A rapid review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of environmental footprints of food commodities and diets

Patrik JG Henriksson; Stefano Cucurachi; Jeroen B. Guinée; Reinout Heijungs; Max Troell; Friederike Ziegler

doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100508

A rapid review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of environmental footprints of food commodities and diets

Patrik JG Henriksson^*, Stefano Cucurachi, Jeroen B. Guinée, Reinout Heijungs, Max Troell, Friederike Ziegler

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Systematic reviews, sometimes including meta-analyses, are often presented as an approach for identifying healthy and sustainable diets. Here we explore to which extent systematic review protocols have been adopted by studies comparing environmental impacts of foods based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) results, and to which extent they comply with the PRISMA protocol for transparent reporting. Out of 224 studies screened, seven explicitly define themselves as systematic reviews, and/or claim to carry out meta-analyses. Of these, only one acknowledges a review protocol, while none complies with all the PRISMA criteria. Neither do we believe that reviews of LCA results can comply with all the criteria or carry out meta-analyses, due to underreporting on standard deviations and artificial sample sizes in LCAs. Nonetheless, reviews of food commodities and diets based on LCA results would benefit from better aligning with criteria in systematic review protocols.

Original language	English
Article number	100508
Pages (from-to)	1-8
Number of pages	8
Journal	Global Food Security
Volume	28
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100508
Publication status	Published - Mar 2021

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This work was funded by FORMAS SeaWin project (2016–00227) and undertaken as part of the CGIAR Research Programs on Fish Agri-Food Systems (FISH) led by WorldFish and on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS). These programs are supported by contributors to the CGIAR Trust Fund. PH was also co-funded by FORMAS Inequality and the Biosphere project (2020–00454).

Funding Information:
This work was funded by FORMAS SeaWin project (2016?00227) and undertaken as part of the CGIAR Research Programs on Fish Agri-Food Systems (FISH) led by WorldFish and on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS). These programs are supported by contributors to the CGIAR Trust Fund. PH was also co-funded by FORMAS Inequality and the Biosphere project (2020?00454).

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021

Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

Funding

This work was funded by FORMAS SeaWin project (2016–00227) and undertaken as part of the CGIAR Research Programs on Fish Agri-Food Systems (FISH) led by WorldFish and on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS). These programs are supported by contributors to the CGIAR Trust Fund. PH was also co-funded by FORMAS Inequality and the Biosphere project (2020–00454). This work was funded by FORMAS SeaWin project (2016?00227) and undertaken as part of the CGIAR Research Programs on Fish Agri-Food Systems (FISH) led by WorldFish and on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS). These programs are supported by contributors to the CGIAR Trust Fund. PH was also co-funded by FORMAS Inequality and the Biosphere project (2020?00454).

Funders	Funder number
FORMAS Inequality and the Biosphere project	00454
Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas	2016–00227
Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas
Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers

Keywords

Diets
Footprint
Life cycle assessment
Meta-analysis
Systematic review

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100508

Persistent URL (handle)

Copy link address

Cite this

@article{757c7f720d0e42bea6e700fd0c3f2b2e,

title = "A rapid review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of environmental footprints of food commodities and diets",

abstract = "Systematic reviews, sometimes including meta-analyses, are often presented as an approach for identifying healthy and sustainable diets. Here we explore to which extent systematic review protocols have been adopted by studies comparing environmental impacts of foods based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) results, and to which extent they comply with the PRISMA protocol for transparent reporting. Out of 224 studies screened, seven explicitly define themselves as systematic reviews, and/or claim to carry out meta-analyses. Of these, only one acknowledges a review protocol, while none complies with all the PRISMA criteria. Neither do we believe that reviews of LCA results can comply with all the criteria or carry out meta-analyses, due to underreporting on standard deviations and artificial sample sizes in LCAs. Nonetheless, reviews of food commodities and diets based on LCA results would benefit from better aligning with criteria in systematic review protocols.",

keywords = "Diets, Footprint, Life cycle assessment, Meta-analysis, Systematic review",

author = "Henriksson, {Patrik JG} and Stefano Cucurachi and Guin{\'e}e, {Jeroen B.} and Reinout Heijungs and Max Troell and Friederike Ziegler",

note = "Funding Information: This work was funded by FORMAS SeaWin project (2016–00227) and undertaken as part of the CGIAR Research Programs on Fish Agri-Food Systems (FISH) led by WorldFish and on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS). These programs are supported by contributors to the CGIAR Trust Fund. PH was also co-funded by FORMAS Inequality and the Biosphere project (2020–00454). Funding Information: This work was funded by FORMAS SeaWin project (2016?00227) and undertaken as part of the CGIAR Research Programs on Fish Agri-Food Systems (FISH) led by WorldFish and on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS). These programs are supported by contributors to the CGIAR Trust Fund. PH was also co-funded by FORMAS Inequality and the Biosphere project (2020?00454). Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",

year = "2021",

month = mar,

doi = "10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100508",

language = "English",

volume = "28",

pages = "1--8",

journal = "Global Food Security",

issn = "2211-9124",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A rapid review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of environmental footprints of food commodities and diets

AU - Henriksson, Patrik JG

AU - Cucurachi, Stefano

AU - Guinée, Jeroen B.

AU - Heijungs, Reinout

AU - Troell, Max

AU - Ziegler, Friederike

N1 - Funding Information: This work was funded by FORMAS SeaWin project (2016–00227) and undertaken as part of the CGIAR Research Programs on Fish Agri-Food Systems (FISH) led by WorldFish and on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS). These programs are supported by contributors to the CGIAR Trust Fund. PH was also co-funded by FORMAS Inequality and the Biosphere project (2020–00454). Funding Information: This work was funded by FORMAS SeaWin project (2016?00227) and undertaken as part of the CGIAR Research Programs on Fish Agri-Food Systems (FISH) led by WorldFish and on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS). These programs are supported by contributors to the CGIAR Trust Fund. PH was also co-funded by FORMAS Inequality and the Biosphere project (2020?00454). Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

PY - 2021/3

Y1 - 2021/3

N2 - Systematic reviews, sometimes including meta-analyses, are often presented as an approach for identifying healthy and sustainable diets. Here we explore to which extent systematic review protocols have been adopted by studies comparing environmental impacts of foods based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) results, and to which extent they comply with the PRISMA protocol for transparent reporting. Out of 224 studies screened, seven explicitly define themselves as systematic reviews, and/or claim to carry out meta-analyses. Of these, only one acknowledges a review protocol, while none complies with all the PRISMA criteria. Neither do we believe that reviews of LCA results can comply with all the criteria or carry out meta-analyses, due to underreporting on standard deviations and artificial sample sizes in LCAs. Nonetheless, reviews of food commodities and diets based on LCA results would benefit from better aligning with criteria in systematic review protocols.

AB - Systematic reviews, sometimes including meta-analyses, are often presented as an approach for identifying healthy and sustainable diets. Here we explore to which extent systematic review protocols have been adopted by studies comparing environmental impacts of foods based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) results, and to which extent they comply with the PRISMA protocol for transparent reporting. Out of 224 studies screened, seven explicitly define themselves as systematic reviews, and/or claim to carry out meta-analyses. Of these, only one acknowledges a review protocol, while none complies with all the PRISMA criteria. Neither do we believe that reviews of LCA results can comply with all the criteria or carry out meta-analyses, due to underreporting on standard deviations and artificial sample sizes in LCAs. Nonetheless, reviews of food commodities and diets based on LCA results would benefit from better aligning with criteria in systematic review protocols.

KW - Diets

KW - Footprint

KW - Life cycle assessment

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85100887120&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85100887120&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100508

DO - 10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100508

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85100887120

SN - 2211-9124

VL - 28

SP - 1

EP - 8

JO - Global Food Security

JF - Global Food Security

M1 - 100508

ER -

A rapid review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of environmental footprints of food commodities and diets

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this