4.7 Article

Diet shift: Considering environment, health and food culture

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 719, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137484

关键词

Diet optimization; Environmental impact; Sustainable diet; Healthy diet; Food culture; Xinjiang

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [71961137002]
  2. ESRC [ES/T000252/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most studies have suggested that dietary choices have effects on both the environment and human health; however, they have ignored food culture, which is both an independent variable and a dependent variable of diet choice. The purpose of this study is to explore a diet optimization path that meets nutritional needs and has little impact on the environment, while respecting the local food culture to a large extent. We took China's Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region (hereinafter referred to as Xinjiang) as the case area because Xinjiang is a multiethnic region with a unique food culture characterized by a high proportion of mutton in meat. According to the study's calculation, the current diet in Xinjiang has a high carbon footprint (CF), water footprint (WF) and ecological footprint (EF) and does not present the nutritional structure of a balanced diet. Considering the tradeoffs among environmental carrying capacity, health and food culture is the challenge of changing the local food structure. With the method of multi-objective optimization, we propose optimal diets, which show potential for mitigating environmental impacts and improving the state of health. Most importantly, one of the optimized diets is most desirable because it considers the preservation of the existing food culture. This study demonstrates the feasibility of providing a route for diet transformation that has double benefits regarding the environment and health, or even triple benefits regarding the environment, health and cultural acceptability. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据