Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The SHED Index: a tool for assessing a Sustainable HEalthy Diet

  • Original Contribution
  • Published:
European Journal of Nutrition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Promoting sustainable diets through sustainable food choices is essential for achieving the sustainable development goals set by the United Nations. Establishing a practical tool that can measure and score sustainable and healthy eating is highly important.

Methods

We established a 30-item questionnaire to evaluate sustainable-dietary consumption. Based on the literature and a multidisciplinary advisory panel, the questionnaire was computed by principal component analysis, yielding the Sustainable-HEalthy-Diet (SHED) Index. A rigorous multi-stage process included validation in training-verification sets, across recycling efforts, as an indicator of environmental commitment; and validation across the proportion of animal-protein consumption, as an indicator of adherence to a sustainable and healthy dietary-pattern. The EAT-Lancet reference-diet and the Mediterranean-Diet-score were used to investigate the construct validity of the SHED Index score. Reliability was assessed with a test–retest sample.

Results

Three-hundred-forty-eight men and women, aged 20–45 years, completed both the SHED Index questionnaire and a validated Food-Frequency-Questionnaire. Increased dietary animal-protein intake was associated with a lower SHED Index total score (p < 0.001). Higher recycling efforts were associated with a higher total SHED Index score (p < 0.001). A linear correlation was found between the SHED Index score and food-groups of the Eat-Lancet-reference diet. A significant correlation was found between the Mediterranean-Diet-score and the SHED Index score (r = 0.575, p < 0.001). The SHED Index score revealed high reliability in test–retest, high validity in training and verification sets, and internal consistency.

Conclusion

We developed the SHED Index score, a simple, practical tool, for measuring healthy and sustainable individual-diets. The score reflects the nutritional, environmental and sociocultural aspects of sustainable diets; and provides a tangible tool to be used in intervention studies and in daily practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material (data transparency)

The data will be available upon reasonable request.

Code availability (software application or custom code)

The syntax will be available upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Mbow C, Rosenzweig C (2021) Chapter 5: food security—special report on climate change and land. IPCC website. Available via . Accessed 01/4 2021

  2. Myers SS, Smith MR, Guth S et al (2017) Climate change and global food systems: potential impacts on food security and undernutrition. Annu Rev Public Health 38(1):259–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Willett W, Rockstrom J, Loken B et al (2019) Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393(10170):447–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Burlingame B, Dernini S (2012) Sustainable diets and biodiversity: directions and solutions for policy, research and action. International Scientific Symposium, Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets United Against Hunger, FAO Headquarters, Rome, Italy, 3–5 November 2010. In: Anonymous Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity: Directions and Solutions for Policy, Research and Action. International Scientific Symposium, Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets United Against Hunger, FAO Headquarters, Rome, Italy, 3–5 November 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

  5. COM E (2018) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank, A Clean Planet for all. A European strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy. Brussels 28:2018

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bajželj B, Benton TG, Clark M et al (2015) Synergies between healthy and sustainable diets. UN Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR) Brief. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/635987-Bajzelj-Synergiesbetweenhealthyandsustainablediets.pdf. Accessed on 20 Sept 2018

  7. Springmann M, Wiebe K, Mason-D’Croz D et al (2018) Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planet Health 2(10):e451–e461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Germani A, Vitiello V, Giusti AM et al (2014) Environmental and economic sustainability of the Mediterranean diet. Int J Food Sci Nutr 65(8):1008–1012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dernini S, Berry EM, Serra-Majem L et al (2017) Med diet 4.0: the Mediterranean diet with four sustainable benefits. Public Health Nutr 20(7):1322–1330. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980016003177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lukas M, Rohn H, Lettenmeier M et al (2016) Assessing indicators and limits for a sustainable everyday nutrition. In: Proceedings in food system dynamics, pp 299–313

  11. Béné C, Prager SD, Achicanoy HA et al (2019) Global map and indicators of food system sustainability. Sci Data 6(1):1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jones AD, Hoey L, Blesh J et al (2016) A systematic review of the measurement of sustainable diets. Adv Nutr 7(4):641–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Harray A, Boushey C, Pollard C et al (2015) A novel dietary assessment method to measure a healthy and sustainable diet using the mobile food record: protocol and methodology. Nutrients 7(7):5375–5395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Perignon M, Vieux F, Soler L et al (2017) Improving diet sustainability through evolution of food choices: review of epidemiological studies on the environmental impact of diets. Nutr Rev 75(1):2–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Seconda L, Baudry J, Pointereau P et al (2019) Development and validation of an individual sustainable diet index in the NutriNet-Santé study cohort. Br J Nutr 121(10):1166–1177

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Van Loo EJ, Hoefkens C, Verbeke W (2017) Healthy, sustainable and plant-based eating: perceived (mis)match and involvement-based consumer segments as targets for future policy. Food Policy 69:46–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pieniak Z, Żakowska-Biemans S, Kostyra E et al (2016) Sustainable healthy eating behaviour of young adults: towards a novel methodological approach. BMC Public Health 16(1):577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Meybeck A, Redfern S, Hachem F et al (2017) Development of voluntary guidelines for the sustainability of the Mediterranean diet in the Mediterranean region. In: Anonymous development of voluntary guidelines for the sustainability of the Mediterranean diet in the Mediterranean Region Valenzano (Italy), 14–15 Mar 2017. FAO

  19. Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA (2012) Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485(7397):229–232

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Marsh K, Bugusu B (2007) Food packaging? roles, materials, and environmental issues. J Food Sci 72(3):R39-R55

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Imamura F, O'Connor L, Ye Z, Mursu J, Hayashino Y, Bhupathiraju SN, Forouhi NG (2015) Consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, artificially sweetened beverages, and fruit juice and incidence of type 2 diabetes: systematic review, meta-analysis, and estimation of population attributable fraction. BMJ 351:h3576. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h3576

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Malik VS, Hu FB (2015) Fructose and cardiometabolic health. J Am Coll Cardiol 66(14):1615-1624

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Johnson RK, Lichtenstein AH, Anderson CAM, Carson JA, Després J-P, Hu FB, Kris-Etherton PM, Otten JJ, Towfighi A, Wylie-Rosett J (2018) Low-calorie sweetened beverages and cardiometabolic health: a science advisory from the American heart association. Circulation 138(9)

  24. Patel L, Alicandro G, Vecchia CL (2018) Low-calorie beverage consumption, diet quality and cardiometabolic risk factors in British adults. Nutrients 10(9):1261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Amienyo D, Gujba H, Stichnothe H, Azapagic A (2013) Life cycle environmental impacts of carbonated soft drinks. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):77-92

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Goldman D, Yavetz B, Pe’er S (2006) Environmental literacy in teacher training in Israel: environmental behavior of new students. J Environ Educ 38(1):3–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel. The Social Survey, Israel, 2009–2010. Available via http://www1.cbs.gov.il/statistical/seker-chevrati-e124.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2012

  28. Shahar D, Shai I, Vardi H et al (2003) Development of a semi-quantitative Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) to assess dietary intake of multiethnic populations. Eur J Epidemiol 18(9):855–861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shahar D, Fraser D, Shai I et al (2003) Development of a food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) for an elderly population based on a population survey. J Nutr 133(11):3625–3629

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Trichopoulou A, Costacou T, Bamia C et al (2003) Adherence to a Mediterranean diet and survival in a Greek population. N Engl J Med 348(26):2599–2608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dumas SE, Dongchung TY, Sanderson ML et al (2020) A comparison of the four healthy days measures (HRQOL-4) with a single measure of self-rated general health in a population-based health survey in New York City. Health Qual Life Outcomes 18(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Donini LM, Dernini S, Lairon D et al (2016) A consensus proposal for nutritional indicators to assess the sustainability of a healthy diet: the Mediterranean diet as a case study. Front Nutr 3:37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Coats L, Aboul-Enein BH, Dodge E et al (2020) Perspectives of environmental health promotion and the mediterranean diet: a thematic narrative synthesis. J Hunger Environ Nutr 10(1080/19320248):1777242

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hirvonen K, Bai Y, Headey D et al (2020) Affordability of the EAT–Lancet reference diet: a global analysis. Lancet Glob Health 8(1):e59–e66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. R Core Team (2019) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

  36. Wickham H (2016) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  37. CBS (2018) Religion and self-definition of extent of religiosity: selected data from the Society in Israel Report No. 10. Available via https://www.cbs.gov.il/en/mediarelease/Pages/2018/Religion-And-Self-Definition-Of-Extent-Of-Religiosity-Selected-Data-From-The-Society-In-Israel-Report-No-10.aspx

  38. Sáez-Almendros S, Obrador B, Bach-Faig A et al (2013) Environmental footprints of Mediterranean versus Western dietary patterns: beyond the health benefits of the Mediterranean diet. Environ Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-12-118

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. UNESCO Mediterranean diet. Mediterranean diet. Inscribed in 2013 (8.COM) on the representative list of the intangible cultural heritage of humanity. Available via Accessed 25 Jan 2021

  40. OECD (2021) Meat consumption (indicator) OECD data. Available via Accessed 20 Jan 2021

  41. FAO FAOSTAT (2021) New food balances. FAOSTAT. Available via FAO. Accessed 25 Jan 2021

  42. OECD (2017) Per capita meat consumption by country and region. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2017–2026. https://doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2017-graph98-en

  43. Cade J, Thompson R, Burley V et al (2002) Development, validation and utilisation of food-frequency questionnaires–a review. Public Health Nutr 5(4):567–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zagmutt FJ, Pouzou JG, Costard S (2020) The EAT-Lancet Commission’s dietary composition may not prevent noncommunicable disease mortality. J Nutr 150(5):985–988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kerr DA, Dhaliwal SS, Pollard CM et al (2017) BMI is associated with the willingness to record diet with a mobile food record among adults participating in dietary interventions. Nutrients 9(3):244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Seconda L, Baudry J, Allès B et al (2017) Assessment of the sustainability of the Mediterranean diet combined with organic food consumption: an individual behaviour approach. Nutrients 9(1):61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. van Dooren C, Marinussen M, Blonk H et al (2014) Exploring dietary guidelines based on ecological and nutritional values: A comparison of six dietary patterns. Food Policy 44:36–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Scarborough P, Allender S, Clarke D et al (2012) Modelling the health impact of environmentally sustainable dietary scenarios in the UK. Eur J Clin Nutr 66(6):710

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Scarborough P, Appleby PN, Mizdrak A et al (2014) Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Clim Change 125(2):179–192

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Masset G, Vieux F, Verger EO et al (2014) Reducing energy intake and energy density for a sustainable diet: a study based on self-selected diets in French adults. Am J Clin Nutr 99(6):1460–1469

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Bjørnarå HB, Torstveit MK, Bere E (2019) Healthy and sustainable diet and physical activity: the rationale for and experiences from developing a combined summary score. Scand J Public Health 47(5):583–591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ingwersen W, Cabezas H, Weisbrod AV et al (2014) Integrated metrics for improving the life cycle approach to assessing product system sustainability. Sustainability 6(3):1386–1413

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study was supported by MIGAL-Galilee Research Institute.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nutritional Sciences, Tel-Hai College, Upper Galilee, 1220800, Tel Hai, Israel

    Sigal Tepper & Moria Golan

  2. IntegriStat, Studio for Biostatistics, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Diklah Geva

  3. Department of Public Health, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel

    Danit R. Shahar & Rachel Golan

  4. Department of Environmental Studies, The Porter School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Alon Shepon

  5. The Steinhardt Museum of Natural History, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Alon Shepon

  6. Faculty of life sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Opher Mendelsohn

  7. The Israeli Forum for Sustainable Nutrition, Hailanot 1, Bitan Aharon, Israel

    Dorit Adler

Authors
  1. Sigal Tepper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diklah Geva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Danit R. Shahar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alon Shepon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Opher Mendelsohn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Moria Golan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dorit Adler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Rachel Golan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

ST and MG designed the research; ST conducted the research; DG analyzed the data; ST, DG and RG wrote the paper; DRS, AS, OM and DA participated in the expert panel and reviewed the manuscript. ST, DG and RG had primary responsibility for the final content. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sigal Tepper.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest (include appropriate disclosures)

The authors have no competing interests related to this work.

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the ethics committee of Tel-Hai College.

Consent to participate (include appropriate statements)

All the participants in the study signed an informed consent form.

Consent for publication (include appropriate statements)

Not applicable.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 37 kb)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 3617 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tepper, S., Geva, D., Shahar, D.R. et al. The SHED Index: a tool for assessing a Sustainable HEalthy Diet. Eur J Nutr 60, 3897–3909 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-021-02554-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-021-02554-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation