<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">FNS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Food and Nutrition Sciences</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2157-944X</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/fns.2023.147041</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">FNS-126498</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Biomedical&amp;Life Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Carbon, Water, Ecological Footprints, Energy and Nutritional Densities of Omnivore and Vegan Culinary Preparations
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Thadia</surname><given-names>Turon Costa Da Silva</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bianca</surname><given-names>Biscacio Falco</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Isis</surname><given-names>Gomes De Castro</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rita</surname><given-names>Barreira Zanon</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Juliana</surname><given-names>Vidal Vieira Guerra</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Karina</surname><given-names>Yuriko Yaginuma</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Verônica</surname><given-names>Oliveira</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Aline</surname><given-names>Gomes De Mello De Oliveira</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Math and Statistics Institute, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Brasil</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Josué de Castro Nutrition Institute, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>12</day><month>07</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>14</volume><issue>07</issue><fpage>626</fpage><lpage>637</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>7,</day>	<month>June</month>	<year>2023</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>21,</day>	<month>July</month>	<year>2023</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>24,</day>	<month>July</month>	<year>2023s</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  This study aimed to evaluate energy and nutritional densities, water, carbon and ecological footprints, cost, of omnivorous and vegan main courses served in a university restaurant in the city of Rio de Janeiro. A cross-sectional, analytical study was conducted with 40 main dish-type preparations, 20 of which are omnivorous and 20 vegans, served at lunch, to assess energy and nutritional densities, carbon, water and ecological footprints and cost of preparations. We propose a healthy and sustainable preparation index (HSPI) to evaluate from the list, the best preparation options considering the nutritional quality combined with the impact that the food causes on the environment. Preparations with the highest HSPI were considered the best options because they have a good relation between the nutritional profile and the environmental impact. 
  <b>Results:</b> Regarding energy (ED), nutritional (ND) densities and water, carbon and ecological footprints, omnivorous preparations presented much higher values when compared to the vegan ones. The omnivorous preparations had the highest average cost (R$ 3.44). Regarding the HSPI, vegan preparations showed better rates than omnivorous preparations. Food services should promote healthy and sustainable choices by offering menus with low energy density preparations, high nutritional density, and low environmental impact, considering local realities and customer needs. 
  <b>Conclusion:</b> This study was able to evaluate the best preparation options, considering the nutritional profile and the food impact on the environment, using health and sustainable indicators. Obtaining indicators of preparations regarding healthiness and sustainability, in practice, translates environmental aspects in menu planning, which contribute to changes in food consumption patterns in food services, in addition to contributing to the reduction of the environmental impact. In this way, they can be used as tools added to the menu planning process for the analysis of the environmental impact of menus, in addition to nutritional and qualitative aspects.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Food Services</kwd><kwd> Menu Planning</kwd><kwd> Environment</kwd><kwd> Carbon Footprint</kwd><kwd> Water Footprint</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Current food systems contribute to driving not only obesity and malnutrition pandemics, but also generate 25% - 30% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, threatening public health and the planet [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref1">1</xref>] . In order to minimize these effects, profound changes are needed, mainly in the way agribusiness and the large food industries operate and organize themselves, with the strengthening of local, national and global public policies, to guarantee food and nutritional security, environmental sustainability and resilience of the planet [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref2">2</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref3">3</xref>] . Among the main alternatives indicated to minimize greenhouse gas emissions are: the adoption of healthy diets with reduced consumption of ultra-processed foods, prioritization of land use for fair, clean and sustainable agriculture [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref6">6</xref>] .</p><p>Adequate and healthy food must come from a socially and environmentally sustainable food system, considering, therefore, the impact of the ways of producing and distributing food on social justice and the integrity of the environment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref7">7</xref>] . And it is recommended that natural or minimally processed foods, in great variety and predominantly of plant origin, be the basis of a nutritionally balanced, tasty, culturally appropriate diet that promotes a socially and environmentally sustainable food system [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref7">7</xref>] . However, it is observed that in the diet of the Brazilian population, the consumption of fruits and vegetables is still below the recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO), and represents only 3.7% of the total calories consumed, despite natural foods and minimally processed account for nearly half of the total calories available [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref9">9</xref>] . In addition, there is also a progressive increase in the consumption of processed and ultra-processed foods, which from 2002 to 2017 increased from 12.6% to 18.4% of calories [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref10">10</xref>] .</p><p>In this sense, the potential of food services in propagating the adoption of healthier eating practices and habits is recognized, as well as the impact on the food system, due to the use of a large volume of food used to produce meals on a daily basis. Thus, careful planning of menus, which translates into the evaluation of nutritional criteria, quality, and food footprints, corroborates the production of meals aligned with sustainable agrifood systems [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref11">11</xref>] . Thus, obtaining environmental indicators for the management of food services makes it possible to compare the impacts of meal production in relation to the environment, making it possible to minimize the consumption of natural resources or introduce technologies that reduce or eliminate the pollution load.</p><p>As indicators of menu sustainability, there are the water, carbon and ecological footprints of both food and culinary preparations [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref12">12</xref>] . Footprints propose to measure, respectively, the total amount of water used directly or indirectly during the product and service life cycle phases; the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are directly or indirectly caused by the activity or are accumulated over the course of the life cycle; in addition to assessing the consumption pressure of human populations on natural resources, which allows comparing different consumption patterns, and verifying whether they are within the ecological capacity of the planet [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref14">14</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref15">15</xref>] .</p><p>When planning menus, the selection of healthy, sustainable, and low-cost preparations is a major challenge for nutritionists who work in the collective food sector and is essential for the promotion of health and environmental care, which reinforces the importance of this study [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref13">13</xref>] . Therefore, the objective was to evaluate the energy and nutritional densities, water, carbon and ecological footprints, and the cost, of omnivorous and vegan main courses served in a university restaurant in the city of Rio de Janeiro.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><p>This is a cross-sectional study, carried out from the menu of a university restaurant in the city of Rio de Janeiro served for 01 month to evaluate the cost, energy density, nutritional density, and water, carbon and ecological footprints of 40 main courses served at lunch, with 20 omnivorous preparations, based on beef, poultry, fish or pork and 20 vegan preparations.</p><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Food Service and Menu</title><p>The university restaurant is open from Monday to Sunday and produces, on average, 8000 meals a day, for lunch and dinner for university students and employees. The production process of meals is carried out by a third-party company, which is responsible for all stages, from the acquisition of raw materials to the distribution of ready-to-eat meals. The standard menu is of the popular type and consists of: starter, side dish, main course (omnivore), vegan option for main course, dessert and drink. The menu is planned by the outsourced company’s nutritionists together with the fiscal nutritionists of the said university’s food system, considering the specifications of the contract’s term of reference.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Cost, Energy and Nutritional Density of Preparations</title><p>To calculate the cost of preparations, the gross per capita values of food recorded in the daily requisition form for goods and the 2019 price quotations from CEASA, Funda&#231;&#227;o Get&#250;lio Vargas and on food supplier websites were used.</p><p>The energy value of the preparations was calculated using food centesimal composition tables [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref16">16</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref17">17</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref18">18</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref19">19</xref>] . And the energy density (ED) of the respective preparations was calculated by dividing the total energy value of the preparation (Kcal) by its weight in grams (g) as described by RICARDO &amp; CLARO (2012). ED is defined as the amount of energy provided per gram of food weight [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref17">17</xref>] . The preparations were classified according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as: high energy density (4 to 9 kcal/g), medium energy density (1.5 to 4 kcal/g), low energy density (0.7 to 1.5 kcal/g) and very low energy density (0 to 0.6 kcal/g) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref20">20</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref21">21</xref>] .</p><p>To calculate the nutritional density (ND), which refers to the nutritional content of the preparation in relation to the number of calories it provides, the following micronutrients were considered: retinol equivalents, vitamin D, vitamin E, thiamine, riboflavin, vitamin C, niacin, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, folate, phosphorus, iron, potassium, calcium, magnesium, selenium and zinc. To calculate the ND of the preparation, the content of vitamins and minerals present in each food were added up and, subsequently, the value of the sum of micronutrients was divided by the weight of the portion of the preparation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref19">19</xref>] . It was decided to use the portion size to calculate the nutritional density of the preparations, as Drewnowski &amp; Fulgoni (2014) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref22">22</xref>] report that models based on portions performed better than those based on 100 g of food.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Water, Carbon and Ecological Footprints</title><p>The calculation of water, carbon and ecological footprints was performed using Equation (1). The values from the table proposed by Garzillo et al. (2019) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref13">13</xref>] with the footprints of food and culinary preparations consumed in Brazil. The results obtained for nutritional density, energy density, cost and environmental footprints were described in mean, minimum and maximum values. In addition, costs were compared between preparations served with meat and vegan options.</p><p>Preparation footprint</p><p>= (serving weight &#215; footprint (water or carbon or ecological))/100 (1)</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Healthy and Sustainable Preparation Index and Statistical Analysis</title><p>Based on the nutritional density and the values of the water, carbon and ecological footprint of the preparations, a set of indexes was calculated which were called the healthy and sustainable preparation index (HSPI) based on the study by Smedman et al. 2010 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref14">14</xref>] . The HSPI was proposed to list the best options for preparations taking into account the nutritional quality combined with the impact that the food has on the environment. The preparations that presented the highest HSPI-h, HSPI-c, HSPI-e were considered the best options because they presented a better combination of nutritional profile and lower environmental impact. HSPI calculations were performed from Equations (2).</p><p>HSPI-h = NutritionalDensity waterfootprint HSPI-c = NutritionalDensity carbonfootprint HSPI-e = NutritionalDensity Ecologicalfootprint (2)</p><p>The differences obtained between the medians of the HSPI of the omnivorous and vegan main courses, as well as between the dishes based on beef and other types of meat (poultry, fish, and pork) were evaluated. For the analysis of the indexes, the normality distribution of the variables was verified using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk test. Considering that some indexes presented non-parametric distribution, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to verify if there was a statistically significant difference between the medians of the indexes and costs, considering a significance level of 95% and p-value &lt; 0.05. To carry out the statistical analysis, the SPSS program (Statistical Package for Social Sciences), version 13.0, was used. Data are presented as median and interquartile range.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results and Discussion</title><p>The cost of the main courses served in the university restaurant ranged from R$0.04 to R$8.24. Meat-based preparations had a higher average cost (R$3.44) while vegan preparations had a lower average cost (R$0.20) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). Abreu et al. (2019) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref16">16</xref>] point out that the foodstuffs that most contribute to the increase in menu costs are those of animal origin. In a study carried out by Verly-Junior et al. (2021) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref23">23</xref>] it was verified that in the menus in which large amounts of meat and fruit were offered, there was a higher cost. However, these menus were not necessarily the ones with the best nutritional quality.</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> presents the average values, minimum and maximum cost values, energy densities, nutritional density, and environmental footprints of omnivorous and vegan main courses. The preparations served as an omnivorous main courses had a higher ED when compared to the vegan preparations, this result may be associated with the fat content present in the composition of the meats (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). Of meat-based preparations, most 70% (14 preparations) were classified as medium ED and 30% (6 preparations) as low ED. The ED of the preparations: Thai chicken or chicken with paprika was 1.52 kcal/g, the Italian drumstick with tomato sauce had an ED of 2.24 kcal/g. However, the fish-based preparations: Fish Stew and Fish Steak with Escabeche Sauce had low energy density</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Average values, minimum and maximum values of cost, energy densities, nutritional density, and environmental footprints</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Classification of Preparations</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Main course Omnivorous</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Main course Vegan</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cost (BRL) average (minimum-maximum)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.44 (0.33 - 8.24)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.20 (0.04 - 0.58)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Energy Density (Kcal/g)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8 (1.08 - 2.72)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.37 (0.48 - 3.04)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nutritional Density (g/Kcal)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >966.1 (561.5 - 1327.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >536.6 (172.7 - 1082.3)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Water Footprint (L)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2032.6 (38.2 - 4361.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >410.2 (53.8 - 2742.9)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Carbon Footprint (gCO<sup>2</sup>eq)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2258.9 (616.4 - 4919.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >519.2 (25.8 - 3156.6)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ecological Footprint (g∙m<sup>2</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.1 (3.4 - 41.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.9 (0.2 - 25.1)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>(1.08 kcal/g) and those composed of beef the ED ranged from 1.17 kcal/g (Catchupa) to 2.72 kcal/g (Kibbeh) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). ED is understood as the amount of energy available per unit weight (kcal/g) of food, meals, and diets, being influenced by the water and fat content, playing an important role in satiety, energy consumption and, in the long term, in the body weight of individuals. Considering that the world is going through a global syndemic in which obesity and malnutrition go hand in hand, offering preparations with low ED can be strategic in controlling obesity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref19">19</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref20">20</xref>] .</p><p>Regarding the average values of the cost of the preparations, the great difference found between the omnivorous and vegan main course reflects the high value of animal foods, when compared to plant foods. Abreu et al. (2019) point to the importance of main courses of animal origin, meat, poultry, and fish, in the financial management of food services, highlighting these material resources, such as those with the highest cost for the execution of planned menus [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref16">16</xref>] .</p><p>In a study carried out by Oliveira et al. (2010) in a Food and Nutrition Unit (FNU), meat-based preparations were also classified as medium ED. The shredded roast chicken had a higher ED, 2.36 kcal/g, due to the characteristics of the cuts used: thigh and drumstick, which have a higher fat content, and the cooking method used in the preparation, roast, which favors the loss of water during cooking, concentrating the preparation and favoring an increase in ED [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref24">24</xref>] .</p><p>Of the vegan main courses, 35% (7 preparations) were classified as medium ED, another 35% (7 preparations) as low ED and 30% (6 preparations) with very low ED (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). The ED of the vegetarian preparations ranged from 0.48 Kcal/g observed in the preparation thai eggplant-tomato extract, tomato sauce, peanuts, ginger and curry) and 3.04 kcal/g for the Chickpea Bob&#243;, made with coconut milk, cassava, tomato sauce, coriander and palm oil, lentil-based preparations such as: spring lentils (lentils, green olives, green, yellow and red peppers and carrots) and lentil pie with carrots ( lentils, carrots, parsley and olive oil), in addition to having a low cost of R$ 0.19 and 0.15, they also had a very low ED of 0.57 kcal/g and 0.60 kcal/g, respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p><p>Study carried out by Canella et al. (2011) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref25">25</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref26">26</xref>] who evaluated the ED of meals provided by companies that adhered to the Worker’s Food Program (WFP) reported the existence of a positive correlation between preparations with</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Frequency of energy density of main courses according to CDC classification (2005)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >ED classification</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Parameter (CDC, 2005)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Omnivore Main Course n (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Vegan Main Course n (%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >High</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 to 9 kcal/g</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Average</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5 to 4 kcal/g</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14 (70%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (35%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Low</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.7 to 1.5 kcal/g</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (30%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (35%)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Very low</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 to 0.6 kcal/g</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (30%)</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>high ED and the offer of total fats on the menu. This result suggests that the fat content of the preparations was responsible for the high ED. Thus, reducing the supply of fatty foods leads to a decrease in the ED of the menu.</p><p>When analyzing the Nutritional Density (ND) of the preparations: Italian style drumstick with tomato sauce (drumstick, tomato sauce, tomato extract, basil, and starch) and meatball with sugo were the ones that presented the highest ND, both with 1327.6 g/Kg. Thus, these preparations have a high amount of nutrients in relation to the energy value, promoting a higher intake of vitamins, minerals, fibers, polyunsaturated fatty acids, and other essential nutrients, with fewer calories [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref18">18</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref19">19</xref>] .</p><p>Another aspect to be considered during menu planning is the environmental impact caused by the foods present in the preparations, and it is important to assess the water, carbon, and ecological footprints in order to help offer environmentally sustainable preparations [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref24">24</xref>] .</p><p>The preparations that had the highest environmental footprints were Meat in Lisbon (PH: 4361.9 L; PC: 4919.8 gCO<sup>2</sup>eq; PE: 27.3 g∙m<sup>2</sup>) and sugo meatballs (PH: 3350.6 L; PC: 3805.7 gCO<sup>2</sup>eq; PE: 21.0 g∙m<sup>2</sup>), as they had the highest footprint values (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). In a study carried out by Strasburgo and Jahno (2015) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref27">27</xref>] that evaluated the water footprint of meals served in a University Restaurant (UR), it was found that beef had the highest water footprint value, corroborating the results found in the present study.</p><p>Chicken stroganoff, Meat in Lisbon, Pot steak, Mexican style meat, Steak with roty sauce, Meatball with tomato sauce were the preparations that presented the highest values for the three footprints analyzed (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p><p>The fish stew had the highest carbon footprint while the fish fillet with marinade sauce had the highest ecological footprint (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). Most preparations made from beef had a negative environmental impact. It is noted that almost all preparations in this category had water and carbon footprints greater than 3000 L and ecological footprint values greater than 21 g∙m<sup>2</sup>.</p><p>In a study carried out by Oliveira (2010) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref24">24</xref>] , who evaluated the impact on the environment with the implementation of “Meatless Monday” in university restaurants on the Unicamp/Campinas campus, the author found that there was a reduction of 20%, the emission of methane (CH<sub>4</sub>), twenty times more harmful than carbon dioxide, in addition to saving water that is spent on a large scale in refrigerators, reaching millions of cubic meters. There was a gross reduction of 1 billion liters of water per year and the equivalent of 2440 tons of CO<sub>2</sub> emitted. Therefore, in the menu planning phase, the assessment of the environmental impact caused by the offer of preparations must be considered, in order to minimize environmental damage and encourage the formation of healthier and more sustainable eating habits.</p><p>Although meat-based preparations are recognized as having the greatest impact on environmental footprints, it is important to emphasize that a detailed study of the menu served must be carried out by food service managers.</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Environmental footprints of omnivorous preparations</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Preparations</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Water Footprint (L)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Carbon Footprint (gCO<sup>2</sup>eq)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Ecological footprint (g∙m<sup>2</sup>)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Roast Chicken*</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1308.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1159.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chicken with Spanish Sauce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >785.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >632.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Thai Chicken</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >981.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >789.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Italian chicken drumstick with tomato sauce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1308.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1052.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chicken in paprika sauce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >785.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >616.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chicken Stroganoff</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3182.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3704.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fish stew</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1056.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fish fillet with marinade sauce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >734.2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sweet and sour pork tenderloin stew</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1106.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1100.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Catchupa (pepperoni sausage and pork loin)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >857.37</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >728.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.438</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Steak with roti sauce</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3489.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3935.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Kebab</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1792.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2047.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Meat in Lisbon</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4361.9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4919.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Meatball in tomato sauce<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3350.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3805.7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mexican beef</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3489.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3935.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pot steak</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3489.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3935.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.8</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>a. This preparation was served 3 times, on different days and weeks, during the period of the evaluated menu.</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> presents the HSPI of omnivorous and vegan preparations. The indexes show a statistically significant difference in that the HSPI of vegan preparations are higher than those considered omnivorous.</p><p>In <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>, the main courses based on beef presented lower indexes. Therefore, among dishes based on animal meat, it is observed that the consumption of poultry, fish and pork is nutritionally and environmentally more advantageous.</p><p>Food services should promote healthy and sustainable choices by offering menus with low energy density preparations, high nutritional density, and low environmental impact and that reflect the reality of these places and the needs of their clientele, modifying the food environment in such a way [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref27">27</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref28">28</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref29">29</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref30">30</xref>] .</p><p>As observed by Smedman (2010) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.126498-ref14">14</xref>] , the indexes presented are value tools that allow, in practice, to consider environmental aspects in the planning of menus where until then they were evaluated only in relation to nutritional, energetic, financial and sensorial aspects. Ultimately, they can facilitate changes in food consumption patterns to lessen the environmental impact.</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Environmental footprints of omnivorous preparations</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Average</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Standard Deviation</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >H<sub>1</sub>: &lt;</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Omnivorous</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vegan</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Omnivorous</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vegan</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p-value</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >HSPI - h</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.57</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00022977</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >HSPI - c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.72</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.41</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.45</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.49</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.000002916</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >HSPI - e</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1002.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >711.42</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.000004295</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Comparison of HSPI of preparations based on beef and other meats (poultry, pork, and fish)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Average</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Standard deviation</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >H<sub>1</sub>: &lt;</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bovine</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Others</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bovine</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Others</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p-value</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >HSPI - h</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.46</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00005557</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >HSPI - c</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.03</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.28</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.00005557</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >HSPI - e</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.96</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >130.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.009286</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Menus in food and nutrition units can be prepared for periods defined as weekly, fortnightly, or even monthly, considering food harvest, availability of material and financial resources, clientele acceptance, physical-functional structure, and productive capacity. Furthermore, the menus can be replicated throughout the year of services provided, which in practice is observed by the repetition of preparations, which in this study was also reflected in the low number of preparations analyzed from the HSPI, a limitation of the study.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Conclusions</title><p>Preparations served as an omnivorous main course had a higher ED compared to vegan dishes. Most meat-based preparations were classified as medium ED. Of the vegan main courses most were classified as medium and low ED. By calculating the water, carbon, and ecological footprints, it was possible to measure the impact of each preparation served on environmental resources. And in this way, the preparations that had the greatest impact on the environment were those prepared with beef: meat in Lisbon and meatballs in tomato sauce.</p><p>From the evaluation of the HSPI-h; HSPI-c; HSPI-e, is recommended to prioritize vegan main courses, poultry, fish, and pork-based preparations when planning menus, and restricting the use of beef-based preparations, in order to meet the requirements of healthy and sustainable eating. The indexes obtained seem to be efficient to assist in the planning of menus in food services. However, further research is suggested to test the HSPI with a greater number of preparations.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>We are grateful to the Department of Nutrition and Dietetics from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro for providing the facilities for de conduction of this project. This project is financially supported the Brazilian agency: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient&#237;fico e Tecnol&#243;gico (CNPq).</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Da Silva, T.T.C., Falco, B.B., De Castro, I.G., Zanon, R.B., Guerra, J.V.V., Yaginuma, K.Y., Oliveira, V. and Oliveira, A.G.M. (2023) Carbon, Water, Ecological Footprints, Energy and Nutritional Densities of Omnivore and Vegan Culinary Preparations. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 14, 626-637. https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2023.147041</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.126498-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Triches, R.M. (2020) Dietas saudáveis e sustentáveis no ambito do sistema alimentar no século XXI. Saúde em Debate, 44, 881-894. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-1104202012622</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Marchioni, D.M., de Carvalho, A.M. and Villar, B.S. (2021) Dietas sustentáveis e sistemas alimentares: Novos desafios da nutri&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o em saúde pública. Revista USP, 1, 61-76. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2316-9036.i128p61-76</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">(2019) A Sindemia Global da Obesidade, Desnutri&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o e Mudan&amp;#231;as Climáticas. https://alimentandopoliticas.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/idec-the_lancet-sumario_executivo-baixa.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Martinelli, S.S., Soares, P., Fabri, R.K., Regina, G., Campanella, A., Rover, O.J., et al. (2015) Seguran&amp;#231;a alimentar e nutricional Potencialidades da compra institucional na promo&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o de sistemas agroalimentares locais e sustentáveis: o caso de um restaurante universitário. Seguran&amp;#231;a Alimentar e Nutricional, 22, 558-573. https://doi.org/10.20396/san.v22i1.8641574</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wallace, T.C., Bailey, R.L., Blumberg, J.B., Burton-Freeman, B., Chen, C.Y.O., Crowe-White, K.M., et al. (2020) Fruits, Vegetables, and Health: A Comprehensive Narrative, Umbrella Review of the Science and Recommendations for Enhanced Public Policy to Improve Intake. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 60, 2174-2211. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1632258</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gaitán-Cremaschi, D., Klerkx, L., Duncan, J., Trienekens, J.H., Huenchuleo, C., Dogliotti, S., et al. (2019) Characterizing Diversity of Food Systems in View of Sustainability Transitions. A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 39, Article No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0550-2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Béné, C., Prager, S.D., Achicanoy, H.A.E., Toro, P.A., Lamotte, L., Cedrez, C.B., et al. (2019) Understanding Food Systems Drivers: A Critical Review of the Literature. Global Food Security, 23, 149-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.04.009</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ministério da Saúde (2014) Guia Alimentar para a Popula&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o Brasileira. https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/guia_alimentar_populacao_brasileira_2ed.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">World Health Organization (2003) Diet, Nutrition, and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases: Report of a Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">IBGE (2011) Pesquisa de Or&amp;#231;amentos Familiares. https://portaldeboaspraticas.iff.fiocruz.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/liv50063.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">IBGE (2023) Evolu&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o dos Indicadores de Qualidade de Vida no Brasil com base na Pesquisa de Or&amp;#231;amentos Familiares.https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/livros/liv102006.pdf</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cerutti, A.K., Contu, S., Ardente, F., Donno, D. and Beccaro, G.L. (2016) Carbon Footprint in Green Public Procurement: Policy Evaluation from a Case Study in the Food Sector. Food Policy, 58, 82-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.12.001</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Garzillo, J.M.F., Machado, P.P., Louzada, M.L.C.L, Levy, R.B. and Monteiro, C.A. (2019) Pegadas dos alimentos e das prepara&amp;#231;&amp;#245;es culinárias consumidos no Brasil. Editora da Faculdade de Saúde Pública USP, Universidade de S&amp;#227;o Paulo, S&amp;#227;o Paulo. http://www.livrosabertos.sibi.usp.br/portaldelivrosUSP/catalog/view/393/345/1602-1 https://doi.org/10.11606/9788588848368</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Smedman, A., Lindmark-Mansson, H., Drewnowski, A. and Edman, A.K.M. (2010) Nutrient Density of Beverages in Relation to Climate Impact. Food &amp; Nutrition Research, 54, Article 5170. https://doi.org/10.3402/fnr.v54i0.5170</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">World Wide Fund for Nature (2021) A família das pegadas. https://www.wwf.org.br/natureza_brasileira/especiais/pegada_ecologica/a_familia_das_pegadas/</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Abreu, E.S., Spinelli, M.G.N. and Saladino, R.S. (2019) Gest&amp;#227;o de Unidades de Alimenta&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o e Nutri&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o:um modo de fazer. 7th edition, Editora Metha, S&amp;#227;o Paulo.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ricardo, C.Z. and Claro, R.M. (2012) Custo da alimenta&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o e densidade energética da dieta no Brasil, 2008-2009. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 28, 2349-2361. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2012001400013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lima, D.M., et al. (2006) Tabela Brasileira de Composi&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o de Alimentos—TACO. Núcleo de Estudos e Pesquisas em Alimenta&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o—NEPA, Universidade Estadual de Campinas—UNICAMP, 2006.http://www.crn1.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/taco.pdf?x53725</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tabela Brasileira de Composi&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o de Alimentos (TBCA), Universidade de S&amp;#227;o Paulo (USP) and Food Research Center (FoRC) (2019) TBCA 7.2. Tabela Brasileira de Composi&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o de Alimentos. http://www.fcf.usp.br/tbca</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">U.S. Department of Agriculture and Agricultural Research Service (2012) USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 25. http://www.ars.usda.gov/ba/bhnrc/ndl</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">United States Department of Agriculture (2012) Composition of Foods Raw, Processed, Prepared USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 25.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Drewnowski, A. and Fulgoni, V.L. (2014) Nutrient Density: Principles and Evaluation Tools. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 99, 1223S-1228S. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.113.073395</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Verly-Junior, E., de Oliveira, D.C.R.S., Pinto, R.L., Marques, E.S., Cunha, D.B. and Sarti, F.M. (2021) Viabilidade no atendimento às normas do Programa Nacional de Alimenta&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o Escolar e sua rela&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o com custo dos cardápios. Ciência &amp; Saúde Coletiva, 26, 749-756. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232021262.01012019</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Oliveira, C.S., Reis, C.S., Miranda, T.S., Akutsu, R.C., Sávio, K.E. and Botelho, R.B.A. (2010) Análise da densidade energética de prepara&amp;#231;&amp;#245;es servidas em Unidade de Nutri&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o e Dietética. Brazilian Society for Food and Nutrition, 35, 77-86.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Canella, D.S., Bandoni, D.H. and Jaime, P.C. (2011) Densidade energética de refei&amp;#231;&amp;#245;es oferecidas em empresas inscritas no programa de alimenta&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o do Trabalhador no município de S&amp;#227;o Paulo. Revista de Nutri&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o, 24, 715-724. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-52732011000500005</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Canella, D.S. (2011) Densidade energética da alimenta&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o oferecida em ambiente de trabalho e da dieta de trabalhadores. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade de S&amp;#227;o Paulo, S&amp;#227;o Paulo.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Strasburg, V.J. and Jahno, V.D. (2015) Sustentabilidade de cardápio: Avalia&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o da pegada hídrica nas refei&amp;#231;&amp;#245;es de um restaurante universitário. Revista Ambiente &amp; água, 10, 903-914. https://doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua.1664</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ello-Martin, J.A., Ledikwe, J.H. and Rolls, B.J. (2005) The Influence of Food Portion Size and Energy Density on Energy Intake: Implications for Weight Management. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 82, 236S-241S. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn.82.1.236S</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rampersaud, G., Filomena Valim, M. and Barros, S. (2012) Calculation and Comparison of Nutrient Density/Quality Scores for Commonly Consumed Fresh Fruit. Alimentos e Nutricao, 23, 7-14.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.126498-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">dos Santos, M.V., da Costa Proen&amp;#231;a, R.P., Fiates, G.M.R. and Calvo, M.C.M. (2011) Os Restaurantes por peso no contexto de alimenta&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o saudável fora de casa. Revista de Nutri&amp;#231;&amp;#227;o, 24, 641-649. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-52732011000400012</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>