmed: 27439065
Nutr Rev. 1997 Feb;55(2):31-43
pubmed: 9155216
Front Nutr. 2019 May 28;6:70
pubmed: 31231655
Curr Dev Nutr. 2018 Sep 14;3(2):nzy077
pubmed: 30820487
Appetite. 2017 Jan 1;108:512-520
pubmed: 27825941
Nutr J. 2019 Mar 28;18(1):21
pubmed: 30922320
PLoS One. 2014 Oct 08;9(10):e109343
pubmed: 25296332
Appetite. 2016 Oct 1;105:611-7
pubmed: 27349706
Public Health Nutr. 2018 Jan;21(1):87-93
pubmed: 28937354
Eur J Nutr. 2019 Dec;58(8):3267-3278
pubmed: 30511164
Lancet. 2011 Aug 27;378(9793):804-14
pubmed: 21872749