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.
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.