Differences in the cost and environmental impact between the current diet in Brazil and healthy and sustainable diets: a modeling study

Table 4 Regression analyses of cost, environmental impact, and diet

Environmental impact vs. cost (Model 1)
Cost	Coefficient (cost)	95% CI	Pvalue	R²
Carbon Footprint CO2eq (kg/day) standardized	0.34	0.32;0.36	< 0.001	0.1528
Water Footprint (liters/day) standardized	0.47	0.45;0.49	< 0.001	0.2340
Environmental impact vs. diet (Model 2)
Diet	Coefficient (Diet)	95% CI	Pvalue	R²
Carbon Footprint CO2eq (kg/day) standardized	-1.1	-1.13; -1.06	< 0.001	0.5785
Water Footprint (liters/day) standardized	-0.91	-0.94; -0.87	< 0.001	0.3925
Environmental impact vs. cost per nutritional quality (Model 3)
Current diet	Coefficient (cost)	95% CI	Pvalue	R²
Carbon Footprint CO2eq (kg/day) standardized	0.48	0.42;0.54	< 0.001	0.3019
Water Footprint (liters/day) standardized	0.58	0.54;0.61	< 0.001	0.3571
BDG diet	Coefficient (cost)	95% CI	Pvalue	R²
Carbon Footprint CO2eq (kg/day) standardized	0.20	0.19;0.22	< 0.001	0.2891
Water Footprint (liters/day) standardized	0.32	0.30;0.34	< 0.001	0.3048
EAT-Lancet diet	Coefficient (cost)	95% CI	Pvalue	R²
Carbon Footprint CO2eq (kg/day) standardized	0.07	0.05;0.09	< 0.001	0.0886
Water Footprint (liters/day) standardized	0.25	0.22;0.28	< 0.001	0.3138

Note: Cost/day/1000 kcal; BDG: Brazilian Dietary Guidelines diet; EAT-Lancet: EAT-Lancet Commission diet. Construction of association models: Model 1: cost was adopted as the outcome and environmental impact as explanatory variable. Model 2: environmental impact was adopted as the outcome and nutritional quality (based on each diet scenario, using diet current as a model reference (Current Diet x BDG Diet x EAT-Lancet)) as explanatory variable. Model 3: cost was adopted as the outcome and environmental impact as explanatory variable per nutritional quality (based on each diet scenario). P value: model significance value

ISSN: 1475-2891