Annotated Bibliography 1:

Springmann, M., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2016). Analysis and
valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 113(15), 4146-4151. Retrieved from
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/15/4146.long

This scientific study assesses the possible environmental, health, and economic impacts

of the adoption of a healthy global diet that follows global dietary guidelines on healthy eating,

vegetarian diet, or vegan diet. While the environmental and health benefits of these diets vary

from region to region, the study predicts that following a more plant-based diet across the world

could result in a reduction of food-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 29–70%. The

majority of the GHG reductions occurred in developing countries. In comparison with a 2050

reference (REF) scenario in which GHG emissions associated with food consumption increase

by 51%, the largest decrease in GHG emissions resulted from the vegetarian and vegan diets

(45-55% less than REF emissions), with the healthy global diet resulting in the smallest

decrease (29% less than REF emissions). Additionally, transitioning towards plant-based diets

could reduce global mortality by 6–10% by 2050. Following a healthy global diet could result in

5.1 million avoided deaths per year, 7.3 million avoided deaths for the vegetarian diets figures,

and 8.1 million avoided deaths with the adoption of a vegan diet. The differences between the

figures for the healthy global diet as compared to the vegetarian and vegan diets was mainly

due to decreased red meat consumption and increased fruit and vegetable consumption, which

lowered the prevalence of obesity and other diseases such as heart disease, cancer, and

diabetes. The study also revealed that the economic benefits of these diets could reach up to 31

trillion U.S. dollars. In comparison to the 2050 reference scenario, the adoption of healthy global

diets could result in health-related cost savings of $735 billion, GHG emission savings of $234

billion, and the monetized value of avoided deaths amounting to up to $21 trillion. In contrast, a

vegan diet could result in over $1 trillion in health-related cost savings, $570 billion in GHG

emission savings, and $30 trillion savings from avoided mortalities. The study concludes that
the adoption of a vegan diet, being the only diet with the ability to limit the global temperature

increase to less than 2°C by 2050, is the most effective diet for combating climate change.

This recent study, published in March 2016, was written by four experts in the field of

environmental and food-related studies. Marco Springmann is a post-doctoral researcher with

two Master degrees in physics and sustainability and is currently working on a project as part of

the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food. He has focused his research on the

impact of national and global climate policies. An email to contact Springmann about the study

is provided. H. Charles J. Godfray is a population biologist and has published in fundamental

and applied areas of ecology, evolution and epidemiology. He is a Professor of Population

Biology, Director of the Martin School, and director of the Oxford Martin Programme on the

Future of Food. Mike Rayner is a Professor of Population Health at the Nuffield Department of

Population Health and Director of the Centre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable

Disease Prevention. Rayner carries out research related to the promotion of healthier and more

sustainable environments. Lastly, Peter Scarborough is a University Research Lecturer in the

Department of Public Health at the University of Oxford. This study is objective and includes

well-grounded, publically available data and analysis based on statistics, numbers, and

projections from well-known, credible organizations such as the United Nations Population

Division and the World Health Organization. The data are available in a research archive where

others can review their methods and results. The information presented in this study can be

corroborated in a number of other studies, and a list of 50 reference sources is provided. The

authors discuss specific comparisons of their research to other studies and how their results

were different or similar based on what factors were accounted for. For example, a similar study

from 2014 by Tilman and Clark that assessed the environmental sustainability and human

health impacts of certain global diets yielded slightly higher GHG emissions reference estimates

because it did not account for output-based productivity improvements in agriculture as this

study did, but it did account for the GHG emissions associated with the consumption of fish and
seafood, which this study did not. However, these two studies still had similar findings

concerning the health and environmental benefits of diets that limit the consumption of animal-

products. This study was written for scientists researching effective ways to combat climate

change, working to improve global health, or investigating how to reverse some of the economic

impacts of global warming, as well as individuals looking to improve the environment and their

health through their diet. This is evident because the authors highlight the effects of healthy

global diets, vegetarian diets, and vegan diets on the environment, including how a vegan diet is

the most effective at limiting the effects of climate change, improving global health, and avoiding

mortalities, and how these effects result in economic savings. Scientists and individuals can use

this information to change their diet and encourage others to do so in order to work towards

achieving these benefits.

Annotated Bibliography 2:

Pizer, W. A. (2017). What's the damage from climate change?. Science, 356(6345), 1330-1331.
Retrieved from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1330/tab-pdf

This article describes how an updated damage model can contribute to calculating the

social cost of carbon. When deciding whether or not to implement an environmental regulation,

the tradeoffs between the economy and environmental protection are described in a cost benefit

analysis (CBA). In order to do a CBA accurately, policymakers need sound estimates of

environmental impacts. According to Pizer, there are four components needed to value the

impact of measures that reduce climate change. One of those measures, which is discussed in

this article, is damage models, which predict future impacts to people and the environment and

express impacts into monetary terms. The author bases his findings off of a new study by

Hsiang et al. that proposes updated damage assessment based on contemporary evidence.

Pizer discusses the contribution of Hsiang’s work to furthering more robust and accurate cost

benefit analyses while also discussing the limitations of the study and other areas that may

need to be considered when formulating damage estimates. The damage component is

arguably the most challenging, but Pizer also discusses how the other three components used

to compute the social cost of carbon likewise need to be updated based on recent studies.

The author of this current article published in 2017 is William A. Pizer, who is an expert

in the fields of environmental policy and economics. Pizer is a professor in the Sanford School

of Public Policy and a faculty member of the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy

Solutions. He holds a Ph.D. and Master's degree in economics from Harvard University and a

Bachelor's degree in physics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His email is

provided in the article as a way to contact him. Pizer’s conclusions in this article are mainly

based off of Hsiang’s study, but he also points to the National Academy of Sciences and cites

their recommendations for revising damage estimates based on recent peer-reviewed studies.
The information he presents can be corroborated in the reference list at the end of the article.

Additionally, Pizer discusses multiple sides of the issue. He talks positively about the promise of

Hsiang’s research and describes how it supports other research that has been done in the past

and extends that research into a new, more comprehensive model architecture. However, he

also acknowledges that there may be limitations to this study and poses additional questions to

be answered in future work, while also realizing that there may be some subjective choices that

need to be made in developing a damage estimate model. This article was written for those

studying or interested in the economics of climate change, such as scientists, economists, or

policymakers because it discusses the cost-benefit analysis used by the U.S. government when

making policies pertaining to environmental regulations. Pizer wants to inform his audience

about a new study that might result in the social benefit analysis of the cost of carbon becoming

more accurate.
Annotated Bibliography 3:

Sanjayan, M., Houlton, B., Almaraz, M.. (2017, December 12). The diet that helps fight climate
change [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/climate-lab

This video reveals how individuals can have an impact on climate change through the

food they choose to consume. Livestock accounts for over 14% of greenhouse gas emissions,

which is about equal to that of transportation, including all cars, trucks, planes, trains, and ships

combined. Ruminant animals like cows and sheep result in the highest greenhouse gas

emissions due to their production of methane gas that is 25 times more toxic than carbon

dioxide. In addition, it takes a lot of land, fertilizer, and over a billion tons of grain to feed

livestock, which is enough grain to feed 3.5 billion people directly. The narrators point out that

the U.S. has one of the highest meat footprints per capita. They go on to say that a vegan diet

has the smallest contribution to climate change, although there are many other alternatives that

can also decrease carbon emissions, such as the mediterranean diet. Even small reductions in

meat can have an impact because every choice adds up to larger numbers.

The narrators of this current video are all experts in the field of food security and/or

environmental sustainability, and their contact information is given on the UC Davis press

release about the video. Dr. M. Sanjayan is a visiting researcher at the UCLA Institute of the

Environment and Sustainability. He is a conservation scientist, writer, and news contributor, as

well as the CEO of Conservation International, a global conservation organization that works to

protect nature. Sanjayan has written peer-reviewed scientific articles and hosted multiple

conservation documentaries televised on PBS and BBC. He has a B.S. in Biology and M.S. in

Ecology from the University of Oregon and a PhD in Biology from University of California, Santa

Cruz. Dr. Ben Houlton is the director of the UC Davis John Muir Institute of the Environment. He

has a B.S. in Water Chemistry from the College of Natural Resources at the University of

Wisconsin, Stevens Point, an M.S. in Environmental Engineering from Syracuse University, and
a Ph.D. in Ecosystem Biogeochemistry from Princeton University. His research areas include

climate change, biogeochemical cycles, and global modeling. Houlton is currently a professor of

global environmental studies at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Maya Almaraz is a

postdoctoral fellow in biology at the University of California, Davis where she is researching

sources of nitrogen oxide emissions across California. She has a B.S. in Conservation and

Resource Studies and a B.A. in Public Health from the University of California, Berkeley.

Almaraz also has a Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from Brown University. This

video manages to convey the impact of the consumption of animal products on the environment

without demonstrating a bias towards or against specific diets, such as veganism. Instead, the

narrators suggest meat consumption be reduced as much as possible, stating that every bit

counts when it comes to the environment, as opposed to villainizing those who eat meat or

glorifying those who don’t. For example, consuming the doctor-recommended four ounces of

meat per day could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from animal products in the U.S. by half.

They show several different dietary choices as alternatives to the average U.S. diet, not just one

or two. In addition, the data and information presented in the video is a combination of original

research and other sources including the UN IPCC Fifth Assessment, the Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which are

government organizations that are required to provide accurate information. These sources are

used to provide data on topics such as greenhouse gas emissions of animal products and meat

consumption in the U.S.. The video was developed for anyone looking to find out how they can

make an environmental impact as an individual. The narrators specifically address their

audience throughout the video by encouraging each watcher to focus on what they eat in order

to fight climate change as an individual through their diet.

Annotated Bibliography 4:

Rose, D., Heller, M. C., & Roberto, C. A. (2019). Position of the Society for Nutrition Education
and Behavior: The Importance of Including Environmental Sustainability in Dietary
Guidance. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 51(1), 3-15.

This paper states the position of the Society for Nutrition Education and Behavior that

dietary guidelines should incorporate environmental sustainability considerations. Sustainability

of the food system is required to maintain healthy populations and support a growing population

in the midst of current negative environmental trends related to climate change. Research has

suggested that dietary choices can have significant environmental impacts. For example, animal

products have a higher environmental cost than plant-based foods. The paper describes current

environmental issues related to agriculture, summarizes past research on the relationship

between dietary choices and environmental impacts (such as greenhouse gas emissions and

water usage), and offers recommendations for incorporating environmental considerations into

dietary policies and nutrition education.

The authors of this current paper are experts in the field of nutrition science and food/

environmental sustainability, and their contact information is provided. Diego Rose is a

professor and head of the Nutrition Section in the Department of Community Health Sciences at

the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine at the Tulane Prevention Research Center.

He holds a B.S. from the University of California at Berkeley in nutritional sciences, M.P.H.

public health nutrition, and Ph.D. in agricultural economics. Martin C. Heller is a senior research

specialist at the Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan. He has a B.S. in

Chemical Engineering from Michigan State University and a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering

from the University of Colorado, Boulder. Christina Roberto is an assistant professor of medical

ethics and health policy at the Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania and

director of the Psychology of Eating and Consumer Health Lab. She has a B.A. in Psychology

from Princeton and a joint Ph.D in Chronic Disease Epidemiology and Clinical Psychology from
Yale. The paper covers multiple sides of the issue by exploring findings from a variety of

different studies, including studies that disagreed with the authors’ own research with

explanations to possible reasons for the differences. For example, the paper mentioned the

results of studies that suggested a shift to following dietary recommendations in the U.S. would

decrease greenhouse gas emissions while also highlighting a study that claimed the opposite

and compared the results of each. Throughout the paper, the authors reference many sources,

including worldwide studies from other experts in the field, as well as information from the IPCC,

DGA, and other reputable organizations. The findings of this paper can be corroborated by

many of the studies mentioned such as a study from Eshel et al. that supported the authors’

claim that replacing beef with plant-based alternatives could have substantial positive impacts

on the environment. The authors also provide a list of 119 sources that are referenced in the

paper. The paper was written to inform researchers, nutrition educators, policymakers, including

governments, food system industries, and community organizations that can promote healthy

food systems and behaviors. The authors include recommendations for policy practice and

research in the paper for these specific groups.

Annotated Bibliography 5:

Heller, M. C., & Keoleian, G. A. (2015). Greenhouse gas emission estimates of US dietary
choices and food loss. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19(3), 391-401.

This paper outlines the environmental costs of food losses through waste and other

means as well as dietary choices in the United States. The authors use a meta-analysis

approach to gather data and make conclusions concerning diet-related greenhouse gas

emissions. They highlight the need for a shift in dietary choices and behavioral choices, such as

minimizing food waste, in order to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Globally, roughly one

third of food is lost or wasted, resulting in greater greenhouse gas emissions to make up for

these losses. According to a study by Venkat cited in the paper, beef represented the largest

single contributor from wasted food at 16%, despite only making up less than 2% of total waste

by weight. In addition, the authors recommend a decrease in caloric intake and meat

consumption. Even though a decrease in caloric intake would yield a less than 1% decrease in

emissions, any increase in caloric intake would cause a much greater increase in emissions.

For example, an increase to a 2,500-Calorie diet would result in a 12% overall increase in

greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, the adoption of a vegetarian diet could result in a much

lower carbon footprint (30% reduction) that would be roughly the same as eliminating all retail-

and consumer-level food losses. Therefore, efforts to reduce food waste and meat consumption

would decrease greenhouse gas emissions and have a positive effect on the environment.

Both authors of this current paper are experts in the fields of environmental

sustainability. Martin Heller is a research specialist at the Center for Sustainable Systems at the

University of Michigan. Gregory Keoleian is a professor of sustainable systems in the School of

Natural Resources and Environment, professor of civic and environmental engineering, and

director of the Center of Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan. Contact information

is provided in the paper. The authors do not express a bias in the paper and are honest about

possible issues with their study. They discuss multiple different studies as well as the limitations
of each study that could impact the results. For example, they compare two studies by Venkat

and Showell et al. that attempt to estimate losses from cooking food. They state that neither

study can provide accurate estimates because of the inability to separate cooking losses from

uneaten food when collecting data. All claims in the paper are corroborated by other sources.

Because the authors use a meta-analysis method for their research, the data is gathered from

other studies. The paper includes a reference list for all the sources used and cited in the paper.

This is a scientific paper written for people investigating the impact of dietary choices and food

loss, specifically food waste, on greenhouse gas emissions, such as researchers or food system

industries. The authors call the audience to action, stating that shifts in dietary choices and

behavioral choices, including wasting food, are needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Annotated Bibliography 6:

Heller, M. C., Willits-Smith, A., Meyer, R., Keoleian, G. A., & Rose, D. (2018). Greenhouse gas
emissions and energy use associated with production of individual self-selected US diets.
Environmental Research Letters, 13(4), 044004.

This paper assesses the greenhouse gas emissions associated with certain diets in the

United States. The authors study one-day diets of adults in the U.S. and calculate the

percentage of contribution to total greenhouse gas emissions for each of the five quintiles. The

emissions associated with the fifth quintile of diets were 7.9 times greater than that of the first

quintile and three times that of the third quintile. This is largely attributed to the higher caloric

intake and the greater consumption of meat. The findings reveal that meat and dairy contribute

the most to greenhouse gas emissions and energy demands, with the meats group contributing

57% of dietary greenhouse gas emissions. The authors conclude that a dietary shift towards

less meat and a lower caloric intake, whether though policy, organizational/ leadership efforts,

or individual efforts, is necessary to reduce the environmental impact of diets in the U.S..

The authors of this current paper are experts in the field of environmental sustainability

and/or global health. Martin Heller, Robert Meyer, and Gregory Keoleian are researchers at the

Center for Sustainable Systems of the School for Environment and Sustainability at the

University of Michigan. Donald Rose and Amelia Willits-Smith are researchers at the

Department of Global Community Health and Behavioral Sciences at Tulane University. An

email is provided to contact Martin Heller. The authors do not express a bias in the paper. They

compare their findings to other studies and discuss possible explanations for differences,

including limitations to their own study as well as the others. For example, they point out that the

self-reported diets used in the study are known for carrying an under-reporting bias in which

participants’ reported food consumption is lower than their typical intake. The authors

corroborate their claims with a variety of other sources and use data from the U.S. National

Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to form their conclusions. A list of references that were
used for the study and/or cited in the paper is included. This is a scientific paper written for

people investigating the impact of dietary choices in the United States on greenhouse gas

emissions, such as researchers or food system industries, as well as policy makers or

organizations looking to promote dietary shifts in the U.S.. In the conclusion, the authors

express the need for a change in U.S. diets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy

use, suggesting campaigns or policies to promote this.

Annotated Bibliography 7:

Scarborough, P., Appleby, P. N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A. D., Travis, R. C., Bradbury, K. E., &
Key, T. J. (2014). Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters,
vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Climatic change, 125(2), 179-192.

This paper assesses the greenhouse gas emissions associated with certain diets in the

United Kingdom, comparing the emissions from diets of meat-eaters with those of vegetarians

and vegans. The authors conducted a study of self-selected diets from 65,000 participants in

the UK who were categorized as meat-eaters (high, medium, and low), fish-eaters, vegetarians,

and vegans. Nutritional analyses of the food items from the food-frequency questionnaire were

based on nutritional data for food codes taken from UK food composition tables and were used

to estimate greenhouse gas emissions of the reported diets. The emissions for each individual

were standardized to a 2,000 kcal daily diet. The study concluded that the highest dietary

greenhouse gas emissions were found in high meat-eating men, and the lowest were found in

vegan women. The emissions in the diets of meat-eaters (7.19 kgCO2e/day for high, 5.63

kgCO2e/day for medium, and 4.67 kgCO2e/day for low) were approximately twice as high as

those in vegan diets (2.89 kgCO2e/day). The authors suggest that the consumption of animal-

based products should be lowered in order to achieve a healthier and more sustainable diet.

The authors of this current paper are experts in the field of nutrition science and/ or

public health. Peter Scarborough is a Principal Investigator for the Oxford Martin Programme on

the Future of Food. Paul Appleby is a Senior Statistician at the European Prospective

Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). Anja Mizdrak is a researcher at the Department

of Public Health at the University of Otago. Adam Briggs is an Academic Clinical Fellow in

Public Health for the British Heart Foundation Health Promotion Research Group in the Oxford

Martin Programme on the Future of Food. Ruth Travis is a molecular epidemiologist at the

Nuffield Department of Population Health. Kathryn Bradbury is the principal investigator of a

project examining the associations between diet and biomarkers at the University of Oxford. Tim
Key is a Deputy Unit Director and Professor of Epidemiology at the European Prospective

Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. An email is provided to contact Peter Scarborough. The

authors do not express a bias in the paper. They compare their findings to other studies and

discuss possible explanations for differences, including limitations to their own study as well as

the others. For example, they point out that other studies have attempted to model reduced-

meat dietary scenarios to compare the differences in greenhouse gas emissions, such as a

study by Berners-Lee et al. that modified meat-eating diets with selected replacement foods.

However, the authors note that their study is one of the first to use real self-selected diets from

participants. The authors corroborate their claims with a variety of other sources and use data

from organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization in the UK. A list of references

that were used for the study and/ or cited in the paper is included. This is a scientific paper

written for people investigating the differences in the environmental impacts, specifically

greenhouse gas emissions, between certain self-selected diets, such as researchers or food

system industries, as well as policy makers or organizations looking to develop healthier and

more sustainable dietary guidelines. The authors suggest that national governments that are

considering updating dietary recommendations to define a healthy, sustainable diet should

incorporate the recommendation to lower the consumption of animal-based products.