Front. Nutr.Frontiers in NutritionFront. Nutr.2296-861XFrontiers Media S.A.10.3389/fnut.2018.00026NutritionCorrectionCorrigendum: Environmental Impacts of Plant-Based Diets: How Does Organic Food Consumption Contribute to Environmental Sustainability?LacourCamille1SecondaLouise12*AllèsBenjamin1HercbergSerge13LangevinBrigitte4PointereauPhilippe4LaironDenis5BaudryJulia1Kesse-GuyotEmmanuelle11Equipe de Recherche en Epidémiologie Nutritionnelle (EREN), Centre d'Epidémiologie et Statistiques Sorbonne Paris Cité, INSERM (U1153), INRA (U1125), CNAM, Université Paris 13, COMUE Sorbonne Paris Cité, obigny, France2Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Energie, Angers, France3Département de Santé Publique, Hôpital Avicenne, Bobigny, France4Solagro, Toulouse, France5Nutrition Obésité et Risque Thrombotique (NORT), Aix Marseille Université, INRA 1260, INSERM UMR S 1062, Marseille, France
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
*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
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.
A corrigendum on Environmental Impacts of Plant-Based Diets: How Does Organic Food Consumption Contribute to Environmental Sustainability? by Lacour C, Seconda L, Allès B, Hercberg S, Langevin B, Pointereau P, Lairon D, Baudry J and Kesse-Guyot E (2018) Front. Nutr. 5:8. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2018.00008provegetarian dietary patternorganic food consumptioneco-friendly farmingdiet-related environmental impactsustainability
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.
Association between provegetarian score tertile and environmental impacts according to the level of organic food consumption, BioNutriNet study, 2014.
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
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.
Conflict of interest statement
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.