OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify diets with improved nutrient quality and environmental impact within the boundaries of dietary practices. DESIGN: We used Data Envelopment Analysis to benchmark diets for improved adherence to food-based dietary guidelines (FBDG). We then optimised these diets for dietary preferences, nutrient quality and environmental impact. Diets were evaluated using the Nutrient Rich Diet score (NRD15.3), diet-related greenhouse gas emission (GHGE) and a diet similarity index that quantified the proportion of food intake that remained similar as compared with the observed diet. SETTING: National dietary surveys of four European countries (Denmark, Czech Republic, Italy and France). SUBJECTS: Approximately 6500 adults, aged 18-64 years. RESULTS: When dietary preferences were prioritised, NRD15·3 was ~6 % higher, GHGE was ~4 % lower and ~85 % of food intake remained similar. This diet had higher amounts of fruit, vegetables and whole grains than the observed diet. When nutrient quality was prioritised, NRD15·3 was ~16 % higher, GHGE was ~3 % lower and ~72 % of food intake remained similar. This diet had higher amounts of legumes and fish and lower amounts of sweetened and alcoholic beverages. Finally, when environmental impact was prioritised, NRD15·3 was ~9 % higher, GHGE was ~21 % lower and ~73 % of food intake remained similar. In this diet, red and processed meat partly shifted to either eggs, poultry, fish or dairy. CONCLUSIONS: Benchmark modelling can generate diets with improved adherence to FBDG within the boundaries of dietary practices, but fully maximising health and minimising GHGE cannot be achieved simultaneously.

Center for Health Nutrition and Food National Institute of Public Health Brno Czech Republic

Council for Agricultural Research and Economics Research Centre for Food and Nutrition Rome Italy

Division of Human Nutrition and Health Wageningen University P O Box 17 6700 AAWageningen the Netherlands

Division of Risk Assessment and Nutrition National Food Institute Technical University of Denmark Søborg Denmark

Operations Research and Logistics Group Wageningen University Wageningen the Netherlands

Risk Assessment Department French Agency for Food Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety Maisons Alfort Cedex France

TiFN Wageningen University Wageningen the Netherlands

See more in PubMed

Forouzanfar MH, Alexander L, Anderson HR et al. (2015) Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet 386, 2287–2323. PubMed PMC

Vermeulen SJ, Campbell BM & Ingram JSI (2012) Climate change and food systems. Ann Rev Environ Res 37, 195.

Tubiello F, Salvatore M, Cóndor Golec R et al. (2014) Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Emissions by Sources and Removals by Sinks. Rome: Statistics Division, Food and Agriculture Organization.

Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T et al. (2007) Livestock’s Long Shadow. Rome: Environmental issues and options FAO.

Buttriss JL, Briend A, Darmon N et al. (2014) Diet modelling: how it can inform the development of dietary recommendations and public health policy. Nutr Bull 39, 115–125.

Gazan R, Brouzes CMC, Vieux F et al. (2018) Mathematical optimization to explore tomorrow’s sustainable diets: a narrative review. Adv Nutr 9, 602–616. PubMed PMC

Ferrari M, Benvenuti L, Rossi L et al. (2020) Could dietary goals and climate change mitigation be achieved through optimized diet? The experience of modeling the national food consumption data in Italy. Front Nutr 7, 48. PubMed PMC

Dantzig GB (1990) The diet problem. INFORMS J Appl Anal 20, 43–47.

van Dooren C (2018) A review of the use of linear programming to optimize diets, nutritiously, economically and environmentally. Front Nutr 5, 48. PubMed PMC

Mertens E, van’t Veer P, Hiddink GJ et al. (2017) Operationalising the health aspects of sustainable diets: a review. Pub Health Nutr 20, 739–757. PubMed PMC

Smith VE (1959) Linear programming models for the determination of palatable human diets. Am J Agr Econ 41, 272–283.

Kanellopoulos A, Gerdessen JC, Ivancic A et al. (2020) Designing healthier and acceptable diets using data envelopment analysis. Publ Health Nutr 23(13), 1–13. PubMed PMC

Pedersen A, Fagt S, Groth M et al. (2009) Danskernes kostvaner 2003–2008 (The Danish Food Consumption Survey). Søborg, Denmark: DTU Fødevareinstituttet (Food Institute).

Ruprich J, Dofkova M, Rehurkova I et al. (2006) Individual food consumption: the national study SISP04 CHFCH National Institute of Public Health in Prague: CHFCH NIPH in Prague. http://www.chpr.szu.cz/spotrebapotravin.htm (accessed September 2017).

Leclercq C, Arcella D, Piccinelli R et al. (2009) The Italian national food consumption survey INRAN-SCAI 2005–06: main results in terms of food consumption. Publ Health Nutr 12, 2504–2532. PubMed

Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments (AFSSA) (French Food Safety Agency) (2009) Synthèse de l’étude individuelle nationale des consommations alimentaires 2 (INCA 2), 2006–2007 (Report of the 2006/2007 Individual and National Study on Food Consumption 2 (INCA 2)). pp. 1–44. Maisons-Alfort Cedex: Direction de l’évaluation des risques nutritionnels et sanitaires (Department of Nutritional and Health Risk Assessment).

Mertens E, Kuijsten A, Dofkova M et al. (2018) Geographic and socioeconomic diversity of food and nutrient intakes: a comparison of four European countries. Europ J Nutr 58(4), 1475–1493. PubMed PMC

EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) (2015) The food classification and description system FoodEx2 (revision 2). Parma, Italy: EFSA supporting publication En-804:90.

EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) (2011) Use of the EFSA comprehensive European food consumption database in exposure assessment. EFSA J 9, 2097.

Fødevareinformatik (Food Informatics) (2005) Fødevaredatabanken (Food Composition Database), Version 6.0. http://frida.fooddata.dk (accessed September 2017).

Fødevareinformatik (Food Informatics) (2008). Fødevaredatabanken (Food Composition Database), Version 7. http://www.foodcomp.dk/ (accessed September 2017).

Institute of Agricultural Economics and Information (2016). Czech Food Composition Database Version 6.16 http://www.nutridatabaze.cz/ (accessed September 2017).

Slovak Food Composition Data Bank, Department of Risk Assessment Food Composition Data Bank and Consumer’s Survey VUP Food Research Institute (2016). http://www.pbd-online.sk/ (accessed September 2017).

Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca per gli Alimenti e la Nutrizione (National Research Institute for Food and Nutrition), Banca Dati di Composizione degli Alimenti (Food Composition database) (2016). http://nut.entecra.it/646/tabelle_di_composizione_degli_alimenti.html (accessed September 2017).

Institut national de la recherche agronomique (National Institute of Agronomic Research) (1995) Répertoire général des aliments (General Inventory of Foods). Technique & Documentation – Lavoisier. Paris, France: Lavoisier.

French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA) (2008). French Food Composition Table, Version http://www.afssa.fr/TableCIQUAL/index.html (accessed September 2017).

Mertens E, Kuijsten A, van Zanten HHE et al. (2019) Dietary choices and environmental impact in four European countries. J Clean Prod 237, 117827.

Mertens E, Kaptijn G, Kuijsten A et al. (2019) SHARP-indicators database towards a public database for environmental sustainability. Data Brief 27, 104617. PubMed PMC

Willett WC, Howe GR & Kushi LH (1997) Adjustment for total energy intake in epidemiologic studies. Am J Clin Nutr 65, 1220S–1228S. PubMed

Goldberg G, Black A, Jebb S et al. (1991) Critical evaluation of energy intake data using fundamental principles of energy physiology: 1. derivation of cut-off limits to identify under-recording. Europ J Clin Nutr 45, 569–581. PubMed

Black AE (2000) Critical evaluation of energy intake using the Goldberg cut-off for energy intake: basal metabolic rate. A practical guide to its calculation, use and limitations. Int J Obes Relat Metab Dis 24, 1119–1130. PubMed

Cooper WW, Seiford LM & Kaoru T (2007) Data Envelopment Analysis. New York: Springer.

Zhu J & Cook WD (2007) Modeling Data Irregularities and Structural Complexities in Data Envelopment Analysis. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

Fulgoni VL 3rd, Keast DR & Drewnowski A (2009) Development and validation of the nutrient-rich foods index: a tool to measure nutritional quality of foods. J Nutr 139, 1549–1554. PubMed

Drewnowski A (2009) Defining nutrient density: development and validation of the nutrient rich foods index. J Am Coll Nutr 28, 421S–426S. PubMed

van Langeveld AWB, Teo PS, de Vries JHM et al. (2018) Dietary taste patterns by sex and weight status in the Netherlands. Brit J Nutr 119, 1195–1206. PubMed

van Bussel LM, Kuijsten A, Mars M et al. (2019) Taste profiles of diets high and low in environmental sustainability and health. Food Qual Prefer 78, 103730.

Wilson N, Nghiem N, Mhurchu C et al. (2013) Foods and dietary patterns that are healthy, low-cost, and environmentally sustainable: a case study of optimization modeling for New Zealand. PLoS One 121, 2271–2283. PubMed PMC

de Bakker E & Dagevos H (2012) Reducing meat consumption in today’s consumer society: questioning the Citizen-consumer gap. J Agr Environ Eth 25, 877–894.

de Boer J, Schösler H & Aiking H (2014) “Meatless days” or “less but better”? Exploring strategies to adapt Western meat consumption to health and sustainability challenges. Appetite 76, 120–128. PubMed

Verain MC, Dagevos H & Antonides G (2015) Sustainable food consumption: product choice or curtailment? Appetite 91, 375–384. PubMed

Notarnicola B, Sala S, Anton A et al. (2017) The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustainable agri-food systems: a review of the challenges. J Clean Prod 140, 399–409.

Willett W (2012) Nutritional Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press.

EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) (2015) Statement on the benefits of fish/seafood consumption compared to the risks of methylmercury in fish/seafood. EFSA J 13, 3982.

Maillot M, Vieux F, Amiot MJ et al. (2010) Individual diet modeling translates nutrient recommendations into realistic and individual-specific food choices. Am J Clin Nutr 91, 421–430. PubMed

Tyszler M, Kramer G & Blonk H (editors) (2014) Just eating healthier is not Enoug: studying the environmental impact of different diet scenarios for the Netherlands by linear programming. 9th International Conference LCA of Foods, San Francisco, USA.

Green R, Milner J, Dangour AD et al. (2015) The potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the UK through healthy and realistic dietary change. Clim Change 129, 253–265.

Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B et al. (2019) Food in the anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet 393, 447–492. PubMed

American Dietetic Association (2009) Position of the American dietetic association: vegetarian diets. J Am Diet Assoc 109, 1266–1282. PubMed

Gibson RS, Bailey KB, Gibbs M et al. (2010) A review of phytate, iron, zinc, and calcium concentrations in plant-based complementary foods used in low-income countries and implications for bioavailability. Food Nutr Bull 31, S134–S146. PubMed

Macdiarmid JI, Kyle J, Horgan GW et al. (2012) Sustainable diets for the future: can we contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by eating a healthy diet? Am J Clin Nutr 96, 632–639. PubMed

Horgan GW, Perrin A, Whybrow S et al. (2016) Achieving dietary recommendations and reducing greenhouse gas emissions: modelling diets to minimise the change from current intakes. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activ 13, 46. PubMed PMC

Vieux F, Perignon M, Gazan R et al. (2018) Dietary changes needed to improve diet sustainability: are they similar across Europe? Europ J Clin Nutr 72, 951–960. PubMed PMC

Perignon M, Masset G, Ferrari G et al. (2016) How low can dietary greenhouse gas emissions be reduced without impairing nutritional adequacy, affordability and acceptability of the diet? A modelling study to guide sustainable food choices. Public Health Nutr 19, 2662–2674. PubMed PMC

Kramer GF, Tyszler M, Veer PV et al. (2017) Decreasing the overall environmental impact of the Dutch diet: how to find healthy and sustainable diets with limited changes. Public Health Nutr 20, 1699–1709. PubMed PMC

Bryngelsson D, Wirsenius S, Hedenus F et al. (2016) How can the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of technological and demand-side changes in food and agriculture. Food Policy 59, 152–164.

Eurostat (2018) Eurostat – Milk and milk product statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics- explained/index.php/Milk_and_milk_product_statistics#Milk_products (accessed September 2017).

Flysjö A, Cederberg C, Henriksson M et al. (2011) How does co-product handling affect the carbon footprint of milk? Case study of milk production in New Zealand and Sweden. Int J Life Cycle Ass 16, 420–430.

IDF (2010) The IDF guide to standard LCA methodology for the dairy sector. Bull Int Dairy Fed 445, 1–40.

Van Zanten HHE, Van Ittersum MK & De Boer IJM (2019) The role of farm animals in a circular food system. Global Food Secur 21, 18–22.

Rutten M, Achterbosch TJ, de Boer IJ et al. (2016) Metrics, models and foresight for European sustainable food and nutrition security: the vision of the SUSFANS project. Agric Syst 163, 45–57.

Forouzanfar MH, Alexander L, Anderson HR et al. (2015) Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. The Lancet 386, 2287–323. PubMed PMC

Kromhout D, Spaaij CJ, de Goede J et al. (2016) The 2015 Dutch food-based dietary guidelines. Eur J Clin Nutr 70, 869–878. PubMed PMC

EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) (2017) Dietary reference values for nutrients: summary report. EFSA Support Publ e15121, 92.

EFSA (Eurepean Food Safety Authority) (2015) Statement on the benefits of fish/seafood consumption compared to the risks of methylmercury in fish/seafood. EFSA J 13, 3982.