The production of animal-based foods is associated with higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than plant-based foods. The objective of this study was to estimate the difference in dietary GHG emissions between self-selected meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Subjects were participants in the EPIC-Oxford cohort study. The diets of 2,041 vegans, 15,751 vegetarians, 8,123 fish-eaters and 29,589 meat-eaters aged 20–79 were assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire. Comparable GHG emissions parameters were developed for the underlying food codes using a dataset of GHG emissions for 94 food commodities in the UK, with a weighting for the global warming potential of each component gas. The average GHG emissions associated with a standard 2,000 kcal diet were estimated for all subjects. ANOVA was used to estimate average dietary GHG emissions by diet group adjusted for sex and age. The age-and-sex-adjusted mean (95 % confidence interval) GHG emissions in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents per day (kgCO₂e/day) were 7.19 (7.16, 7.22) for high meat-eaters ( > = 100 g/d), 5.63 (5.61, 5.65) for medium meat-eaters (50-99 g/d), 4.67 (4.65, 4.70) for low meat-eaters ( < 50 g/d), 3.91 (3.88, 3.94) for fish-eaters, 3.81 (3.79, 3.83) for vegetarians and 2.89 (2.83, 2.94) for vegans. In conclusion, dietary GHG emissions in self-selected meat-eaters are approximately twice as high as those in vegans. It is likely that reductions in meat consumption would lead to reductions in dietary GHG emissions.

UK Biobank is an open access prospective cohort of 500 000 men and women. Information on the frequency of consumption of main foods was collected at recruitment with a touchscreen questionnaire; prior to examining the associations between diet and disease, it is essential to evaluate the performance of the dietary touchscreen questionnaire. The objectives of the present paper are to: describe the repeatability of the touchscreen questionnaire in participants (n 20 348) who repeated the assessment centre visit approximately 4 years after recruitment, and compare the dietary touchscreen variables with mean intakes from participants (n 140 080) who completed at least one of the four web-based 24-h dietary assessments post-recruitment. For fish and meat items, 90 % or more of participants reported the same or adjacent category of intake at the repeat assessment visit; for vegetables and fruit, and for a derived partial fibre score (in fifths), 70 % or more of participants were classified into the same or adjacent category of intake (κ_weighted > 0·50 for all). Participants were also categorised based on their responses to the dietary touchscreen questionnaire at recruitment, and within each category the group mean intake of the same food group or nutrient from participants who had completed at least one web-based 24-h dietary assessment was calculated. The comparison showed that the dietary touchscreen variables, available on the full cohort, reliably rank participants according to intakes of the main food groups.

The Oxford WebQ is an online 24-hour dietary questionnaire that is appropriate for repeated administration in large-scale prospective studies, including the UK Biobank study and the Million Women Study. We compared the performance of the Oxford WebQ and a traditional interviewer-administered multiple-pass 24-hour dietary recall against biomarkers for protein, potassium, and total sugar intake and total energy expenditure estimated by accelerometry. We recruited 160 participants in London, United Kingdom, between 2014 and 2016 and measured their biomarker levels at 3 nonconsecutive time points. The measurement error model simultaneously compared all 3 methods. Attenuation factors for protein, potassium, total sugar, and total energy intakes estimated as the mean of 2 applications of the Oxford WebQ were 0.37, 0.42, 0.45, and 0.31, respectively, with performance improving incrementally for the mean of more measures. Correlation between the mean value from 2 Oxford WebQs and estimated true intakes, reflecting attenuation when intake is categorized or ranked, was 0.47, 0.39, 0.40, and 0.38, respectively, also improving with repeated administration. These correlations were similar to those of the more administratively burdensome interviewer-based recall. Using objective biomarkers as the standard, the Oxford WebQ performs well across key nutrients in comparison with more administratively burdensome interviewer-based 24-hour recalls. Attenuation improves when the average value is taken over repeated administrations, reducing measurement error bias in assessment of diet-disease associations.

Fruit, vegetables, and certain components of plant foods, such as fiber, have long been thought to protect against cancer. The European Prospective In

Most of the previous studies on diet and colorectal cancer were based on diets consumed during the 1990s. We used Cox-regression models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios for colorectal cancer by dietary factors in the UK Biobank study. Men and women aged 40–69 years at recruitment (2006–10) reported their diet on a short food-frequency questionnaire (n = 475 581). Dietary intakes were re-measured in a large sub-sample (n = 175 402) who completed an online 24-hour dietary assessment during follow-up. Trends in risk across the baseline categories were calculated by assigning re-measured intakes to allow for measurement error and changes in intake over time. During an average of 5.7 years of follow-up, 2609 cases of colorectal cancer occurred. Participants who reported consuming an average of 76 g/day of red and processed meat compared with 21 g/day had a 20% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4–37] higher risk of colorectal cancer. Participants in the highest fifth of intake of fibre from bread and breakfast cereals had a 14% (95% CI: 2–24) lower risk of colorectal cancer. Alcohol was associated with an 8% (95% CI: 4–12) higher risk per 10 g/day higher intake. Fish, poultry, cheese, fruit, vegetables, tea and coffee were not associated with colorectal-cancer risk. Consumption of red and processed meat at an average level of 76 g/d that meets the current UK government recommendation (≤90 g/day) was associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. Alcohol was also associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer, whereas fibre from bread and breakfast cereals was associated with a reduced risk.

The aim of this study was to investigate differences in dietary intakes between 30251 participants in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford study, comprising 18 244 meat eaters, 4 531 fish eaters, 6 673 vegetarians, and 803 vegans aged 30 to 90 years who completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires. We hypothesized that these groups characterized by varying degrees of animal product exclusion have significantly different intakes of many nutrients, with possible implications for dietary adequacy and compliance with population dietary goals. Nutrient intakes were estimated including fortification in foods, but excluding dietary supplements. Dietary supplementation practices were also evaluated. Highly significant differences were found in estimated nutrient intakes between meat eaters and vegans, with fish eaters and vegetarians usually having intermediate values. Meat eaters had the highest energy intakes, followed by fish eaters and vegetarians, whereas vegans had the lowest intakes. Vegans had the highest intakes of polyunsaturated fatty acids, dietary fiber, vitamins C and E, folate, magnesium, iron, and copper. Meat eaters had the highest intake of saturated fatty acids, protein, vitamin B2, vitamin B12, vitamin D, zinc, and iodine. Fish eaters had the highest intakes of calcium and selenium. There were no statistically significant differences in sodium and potassium intakes between dietary groups. With the exception of sodium intake, compliance with population dietary goals was high across diet groups. The results suggested a high prevalence of inadequacy for dietary vitamin B12 and iodine in vegans. The diet groups under study showed striking differences in dietary intakes, with possible implications for compliance with dietary recommendations, as well as cardiometabolic diseases risk.