Environmental and Climate Impact Perceptions in University Students: Sustainability Motivations and Perceptions Correspond With Lower Red Meat Intake

A cross-sectional study of the association between food literacy and dietary intake among Danish adolescents

Food literacy is theorized to be associated with healthy dietary intake. However, empirical knowledge on the association between adolescents' food literacy and dietary intake is limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between food literacy and dietary intake among Danish schoolchildren aged 11-13 years. The study applied a cross-sectional design using baseline data from a cluster-based quasi-experimental controlled study in a sample (n = 377) of Danish school children. Mixed model analyses were performed to investigate the associations between overall food literacy as well as its five competencies ("to know", "to do", "to sense", "to care", and "to want") and dietary intake of vegetables, fruit, fish, meat, discretionary foods, and sugar-sweetened beverages. Positive associations were found between overall food literacy (E = 1.493, p = 0.002) as well as the competencies "to know" (E = 1.249, p = 0.027), "to do" (E = 1.236, p = 0.028), "to sense" (E = 1.183, p = 0.029), and "to care" (E = 1.249, p = 0.018) and intake of vegetables. The study also found a positive association between the competency "to want" and intake of fruit (E = 13.50, p = 0.037), "to care" and intake of fish (E = 2.050, p < 0.001), and a negative association between the competency "to want" and intake of meat (E = 0.748, p = 0.003) and sugar-sweetened beverages (E = 0.576, p = 0.0021). No associations were found between overall food literacy or any of its five competencies and intake of discretionary foods. These findings suggest that improving specific aspects of food literacy may have a potential to promote healthier dietary intake, though additional research is needed.

Environmental-, Climate-, and Health-Related Dietary Motivations Are Associated With Higher Diet Quality in a National Sample of US Adults With Lower Incomes

BACKGROUND

Plant-based diets can have co-benefits for human and planetary health. Associations between environmental, climate, and health concerns and dietary intake in US adults are understudied, particularly in underserved populations.

OBJECTIVE

The study objectives were to assess how dietary choices motivated by the environment, climate, and health vary by sociodemographic characteristics and how they relate to diet quality and intake frequency of different food groups in US adults with lower incomes.

DESIGN

The study design was cross-sectional.

PARTICIPANTS/SETTING

A web-based survey was fielded in December 2022 to 1,798 US adults with lower incomes (<250% of federal poverty guidelines).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Environmental-, climate-, and health-related dietary motivations and diet quality and dietary food group intake frequency were assessed.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Differences in mean dietary outcomes and dietary motivation ratings by sociodemographic characteristics were evaluated using analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Associations between dietary motivations and diet quality scores and dietary intake frequency were examined using generalized linear models adjusted for sociodemographic covariates.

RESULTS

Younger adults, women, nonbinary people, racial and ethnic minoritized groups, and adults experiencing food insecurity reported higher environmental and climate dietary motivations; older adults, higher-income adults, and food-secure adults reported higher health motivations. Agreeing with environmental- (β = 2.28, 95% CI 1.09 to 3.47), climate- (β = 2.15, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.40), and health-related (β = 5.27, 95% CI 3.98 to 6.56) dietary motivations was associated with higher diet quality scores compared with those with neutral rankings. Similarly, agreement with environmental-, climate-, and health-related dietary motivations was associated with higher intake frequency of fish, fruits and vegetables, and plant proteins, but not with red and processed meat intake frequency. Of several climate-mitigation behaviors presented, participants perceived meat reduction as least effective (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Environment, climate, and health were positive motivators of several healthy dietary choices in US adults with lower incomes. Such motivators did not translate to lower intake frequency of red and processed meat.

Canadian farmers' perceptions of social sustainability in agriculture

Sustainable food production is an important part of dietetic education and training; however, the focus in the dietetic sphere is often on the environmental aspect. Understanding the multi-dimensional nature of sustainability can enhance dietetic students' sustainability competences-such as empathy and change of perspective, systems thinking, and critical thinking and analysis-to help them in their future careers and strengthen their position in society as trusted and knowledgeable food and nutrition professionals. Enhancing public understanding of sustainable food production is imperative as populations become more urban, are less connected to agriculture, and have expectations for sustainably grown/raised food, often without knowing current food production practices or the multiple aspects of sustainability that must be in place for farmers to meet those demands. The goal of this research was to understand Canadian farmers' perceptions of environmental, economic, and social aspects of sustainable food production. Employing a descriptive qualitative approach and constant comparative analysis, four food and nutrition researchers analyzed interviews from 52 farmers from across Canada. Participants had to be English-speaking, produce food through farming on land, and own or rent the land on which they farm. Telephone/video interviews revealed five overarching social themes: (1) the importance of community and social capital, (2) public perception and social license to operate, (3) lack of infrastructure, and (4) deep connections to personal lives. The final theme, mental health issues (5), reflected the consequences of the multiple sources of stress that can undermine the social sustainability of farmers, farm communities, and food production. These findings may help various audiences appreciate the multiple dimensions of sustainable food production; reflect on their values, perceptions, and actions with regard to agriculture; and enhance their compassion and empathy for all farmers.

Developing messages to encourage healthy, sustainable dietary substitutions: A qualitative study with US emerging adults

Prior research shows that adopting simple dietary substitutions (e.g., replacing beef with poultry or plant-based entrees) can improve dietary quality and reduce the negative environmental consequences of food production, but little is known about how to encourage people to adopt these substitutions. This study aimed to examine reactions to messages encouraging healthy, sustainable dietary substitutions among emerging adults ages 18-25. We conducted four online focus groups with a diverse sample of US emerging adults (n = 28; 61% female). Focus groups explored emerging adults' reactions to messages encouraging them to adopt three target dietary substitutions: replacing beef and pork with poultry and plant-based entrees; replacing juice with whole fruit; and replacing dairy milk with non-dairy milk. We transcribed discussions verbatim and adopted a thematic approach to analyzing the transcripts. Results showed that participants perceived messages to be most effective at encouraging the target dietary substitutions when the messages: encouraged specific, achievable dietary changes; linked these dietary changes to clear consequences; included personally relevant content; included statistics; were succinct; and used a positive tone. Across the target dietary substitutions, two message topics (small changes, big benefits, which emphasized how small dietary changes can have large positive health and environmental impacts, and warning, which discussed the negative health and environmental impacts of dietary choices) were generally perceived to be most effective. A few participants expressed doubt that the target dietary substitutions would have meaningful environmental impacts. Results suggest that campaign messages to encourage healthy, sustainable dietary substitutions may be more effective if the messages make the target dietary substitutions seem achievable and use statistics to clearly describe the positive impacts of making these changes.

Mitigation of the U.S. agrifood sector's contribution to human and planetary health: a case study

The relationship of the United States (U.S.) agrifood sector to climate change is bidirectional; cattle production for beef consumption generates methane and nitrous oxide, both of which are potent greenhouse gases (GHGs). These gases contribute to global warming which in turn increase the frequency and strength of adverse catastrophic events, which compromise the food supply. Increased GHGs also affect crop yields and the micronutrient content of crops, which adversely affect the prevalence of food and nutrition insecurity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Because the U.S. is a major contributor to global warming, we have a special responsibility to reduce our contribution to the generation of GHGs. The dilemma is that beef is a highly nutritious and desirable food, with excess consumption in the U.S. and under consumption in other parts of the world, but a desirable source of nutrients in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Reductions in fossil fuels have been a major focus of concern, and the agrifood system has been largely ignored. Policy changes to reduce beef consumption have been resisted at the highest levels of government. Furthermore, shifts to more plant-based diets have been contentious. Successful reductions in beef consumption will require individual, institutional, municipal, and state initiatives. Building the political will for change will require a compelling communication campaign that emphasizes the unsustainable contribution of beef consumption to climate change and land and water use.

Health-Promoting and Sustainable Behavior in University Students in Germany: A Cross-Sectional Study

Health-promoting and sustainable behaviors, such as active transportation and sustainable diets, are associated with positive effects on human health and the environment. In order to unlock the potential of university students as key actors and multipliers, it is of interest to investigate their level of knowledge about the health effects of climate change and their willingness toward and implementation of health-promoting and sustainable behaviors. In November 2021, an online survey was conducted among students at the University of Regensburg, Germany. A total of 3756 participants (response rate 18%; mean age 23 years; 69% women) provided valid data. A large proportion of medical students (48%) considered themselves well-informed about the health-related effects of climate change, while only a small proportion (22%) of students within economic/computer/data sciences and law felt informed. Most participants knew about the impact of climate change on malnutrition (78%), but considerably fewer were aware of its impact on cardiovascular diseases (52%). Participants who considered themselves informed were consistently more willing to engage in climate-friendly behavior, and this willingness was also reflected in their actions, as they simultaneously promoted a healthy lifestyle. Across all academic disciplines, there is a strong need for knowledge transfer regarding topics that combine health and sustainable development.

Effect of Climate Change Impact Menu Labels on Fast Food Ordering Choices Among US Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

There is increasing interest in strategies to encourage more environmentally sustainable food choices in US restaurants through the use of menu labels that indicate an item's potential impact on the world's climate. Data are lacking on the ideal design of such labels to effectively encourage sustainable choices.

OBJECTIVE

To test the effects of positive and negative climate impact menu labels on the environmental sustainability and healthfulness of food choices compared with a control label.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial used an online national US survey conducted March 30 to April 13, 2022, among a nationally representative sample of adults (aged ≥18 years) from the AmeriSpeak panel. Data were analyzed in June to October 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were shown a fast food menu and prompted to select 1 item they would like to order for dinner. Participants were randomized to view menus with 1 of 3 label conditions: a quick response code label on all items (control group); green low-climate impact label on chicken, fish, or vegetarian items (positive framing); or red high-climate impact label on red meat items (negative framing).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was an indicator of selecting a sustainable item (ie, one without red meat). Secondary outcomes included participant health perceptions of the selected item and the Nutrition Profile Index (NPI) score of healthfulness.

RESULTS

Among 5049 participants (2444 female [51.6%]; 789 aged 18-29 years [20.3%], 1532 aged 30-44 years [25.9%], 1089 aged 45-59 years [23.5%], and 1639 aged ≥60 years [30.4%]; 142 Asian [5.3%], 611 Black [12.1%], and 3197 White [63.3%]; 866 Hispanic [17.2%]), high- and low-climate impact labels were effective at encouraging sustainable selections from the menu. Compared with participants in the control group, 23.5% more participants (95% CI, 13.7%-34.0%; P < .001) selected a sustainable menu item when menus displayed high-climate impact labels and 9.9% more participants (95% CI, 1.0%-19.8%; P = .03) selected a sustainable menu item when menus displayed low-climate impact labels. Across experimental conditions, participants who selected a sustainable item rated their order as healthier than those who selected an unsustainable item, according to mean perceived healthfulness score (control label: 3.4 points; 95% CI, 3.2-3.5 points vs 2.5 points; 95% CI, 2.4-2.6 points; P < .001; low-impact label: 3.7 points; 95% CI, 3.5-3.8 points vs 2.6 points; 95% CI, 2.5-2.7 points; P < .001; high-impact label: 3.5 points; 95% CI, 3.3-3.6 points vs 2.7 points; 95% CI, 2.6-2.9 points; P < .001). Participants in the high-climate impact label group selected healthier items according to mean (SE) NPI score (54.3 [0.2] points) compared with those in the low-climate impact (53.2 [0.2] points; P < .001) and control (52.9 [0.3] points; P < .001) label groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This randomized clinical trial's findings suggest that climate impact menu labels, especially negatively framed labels highlighting high-climate impact items (ie, red meat), were an effective strategy to reduce red meat selections and encourage more sustainable choices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05482204.