Dietary environmental footprints and their association with socioeconomic factors and food purchase practices: brazuca natal study

• Autor(a) principal: Lyra, Clélia de Oliveira
• Data de Publicação: 2022
• Outros Autores: Hatjiathanassiadou, Maria, Souza, Camila Valdejane Silva de, Vale, Diôgo, Dantas, Natalie Marinho, Batista, Yasmim Bezerra, Marchioni, Dirce Maria Lobo, Lima, Severina Carla Vieira Cunha, Rolim, Priscilla Moura, Seabra, Larissa Mont’alverne Jucá
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFRN
• Texto Completo: https://repositorio.ufrn.br/handle/123456789/57908; http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods11233842
• topic: Sustainable diet; Food consumption; Environmental impact; Water footprint; Carbon footprint; Ecological footprint

The analysis of dietary environmental impacts has proven to be an important tool for guiding the adoption of healthier and more sustainable diets. This study aimed to estimate the dietary carbon (CF), water (WF), and ecological (EF) footprints of residents in the city of Natal, Brazil; the study also aimed to verify their association with socioeconomic factors and food purchase practices. This is a cross-sectional study that used dietary data from 411 adults and elderlies, which was collected via a questionnaire that applied to the respondents. The results showed that the dietary CF was 1901.88 g CO2 eq/day/1000 kcal, the WF was 1834.03 L/day/1000 kcal, and the EF was 14.29 m2/day/1000 kcal. The highest environmental footprint values showed an association (p ≤ 0.05) with the factors of male sex, white ethnicity, and higher income and schooling, whereas the lowest environmental footprint values were associated with social vulnerability variables such as female sex, non-white ethnicity, and lower income and schooling (p ≤ 0.05). Moreover, people with lower environmental footprints consumed less fast food, had fewer meals at snack bars, and used food delivery services less often than those with higher footprints. The foods that most contributed to the CFs and WFs were beef and chicken, while fish and beef contribute the most to the EFs. The data in the present study show that a diet with a lower environmental impact is not always equal to a sustainable diet. This relationship is paradoxical and relates to food justice, as people with lower environmental footprint values are the same ones with worse socioeconomic conditions. In this sense, is it essential to consider the influence of the social context when assessing dietary environmental impacts and when assessing actions that promote healthier and more sustainable diets