There was a mistake in the values of the first column of Table 4 as published. The correct version of Table 4 appears below. The authors apologize for this mistake. This error does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way.
Table 4
| Overall | Level of contribution of organic food to the diet | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low (0.03) | Medium (0.23) | High (0.63) | |||||||
| GHG emissions (CO2eq/d) | Meana | 95%CL | Meana | 95%CL | Meana | 95%CL | Meana | 95%CL | |
| Q1 provegetarian score | 4.56 | (4.51–4.60) | 4.59 | (4.53–4.65) | 4.56 | (4.48–4.63) | 4.10 | (3.99–4.22) | |
| Q2 provegetarian score | 4.05 | (4.01–4.08) | 4.13 | (4.08–4.18) | 4.05 | (4.00–4.10) | 3.74 | (3.66–3.81) | |
| Q3 provegetarian score | 3.62 | (3.62–3.66) | 3.73 | (3.68–3.78) | 3.68 | (3.63–3.74) | 3.34 | (3.28–3.41) | |
| Q4 provegetarian score | 3.23 | (3.20–3.27) | 3.45 | (3.39–3.51) | 3.38 | (3.33–3.43) | 2.94 | (2.89–2.99) | |
| Q5 provegetarian score | 2.27 | (1.33–2.29) | 2.93 | (2.87–2.99) | 2.72 | (2.67–2.76) | 2.12 | (2.09–2.14) | |
| Pb interaction | <0.0001 | ||||||||
| Pc Q1 vs. Q2 | 0.9711 | ||||||||
| Pc Q1 vs. Q3 | 0.2764 | ||||||||
| Pc Q1 vs. Q4 | <0.0001 | ||||||||
| Pc Q1 vs. Q5 | <0.0001 | ||||||||
| Cumulative energy demand (MJ/d) | Meana | 95%CL | Meana | 95%CL | Meana | 95%CL | Meana | 95%CL | |
| Q1 provegetarian score | 18.55 | (18.43–18.67) | 18.58 | (18.40–18.75) | 18.58 | (18.39–18.78) | 17.33 | (17.05–17.63) | |
| Q2 provegetarian score | 17.43 | (17.33–17.53) | 17.62 | (17.47–17.77) | 17.47 | (17.32–17.63) | 16.53 | (16.32–16.73) | |
| Q3 provegetarian score | 16.48 | (15.52–16.58) | 16.87 | (16.70–17.04) | 16.62 | (16.47–16.78) | 15.59 | (15.41–15.77) | |
| Q4 provegetarian score | 15.62 | (15.52–15.73) | 16.42 | (16.21–16.63) | 16.10 | (15.93–16.27) | 14.62 | (14.45–14.78) | |
| Q5 provegetarian score | 13.29 | (13.21–13.37) | 15.56 | (15.33–15.79) | 14.72 | (14.56–14.89) | 12.66 | (12.56–12.76) | |
| Pb interaction | <0.0001 | ||||||||
| Pc Q1 vs. Q2 | 0.9417 | ||||||||
| Pc Q1 vs. Q3 | 0.1044 | ||||||||
| Pc Q1 vs. Q4 | <0.0001 | ||||||||
| Pc Q1 vs. Q5 | <0.0001 | ||||||||
| Land occupational (m2/d) | Meana | 95%CL | Meana | 95%CL | Meana | 95%CL | Meana | 95%CL | |
| Q1 provegetarian score | 11.33 | (11.14–11.41) | 10.94 | (10.78–11.10) | 11.58 | (11.39–11.78) | 11.66 | (11.36–11.96) | |
| Q2 provegetarian score | 10.26 | (10.17–10.35) | 9.89 | (9.76–10.03) | 10.31 | (10.17–10.45) | 10.64 | (10.45–10.85) | |
| Q3 provegetarian score | 9.34 | (9.26–9.43) | 8.95 | (8.81–9.09) | 9.43 | (9.29–9.57) | 9.61 | (9.44–9.79) | |
| Q4 provegetarian score | 8.51 | (8.42–8.60) | 8.26 | (8.10–8.43) | 8.68 | (8.54–8.83) | 8.50 | (8.35–8.65) | |
| Q5 provegetarian score | 6.63 | (6.57–6.69) | 7.03 | (6.87–7.19) | 7.09 | (6.97–7.21) | 6.49 | (6.41–6.57) | |
| Pb interaction | <0.0001 | ||||||||
| Pc Q1 vs. Q2 | 0.7782 | ||||||||
| Pc Q1 vs. Q3 | 0.9696 | ||||||||
| Pc Q1 vs. Q4 | 0.0111 | ||||||||
| Pc Q1 vs. Q5 | <0.0001 | ||||||||
Association between provegetarian score tertile and environmental impacts according to the level of organic food consumption, BioNutriNet study, 2014.
GHG, Greenhouse gas. Models are adjusted on sex, age, and energy intake.
Adjusted mean were obtained with ANOVA models by level of organic food contribution in the diet. P-trend across the provegetarian score quintile are all < 0.0001 and were obtained with linear contrast test by level of organic food contribution in the diet.
P for interaction between provegetarian score quintiles and the level contribution of organic food to the diet.
P-linear trend of Q*v.Q1 of provegetarian score. It reflects the linearity of the difference between the 1st and the others quintiles of provegetarian score across the level of organic consumption.
The original article has been updated.
Statements
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Summary
Keywords
provegetarian dietary pattern, organic food consumption, eco-friendly farming, diet-related environmental impact, sustainability
Citation
Lacour C, Seconda L, Allès B, Hercberg S, Langevin B, Pointereau P, Lairon D, Baudry J and Kesse-Guyot E (2018) Corrigendum: Environmental Impacts of Plant-Based Diets: How Does Organic Food Consumption Contribute to Environmental Sustainability?. Front. Nutr. 5:26. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2018.00026
Received
05 March 2018
Accepted
03 April 2018
Published
18 April 2018
Volume
5 - 2018
Edited by
Giuseppe Grosso, NNEdPro Global Centre for Nutrition and Health, United Kingdom
Reviewed by
Aida Turrini, Consiglio Per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l'Analisi dell'Economia Agraria (CREA), Italy; Alessandra Lafranconi, Università degli studi di Milano Bicocca, Italy; Alice Rosi, Università degli Studi di Parma, Italy
Updates
Copyright
© 2018 Lacour, Seconda, Allès, Hercberg, Langevin, Pointereau, Lairon, Baudry and Kesse-Guyot.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Louise Seconda l.seconda@eren.smbh.univ-paris13.fr
This article was submitted to Nutrition and Environmental Sustainability, a section of the journal Frontiers in Nutrition
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.