Cited by 140Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactNutritional Studies and DietEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability

Maximizing the intersection of human health and the health of the environment with regard to the amount and type of protein produced and consumed in the United States.

Open access
Gardner, Christopher D, Hartle, Jennifer C, Garrett, Rachael D, Offringa, Lisa C, Wasserman, Arlin S·2019·Nutrition Reviews

Abstract

This review utilizes current national dietary guidelines and published databases to evaluate the impacts of reasonable shifts in the amount and type of protein intake in the United States on the intersection of human and environmental health. The established scientific basis and recommendations for protein intake as described in the US Dietary Reference Intakes are reviewed. Data on food availability from both the US Department of Agriculture and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and data on consumption from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey are used to examine estimates of current US protein consumption. Greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide equivalents, CO2eq) and blue and green water impacts of US protein consumption resulting from US agricultural practices were obtained from previously published meta-analyses. A 25% decrease in protein intake paired with a 25% shift from animal food to plant food protein intake-from an 85:15 ratio to a 60:40 ratio-would best align protein intake with national dietary recommendations while simultaneously resulting in 40% fewer CO2eq emissions and 10% less consumptive water use. The modeling of this strategy suggests a savings of 129 billion kilograms of CO2eq and 3.1 trillion gallons of water relative to current consumption.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/nutrit/nuy073

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [3]Jacobson MF, staff of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Better soil. In: Jacobson MF, staff of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, eds. Six Arguments for a Greener Diet: How a More Plant-Based Diet Could Save Your Health and the Environment Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest; 2006: 73– 85.
  2. [7]Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of Food and Agriculture. Livestock in the Balance. Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations; 2009:180.
  3. [9]Goodland R, Anhang J. Livestock and climate change. World Watch Magazine. 2009; 22: 10– 19.
  4. [53]Brown L, Hindmarsh R, McGregor R. Dynamic Agriculture: Book 3 (Blackline Masters). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education; 2001.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gardner, C. D., Hartle, J. C., Garrett, R. D., Offringa, L. C., & Wasserman, A. S.
Affiliations
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • San Jose State University (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Massachusetts Historical Society (US)
Corresponding author
Gardner, Christopher D
Venue
Nutrition Reviews
Published
2019-02-06
Volume
77
Issue
4
Pages
197-215
ISSN
  • 0029-6643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1753-4887
OpenAlex
W2919339323
Cited by
140
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 5
FWCI
0.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nutrition Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • NIH
  • NHLBI
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
  • Postdoctoral Fellowship (T32 HL007034-41, K12 GM088033)
  • IRACDA
  • Institutional Research and Academic Career Development
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Keywords
protein intake, plant proteins, animal protein, greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, blue water, green water, environmental health, dietary guidelines, Dietary Reference Intakes, dietary intake, food availability, American diet
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Animals, Dietary Proteins, Environment, Female, Food Supply, Humans, Meat, Nutrition Surveys, United States, Nutrition Policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review