Adherence to the EAT-Lancet Healthy Reference Diet in relation to Coronary Heart Disease, All-Cause Mortality Risk and Environmental Impact: Results from the EPIC-NL Cohort

Study population

We used data from the Dutch contribution to the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-NL).⁹ The EPIC study was designed to assess the associations between diet, lifestyle, dietary intake, and the incidence of cancer and other chronic conditions [9]. The EPIC-NL cohort combines the MORGEN cohort (n[=[22,654) and the Prospect cohort (n = 17,357), resulting in a total of 40,011 participants. The MORGEN cohort included both men and women, aged 20-64 years, from three Dutch cities (Amsterdam, Doetinchem, and Maastricht), recruited between 1993 and 1997. The Prospect cohort included women participating in a breast screening program, aged 49-70 years, recruited between 1993 and 1995 from Utrecht and its vicinity. At baseline, participants completed a general questionnaire and a validated semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). During a physical examination a non-fasting blood sample was taken, aliquoted and stored for future research. The EPIC-NL study was conducted according to the guidelines in the Declaration of Helsinki and all procedures involving the participants were approved by the institutional review board of the University Medical Center Utrecht (Prospect-EPIC) and the medical ethical committee of TNO Nutrition and Food Research (MORGEN-EPIC). All participants provided written informed consent.

For the current study, we excluded participants who withheld permission for linkage with national disease registries (n=1,666), those who withdrew informed consent during follow-up (n=1), participants with prevalent CHD at baseline (n=377), participants with missing dietary intake data (n=218), and particpants with implausible energy intake (defined as those in the lowest and highest 0.5% of the ratio of energy intake over basal metabolic rate) (n=400), leaving 37,349 persons for analysis (Supplementary Figure 1).

Calculation of the HRD adherence score

The FFQ included questions on the consumption of 178 food items in the year prior to enrolment.^9,10 For some food items, questions were accompanied by images of the food in different portion sizes, to assist in portion size estimation. Frequency of consumption was estimated in times per day, week, month, year or never. Average food intake (g/d) was calculated by multiplying the consumption frequency with the consumed amounts and nutrient intakes were calculated using the Dutch food composition table of 1996.¹¹

To asses adherence to the HRD, a Healthy Reference Diet score (HRD-score) was constructed. To calculate the adherence scores, the dietary recommendations from the EAT-Lancet report were recalculated on the basis of 2000 kcal/day for women, in line with the recommended energy intake proposed by the Dutch dietary guidelines (Supplementary Table 1 and 2). Participants were assigned proportional scores ranging from 0-10 for each of the 14 dietary recommendations in the HRD (as proposed by EAT-Lancet), that were then summed, resulting in a score ranging between 0 (no adherence) and 140 (complete adherence). Each food group in the HRD-score was categorized into one of the following scoring components adapted from Looman et al.¹²: adequacy, moderation, optimum or ratio. The allocation of scoring components to the dietary recommendations in the HRD was informed by literature investigating the associations of those food groups with chronic disease.^13-35 Adequacy components are used to score foods generally considered healthy and for which a high intake is recommended. In the HRD-score, foods assigned to this component were whole grains, vegetables, fruits, legumes, and soy foods. Participants received 10 points for meeting the recommended intake for these food groups, 0 points for no consumption, and a proportional score for intakes between zero and the recommended level. Moderation components were used to score foods that could increase the risk of chronic diseases. The moderation component was used to score beef, lamb, pork, and sweeteners. For these foods, 0 points were assigned if the intake was above the reference intake, 10 points were assigned for an intake equal to or lower than the reference intake, and intermediate intakes were assigned a proportional scoring.

Optimum components comprise foods which are nutritious yet potentially detrimental if eaten in large quantities on a daily basis. The optimum component was used to score the following food groups: potatoes, dairy, chicken, eggs, fish, and nuts. For these foods, participants with intakes within the required optimum intake range would receive 10 points, while those with intakes lower or higher than the optimum would be scored proportionally and symmetrically from 0 to 10 and from 10 to 0. Finally, a ratio component was used to describe the added fats food group. For the added fats, no consumption of unsaturated fats or an unsaturated to saturated fats ratio lower than 0.6 was assigned 0 points, while no consumption of saturated fats or an unsaturated to saturated fats ratio higher than 13 was assigned 10 points. Ratios in between were scored proportionally. Cut-offs and threshold values for the ratio component were derived from the 15th percentile and 85th percentile of the intake distribution of the Dutch reference population, as described in Looman et al.¹²

Finally, the HRD-score was adjusted for energy intake (HRDea-score) using the energy-adjusted nutrient residual model to remove the variance in dietary intake related to total energy intake.³⁶

CHD and all-cause mortality ascertainment

CHD events included both fatal and non-fatal cases of CHD. Morbidity data were obtained from the Dutch Center for Health Care Information, which holds a standardized computerized registry of hospital discharge diagnoses. The hospital discharge diagnosis database was linked to the cohort based on information of birthdate, sex, postal code, and general practitioner with a validated probabilistic method.³⁷ Hospitalization for CHD was based on the principal diagnoses (ICD 10: I20-I25).

Information on vital status was obtained through linkage with the Dutch municipal registry. All-cause mortality was defined as death from any cause after study inclusion. For deceased participants, information on the causes of death was ascertained through linkage with the Causes of Death Registry of Statistics Netherlands. Death from CHD was based on both primary and secondary causes of death. A primary cause of death was defined as death due to a CHD event, while a secondary cause of death was defined as death due to complications of the primary cause, or another disease which could have led to death. All participants were followed until CHD event, death, emigration, or end of follow-up, whichever came first. Follow-up was complete until December 31st, 2010.

Environmental impact assessment

The ‘planetary boundaries’ within the planetary boundaries framework provide the safe operating space for the Earth’s biophysical subsystems and or processes,³⁸ and also underlie the EAT-Lancet’s commission’s environmental impact assessments. Within the planetary boundaries framework, the main environmental systems and processes that are affected by food production are climate change, biodiversity loss, land system change, freshwater use, and nitrogen and phosphorus flows.⁷ Within this framework, the state of these systems is further defined by so-called control variables. As the main environmental systems are interlinked and interdependent, most control variables relate to multiple environmental systems. For example, greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) are an indicator of biodiversity loss and climate change; land use is an indicator of biodiversity loss and land system change; blue water use (e.g, irrigation water) is an indicator of biodiversity loss and freshwater use; eutrophication (e.g., through application of fertilizer) is an indicator of nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, biodiversity loss and climate change, and terrestrial acidification is an indicator of biodiversity loss.^7,38,39 Therefore, the assessment of a wide range of environmental indicators provides a holistic assessment of the environmental impact of the HRD. In the present study, we evaluate the effects of the HRD on GHGE (kg CO₂-eq per day), land use (m² per year), blue water use (m³ per day), freshwater eutrophication (kg P-eq per day), marine eutrophication (kg N-eq per day), and terrestrial acidification (kg SO2-eq day).

The associated environmental impact of the 178 foods and beverages were assessed using the most recent Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) data from the Dutch LCA Food database.⁴⁰ This database is established by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) and contains information on the environmental impact for approximately 250 Dutch foods and beverages. A full description of the data and assumptions can be found elsewhere.⁴¹ In short, the LCAs had an attributional approach and hierarchical perspective. System boundaries were from cradle till plate, including primary production, processing, primary packaging, distribution, retail, supermarket, storage, preparation by the consumer (e.g., cooking), and incineration of packaging waste. Transport between all phases, except from retail to the consumer was included. Economic allocation was applied for all food items, except for milk, where physical allocation was used. In order to estimate daily environmental impact, LCA data from the Dutch LCA Food database, referred to as primary data, was linked via NEVO-codes to FFQ items. Extrapolations were carried out in case no primary LCA data were available.

Ascertainment of covariates

Details on data collection on covariates are described elsewhere.⁹ In short, for age, sex, educational level, smoking status and history, physical activity, and medication use data from the baseline general questionnaire were used. Education was categorized into low (lower vocational training and primary school), moderate (secondary school and intermediate vocational training), and high educational level (higher vocational training and university). Smoking status was categorized into never smoker, former smoker, or current smoker. Alcohol intake was assessed from the FFQ, and measured in grams/day. Physical activity was categorized into inactive, moderately inactive, moderately active, and active, according to the Cambridge Physical Activity Index (CPAI).⁴² Total energy intake was also derived from the FFQ, and expressed in kilocalories/day.

The baseline physical examination provided data on body weight and height, blood pressure and cholesterol levels [10]. BMI was calculated as height divided by weight squared, and participants were categorized as normal weight for a BMI ≤ 24.9 kg/m², overweight for a BMI between 25 and 29.9 kg/m², and obese for a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m². Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure were measured twice in supine position, from which the mean was taken. Blood pressure measurements were performed on the left arm, using a Boso Oscillomat in the MORGEN-EPIC cohort, and a random zero Sphygmomanometer in the Prospect-EPIC cohort.⁹ Hypertension was defined as use of hypertensive medication, and/or systolic blood pressure >140 and/or diastolic pressure >90.⁹ Serum total cholesterol (mmol/l) was measured using enzymatic methods.⁹

Statistical analysis

All baseline characteristics are reported by quartiles of the HRDea-score. Normally distributed continuous variables are presented as means with standard deviations. Continuous variables with a skewed distribution are presented as median with interquartile range (IQR). Categorical variables are presented as counts and percentages. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to obtain hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between quartiles of the HRDea-score and CHD risk and all-cause mortality. The lowest quartile was used as reference. The underlying time variable was age from study entry to either diagnosis, death, or end of follow-up (31-12-2010), whichever came first. The proportional hazards assumption was checked using the Schoenfeld test, with no violations observed.

For CHD and all-cause mortality outcomes, the analyses present first the unadjusted model with crude estimates. Model 1 was adjusted for age and sex and model 2 was additionally adjusted for educational level, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and energy intake. A sensitivity analysis was conducted, where we added BMI, total cholesterol, and hypertension to the multivariable-adjusted model (model 2), as these factors may be potential mediators in the association between the HRDea-score and CHD. All mediators were first added individually and then simultaneously.

All foods in the FFQ, expressed in grams/day, had an estimated environmental impact calculated with LCA. We used linear regression models to estimate the association between HRDea-score and each environmental indicator. In this linear regression the exposure was the HRDea-score and the outcome was the environmental indicator, calculated as the sum of the associated environmental impact of the food groups included in the HRD. The lowest quartile was used as reference. The analyses present first the crude estimates, and then in model 1 estimates were adjusted for age, sex, and energy intake. No other variables were included, based on current literature on the environmental impact of diets. The p-value for trend across quartiles was estimated by modelling the median value of each quartile as a continuous variable. Statistical significance was set at a two-tailed P < 0.05. All statistical analyses were carried out using STATA 13.SE (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA).

Patient and public involvement

No patients or participants were involved in formulating the research question, establishing the outcome measures, or in the design of the study. No patients or participants were involved in the interpretation of the results or writing of the manuscript. There are no plans to disseminate the results of the research to participants or wider relevant communities.

HRDea-score and CHD

During a median follow-up of 15.1 years, a total of 2,543 CHD events occurred. High adherence to the HRD was associated with a lower risk of CHD (HR_Q4vsQ1 0.85; 95% CI 0.75 – 0.96) in fully adjusted models (Table 2). Adding each potential mediator separately to the multivariable-adjusted model only slightly attenuated the results (Supplementary Table 3). The cumulative effect of all mediators also did not substantially alter the results (HR_Q4vsQ1 0.88; 95% CI 0.77 – 0.99).

HRDea-score and all-cause mortality

During a median follow-up of 15.3 years, 5648 people died from all causes. High adherence to the HRD was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR_Q4vsQ1 0.83; 95% CI 0.77 – 0.90) in fully adjusted models (Table 3).

HRDea-score and environmental impact

Table 4 shows the baseline means of GHG emissions, land use, blue water use, freshwater eutrophication, marine eutrophication, and terrestrial acidification across quartiles of the HRDea-score. Participants most adherent to the HRD were more likely to consume diets that were associated with less GHGE, land use, freshwater eutrophication, marine eutrophication and terrestrial acidification compared to the least adherent. Yet, diets of those most adherent to the HRD have higher blue water use compared to diets of those least adhering to the HRD.

In multivariable adjusted models, high adherence to the HRD was associated with lower GHGE (β= -0.10 kg CO2-eq; 95%CI: -0.13, -0.07), less land use (β= -0.11 m² per year; 95% CI: -0.12, -0.09), less freshwater eutrophication (β= -0.000002 kg P-eq; 95%CI: -0.000004, - 0.000001), less marine eutrophication (β= -0.00035 kg N-eq; 95%CI: -0.00042, -0.00029) and less terrestrial acidification (β = -0.004 kg SO2-eq; 95% CI: -0.004, -0.003) and with higher blue water use (β=0.044; 95% CI; 95%CI: 0.043, 0.045) when comparing extreme quartiles (Table 5). These beta-coefficients correspond to 1.7% lower GHGE, 3.2% less land use, 0.5% less freshwater eutrophication, 3.5% less marine eutrophication, 6.3% less terrestrial acidification, but with 31.43% higher blue water use, when comparing extreme quartiles.