Development of a Sustainable Diet Index in US Adults

Overview

Journal Nutr J

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Nutritional Sciences

Date 2024 Apr 24

PMID 38658958

Authors

Sukyoung Jung

Heather A Young

Barbara H Braffett

Samuel J Simmens

Cynthia L Ogden

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: A transformation towards healthy diets through a sustainable food system is essential to enhance both human and planet health. Development of a valid, multidimensional, quantitative index of a sustainable diet would allow monitoring progress in the US population. We evaluated the content and construct validity of a sustainable diet index for US adults (SDI-US) based on data collected at the individual level.

Methods: The SDI-US, adapted from the SDI validated in the French population, was developed using data on US adults aged 20 years and older from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2007-2018 (n = 25,543). The index consisted of 4 sub-indices, made up of 12 indicators, corresponding to 4 dimensions of sustainable diets (nutritional quality, environmental impacts, affordability (economic), and ready-made product use behaviors (sociocultural)). A higher SDI-US score indicates greater alignment with sustainable diets (range: 4-20). Validation analyses were performed, including the assessment of the relevance of each indicator, correlations between individual indicators, sub-indices, and total SDI-US, differences in scores between sociodemographic subgroups, and associations with selected food groups in dietary guidelines, the alternative Mediterranean diet (aMed) score, and the EAT-Lancet diet score.

Results: Total SDI-US mean was 13.1 (standard error 0.04). The correlation between SDI-US and sub-indices ranged from 0.39 for the environmental sub-index to 0.61 for the economic sub-index (Pearson Correlation coefficient). The correlation between a modified SDI-US after removing each sub-index and the SDI-US ranged from 0.83 to 0.93. aMed scores and EAT-Lancet diet scores were significantly higher among adults in the highest SDI-US quintile compared to the lowest quintile (aMed: 4.6 vs. 3.2; EAT-Lancet diet score: 9.9 vs. 8.7 p < .0001 for both).

Conclusions: Overall, content and construct validity of the SDI-US were acceptable. The SDI-US reflected the key features of sustainable diets by integrating four sub-indices, comparable to the SDI-France. The SDI-US can be used to assess alignment with sustainable diets in the US. Continued monitoring of US adults' diets using the SDI-US could help improve dietary sustainability.

References

Archer E, Hand G, Blair S . Validity of U.S. nutritional surveillance:National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey caloric energy intake data, 1971-2010. PLoS One. 2013; 8(10):e76632. PMC: 3793920. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076632. View

Reedy J, Lerman J, Krebs-Smith S, Kirkpatrick S, Pannucci T, Wilson M . Evaluation of the Healthy Eating Index-2015. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2018; 118(9):1622-1633. PMC: 6718954. DOI: 10.1016/j.jand.2018.05.019. View

Eme P, Douwes J, Kim N, Foliaki S, Burlingame B . Review of Methodologies for Assessing Sustainable Diets and Potential for Development of Harmonised Indicators. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16(7). PMC: 6479933. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16071184. View

Fresan U, Martinez-Gonzalez M, Segovia-Siapco G, Sabate J, Bes-Rastrollo M . A three-dimensional dietary index (nutritional quality, environment and price) and reduced mortality: The "Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra" cohort. Prev Med. 2020; 137:106124. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106124. View

Knuppel A, Papier K, Key T, Travis R . EAT-Lancet score and major health outcomes: the EPIC-Oxford study. Lancet. 2019; 394(10194):213-214. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31236-X. View

Springmann M, Clark M, Mason-DCroz D, Wiebe K, Bodirsky B, Lassaletta L . Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature. 2018; 562(7728):519-525. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0594-0. View

Blackstone N, Conrad Z . Comparing the Recommended Eating Patterns of the EAT-Lancet Commission and Dietary Guidelines for Americans: Implications for Sustainable Nutrition. Curr Dev Nutr. 2020; 4(3):nzaa015. PMC: 7053404. DOI: 10.1093/cdn/nzaa015. View

Chen T, Clark J, Riddles M, Mohadjer L, Fakhouri T . National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2015-2018: Sample Design and Estimation Procedures. Vital Health Stat 2. 2021; (184):1-35. View

Jones A, Hoey L, Blesh J, Miller L, Green A, Shapiro L . A Systematic Review of the Measurement of Sustainable Diets. Adv Nutr. 2016; 7(4):641-64. PMC: 4942861. DOI: 10.3945/an.115.011015. View

10.

Freedman L, Schatzkin A, Midthune D, Kipnis V . Dealing with dietary measurement error in nutritional cohort studies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011; 103(14):1086-92. PMC: 3143422. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djr189. View

11.

Cacau L, De Carli E, Martins de Carvalho A, Lotufo P, Moreno L, Bensenor I . Development and Validation of an Index Based on EAT-Lancet Recommendations: The Planetary Health Diet Index. Nutrients. 2021; 13(5). PMC: 8156093. DOI: 10.3390/nu13051698. View

12.

Seconda L, Baudry J, Pointereau P, Lacour C, Langevin B, Hercberg S . Development and validation of an individual sustainable diet index in the NutriNet-Santé study cohort. Br J Nutr. 2019; 121(10):1166-1177. DOI: 10.1017/S0007114519000369. View

13.

Montejano Vallejo R, Schulz C, van de Locht K, Oluwagbemigun K, Alexy U, Nothlings U . Associations of Adherence to a Dietary Index Based on the EAT-Lancet Reference Diet with Nutritional, Anthropometric, and Ecological Sustainability Parameters: Results from the German DONALD Cohort Study. J Nutr. 2022; 152(7):1763-1772. PMC: 9258554. DOI: 10.1093/jn/nxac094. View

14.

Poore J, Nemecek T . Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science. 2018; 360(6392):987-992. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaq0216. View

15.

Poslusna K, Ruprich J, de Vries J, Jakubikova M, Vant Veer P . Misreporting of energy and micronutrient intake estimated by food records and 24 hour recalls, control and adjustment methods in practice. Br J Nutr. 2009; 101 Suppl 2:S73-85. DOI: 10.1017/S0007114509990602. View

16.

Park Y, Dodd K, Kipnis V, Thompson F, Potischman N, Schoeller D . Comparison of self-reported dietary intakes from the Automated Self-Administered 24-h recall, 4-d food records, and food-frequency questionnaires against recovery biomarkers. Am J Clin Nutr. 2018; 107(1):80-93. PMC: 5972568. DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/nqx002. View

17.

Seconda L, Egnell M, Julia C, Touvier M, Hercberg S, Pointereau P . Association between sustainable dietary patterns and body weight, overweight, and obesity risk in the NutriNet-Santé prospective cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2019; 112(1):138-149. DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/nqz259. View

18.

Ahluwalia N, Dwyer J, Terry A, Moshfegh A, Johnson C . Update on NHANES Dietary Data: Focus on Collection, Release, Analytical Considerations, and Uses to Inform Public Policy. Adv Nutr. 2016; 7(1):121-34. PMC: 4717880. DOI: 10.3945/an.115.009258. View

19.

Zipf G, Chiappa M, Porter K, Ostchega Y, Lewis B, Dostal J . National health and nutrition examination survey: plan and operations, 1999-2010. Vital Health Stat 1. 2014; (56):1-37. View

20.

Masson L, McNeill G, Tomany J, Simpson J, Peace H, Wei L . Statistical approaches for assessing the relative validity of a food-frequency questionnaire: use of correlation coefficients and the kappa statistic. Public Health Nutr. 2003; 6(3):313-21. DOI: 10.1079/PHN2002429. View