Table 4.
Sensitivity of the health modelling results to changes in the lags in dietary effects on disease and the disease trends, shown for the scenarios that achieve the largest lifetime health gain in DALYs
| Country | Dietary scenario with best health outcomes | Millions of DALYs averted (% changea) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base case | No lags | Longer lags | No trends | ||
| Men | |||||
| UK | + 50% GHGE reduction | 21 | 22 (+7%) | 19 (−7%) | 19 (−9%) |
| France | + 30% GHGE reduction | 7.3 | 8.1 (+11%) | 6.5 (−10%) | 8.7 (+20%) |
| Italy | GHGE minimised | 13 | 14 (+13%) | 11 (−11%) | 18 (+43%) |
| Sweden | + 60% GHGE reduction | 2 | 2.2 (+10%) | 1.8 (−10%) | 2.2 (+12%) |
| Finland | + 70% GHGE reduction | 2.5 | 2.7 (+7%) | 2.3 (−7%) | 2.5 (-0.1%) |
| Women | |||||
| UK | GHGE minimised | 20 | 21 (+7%) | 18 (−7%) | 20 (+3%) |
| France | GHGE minimised | 15 | 16 (+8%) | 14 (−8%) | 16 (+4%) |
| Italy | + 60% GHGE reduction | 15 | 16 (+11%) | 13 (−9%) | 20 (+38%) |
| Sweden | GHGE minimised | 1.5 | 1.6 (+9%) | 1.4 (−9%) | 1.7 (+11%) |
| Finland | GHGE minimised | 2.3 | 2.5 (+8%) | 2.1 (−8%) | 2.5 (+8%) |
aPercent change in comparison to DALYs averted in base case scenarios