The effects of health-related food taxes on the environmental impact of consumer food purchases: secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial in a virtual supermarket

OBJECTIVE

To measure the effects of health-related food taxes on the environmental impact of consumer food purchases in a virtual supermarket.

DESIGN

This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial in which participants were randomly assigned to a control condition with regular food prices (n 152), an experimental condition with a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax (n 131) or an experimental condition with a nutrient profiling tax based on Nutri-Score (n 112). Participants were instructed to undertake their typical weekly grocery shopping for their households. Primary outcome measures were three environmental impact indicators: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, land use and blue water use per household per week. Data were analysed using linear regression analyses.

SETTING

Three-dimensional virtual supermarket.

PARTICIPANTS

Dutch adults (≥ 18 years) who were responsible for grocery shopping in their household (n 395).

RESULTS

GHG emissions (-7·6 kg CO2-eq; 95 % CI -12·7, -2·5) and land use (-3·9 m2/year; 95 % CI -7·7, -0·2) were lower for the food purchases of participants in the nutrient profiling tax condition than for those in the control condition. Blue water use was not affected by the nutrient profiling tax. Moreover, the SSB tax had no significant effect on any of the environmental impact indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

A nutrient profiling tax based on Nutri-Score reduced the environmental impact of consumer food purchases. An SSB tax did not affect the environmental impact in this study.

Different levels of ultra-processed food and beverage consumption and associations with environmental sustainability and all-cause mortality in EPIC-NL

BACKGROUND

The adverse health effects of high ultra-processed food and drink consumption (UPFD) are well documented. However, its environmental impact remains unclear and the separate effects of ultra-processed foods (UPF) and drinks (UPD) on all-cause mortality are not previously studied.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the association between levels of UPFD, UPF and UPD consumption with diet-related environmental impacts and all-cause mortality in Dutch adults.

METHODS

Habitual diets were assessed by FFQ in 1993-1997 among 38,261 participants of the EPIC-NL cohort. The mean follow-up time was 18.2 years (SD 4.1), 4,697 deaths occurred. FFQ-items were categorized according to the NOVA classification. Associations with quartiles of UPFD, UPF, and UPD consumption and environmental impact indicators were analyzed using general linear models and with all-cause mortality by Cox proportional hazard models. The lowest UPFD, UPF, UPD consumption quartiles were used as comparator.

RESULTS

The average UPFD consumption was 181 (SD 88) g per 1000 kcal. High UPF consumption was statistically significantly inversely associated with all environmental impact indicators (_Q4vsQ1: -13.6% to -3.0%) whereas high UPD consumption was, except for land use, statistically significant positively associated with all environmental impact indicators (_Q4vsQ1: 5.9% to 1.2%). High UPFD consumption was heterogeneously associated with environmental impacts (_Q4vsQ1: 2.6% to -4.0% ). After multivariable adjustment, the highest quartiles of UPFD and UPD consumption were significantly associated with all-cause mortality (HR_Q4vsQ1 1.20, 95%CI 1.10,1.30 and HR_Q4vsQ1 1.19, 95%CI 1.09,1.29, respectively). UPF consumption of Q2 and Q3 were associated with a borderline significant lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR_Q2vsQ1 0.93, 95% CI 0.85,1.00; HR_Q3vsQ1 0.91, 95% CI 0.84,0.99), while Q4 was not statistically significant (HR_Q4vsQ1 1.05, 95% CI 0.96,1.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Reducing UPD consumption could lower environmental impact and all-cause mortality risk, however this was not shown for UPF. When categorizing foods consumption by their degree of processing trade-offs are observed for human and planetary health aspects.

Adherence to the EAT-Lancet Healthy Reference Diet in Relation to Risk of Cardiovascular Events and Environmental Impact: Results From the EPIC-NL Cohort

Background The Healthy Reference Diet (HRD) was created to formulate dietary guidelines that would be healthy and sustainable. We aimed to construct a diet score measuring adherence to the HRD and to explore its association with cardiovascular events and environmental impact. Methods and Results We included 35 496 participants from the population-based EPIC-NL (European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Netherlands) study. HRD scores were calculated using data from food frequency questionnaires (0-140). Data on morbidity and mortality were retrieved through linkage with national and death registries. Data on environmental impact indicators were obtained from life cycle assessments. Associations between adherence to the HRD and cardiovascular events were estimated with Cox proportional hazard models. Linear regression analysis was conducted for the adherence to the HRD and each environmental indicator. High adherence to the HRD was associated with 14%, 12%, and 11% lower risks of cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio [HR]_Q4vsQ1, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78-0.94]), coronary heart disease (HR_Q4vsQ1, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78-1.00]), and total stroke (HR_Q4vsQ1, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.72-1.10]), respectively. High HRD adherence was associated with 2.4% (95% CI, -5.0 to 0.2) lower greenhouse gas emissions, 3.9% (95% CI, -5.2 to -2.6) less land use, 0.5% (95% CI, -2.6 to 1.6), less freshwater eutrophication, 3.3% (95% CI, -5.8 to -0.8), less marine eutrophication, 7.7% (95% CI, -10.8 to -4.6), less terrestrial acidification, and 32.1 % (95% CI, 28.5-35.7) higher blue water use. Conclusions High adherence to the HRD was associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and modestly lower levels of most environmental indicators but a higher level of blue water use.

Evaluation of foods, drinks and diets in the Netherlands according to the degree of processing for nutritional quality, environmental impact and food costs

OBJECTIVE

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.

DESIGN

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.

SETTING

The Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Four thousand three hundred thirteen Dutch participants aged 1 to 79 years.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.