Discussion

This study assessed the presence of environmental sustainability messages in FBDGs from European countries and examined whether the inclusion of such messages was associated with adjusted recommended daily amounts of meat and pulses. We found that more recent FBDGs were more likely to align with the guiding principles and explicitly refer to environmental sustainability, suggesting that ecological considerations are increasingly being incorporated into national dietary guidance. However, the extent and nature of this integration varied considerably across document types, being notably less represented in consumer-facing and HCP materials.

Not all sustainability criteria identified by the FAO [22] and BDA [37] were reflected in European FBDGs. Some criteria with a clear environmental focus (e.g., preserve biodiversity, choose sustainably sourced fish) were rarely mentioned, whereas broader, predominantly nutrition-oriented criteria (e.g., limit processed foods, diverse food consumption) appeared much more frequently. These latter recommendations appear to be generally framed around health outcomes, with environmental benefits remaining implicit.

By examining not only consumer-facing FBDGs but also HCP-focused and scientific background documents, this research offered a more complete picture of how sustainability is embedded throughout the guideline development and communication pathway. Background scientific documents typically included more explicit and detailed references to environmental sustainability than either HCP or consumer-facing documents, reflecting their role as technical foundation documents rather than public communication tools. As HCP materials act as intermediaries between policy and the population, communication directed at the public remains primarily health-oriented, even when policy foundations are sustainability-driven. Only 5 of the 19 consumer materials published since 2020 referred to the term “sustainability” or a synonym. The mention of sustainability—or lack thereof—may reflect government priorities or preferred communication approaches. This framing shows that messages tied to health outcomes may be more tangible and resonate more strongly with the public than those framed primarily around planetary health [41]. In a recent review of factors influencing sustainable and healthy diet consumption, the authors used an individual scoring system in which “health consciousness” ranked as a higher priority for intervention than “concern for environment” (note: healthy eating intentions ranked at the same level as the latter) [42]. Other studies have shown that using health-oriented messages to communicate about environmental risks increased public engagement on these topics and support for climate policies [43,44].

We also observed variation in the accessibility of sustainability-related messages. In some FBDGs, environmental aspects were confined to a specific section, a separate document, or a distinct “sustainability” tab, rather than being part of the main core dietary advice. For example, the Danish guidelines, titled “The Official Dietary Guidelines - good for health and climate,” emphasized the integration of environmental sustainability throughout the document [45], whereas the Austrian messages around sustainability were restrained to a separate web page of the guidelines [46]. Although these messages were technically present, they may be difficult to locate for certain users. Therefore, the prevalence of sustainability messages discussed in this paper may not fully reflect their emphasis or prominence within the guidelines. In fact, it is important to note that FBDG recommendations are the result of elaborate processes, sometimes considering competing scientific, social, and political factors [31].

Our findings also support the notion that many sustainability-related criteria overlap with messages that commonly promote health. Recommendations such as limiting processed or HFSS foods, encouraging diverse dietary patterns or increasing fruit, vegetable, and wholegrain intake are well established in health-focused guidelines and are largely congruent with sustainable diet patterns [47,48]. In our coding, many of these criteria were mentioned without any explicit environmental framing, even when they aligned strongly with sustainability goals. This overlap raises both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, it is possible that promoting dietary patterns that are simultaneously “healthy” and “sustainable” may increase clarity and reduce message fatigue. In addition, consumers’ motivations toward health and environmental benefits tend to converge, as sustainable foods are often perceived as healthier and more nutritious and vice versa [[49], [50], [51]]. Therefore, the promotion of more sustainable food choices could also resonate with consumers in terms of health benefits. On the other hand, the lack of explicit environmental considerations may limit public understanding that dietary choices have environmental consequences, with such a lack of awareness being an important barrier to the adoption of sustainable diets [52].

Several food groups are worth discussing here with respect to sustainability. By exploring associations between the inclusion of specific sustainability-related criteria and recommended gram-per-day amounts for meat and pulses, we provide preliminary insights into whether sustainability discourse is reflected in the quantitative aspects of dietary guidance. The results suggest that the inclusion of sustainability criteria may substantially influence the quantitative dietary advice provided in FBDGs, but not always in predictable or coherent ways. This raises questions about consistency and evidence translation in the guideline development process. For meat and red and processed meat, the deeply anchored meat culture in some countries may necessitate more targeted approaches that emphasize that intake can be reduced without requiring complete elimination of the food from the diet [53]. With regard to plant-based foods, the placement and treatment of pulses within the depicted “food plate” may further influence both recommendations and their interpretation. In a global review of the inclusion of plant-based diets and substitutions for animal-based foods in FBDGs, Klapp et al. [54] highlighted that about half of countries classified legumes separately from the protein-rich food group (which generally comprises meat, fish and eggs). According to the authors, a reclassification with the creation of more “inclusive” food groups could make pulses more visible as a protein alternative to meat and may therefore better support shifts toward plant-based diets [54]. In our study, the sample of the recommended amounts was small; therefore, conclusions remain limited. Further work using a larger set of guidelines (e.g., including other global regions) is warranted to study the optimal approaches for the provision of qualitative and/or quantitative guidance in FBDGs. Finally, few FBDGs promoted moderation of dairy consumption, and those that did generally justified this recommendation by the fat content of cheese. Plant-based dairy alternatives were infrequently mentioned and, if so, often accompanied by caveats (e.g., the need to opt for fortified products). This finding aligns with previous work indicating that FBDG developers may hesitate to recommend reduced dairy intake due to “complex nutritional implications” and concerns about micronutrient adequacy at a population level [29]. However, this is unlikely to be unique to dairy, as sustainability considerations may also be influenced across other food groups (such as meat) by broader economic, political, and cultural factors discussed within working groups as part of FBDG development. Stakeholder input from HCPs, consumer groups, and industry representatives may therefore influence governmental priorities [30].

Overall, our results are broadly consistent with previous studies examining the integration of sustainability into FBDGs, which have reported limited but growing inclusion of environmental considerations and substantial heterogeneity across countries [23,25,30]. Compared with more global frameworks (e.g., EAT-Lancet), most European FBDGs tend to remain conservative in their recommendations regarding reductions in animal-sourced foods and increases in plant-based foods. This suggests that other aspects of sustainability, not related to environmental sustainability, may also be prioritized. For example, affordability, social acceptability, and justice were emphasized in EAT-Lancet 2.0 [9]. Policy makers may therefore prefer to provide practical tips on saving money when shopping or on meal planning, rather than explicitly advocating for sustainable consumption. Although this analysis focused on European FBDGs, developments in other regions reinforce the broader trend toward integrating sustainability into dietary guidance. The authors of a recent review concluded that European and Central Asian countries were more likely to reference environmental sustainability in their guidelines than countries in South Asia, East Asia, and the Pacific regions. The focus on environmental sustainability was generally found to be predominant in upper-middle–income and high-income countries (34 of 72), while at that time, only 27% of the guidelines in low-income or lower-middle-income countries addressed sustainability [30].

A key strength of this study is the systematic and harmonized approach used to identify and code sustainability criteria across multiple document types and countries. However, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, despite efforts to standardize coding decisions between reviewers, interpretation of complex policy documents inevitably involves a degree of subjectivity. Additionally, the possibility of minor inaccuracies pertaining to the translation of certain documents from their original language to English via Google Translate cannot be excluded. In this work, all documents were examined in duplicate, and when conflicts arose, consensus was achieved by discussion with a third author. Despite this, the selection and operationalization of criteria (e.g., what constitutes an explicit compared with a general message) may reflect author judgment. This is especially relevant for scientific background documents, which provide underlying rationale rather than succinct guidance messages and can thus be interpreted in multiple ways. To our knowledge, it is the first study to combine elements from 2 established sets of sustainability criteria (FAO and BDA), allowing a more comprehensive assessment across multiple aspects of environmental sustainability. To avoid overlap, the decision was made to merge some closely related criteria during analysis, for example, “limit HFSS foods” and “limit processed foods,” because of how jointly framed they were in many FBDGs (i.e., messages encouraging a reduction of processed food consumption were often accompanied by examples of HFSS packaged foods). Although this decision improved consistency in coding, it may suppress important distinctions, particularly given that not all ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are HFSS [[55], [56], [57]]. In fact, various alternatives to animal-sourced foods, including plant-based meat alternatives or fortified plant-based milks, fall under the UPF definitions [58,59]. To avoid consumer confusion, messages could focus on recommendations to increase whole-food plant-based food categories rather than a reduction of HFSS foods or UPFs (for example, when recommending to lower consumption of processed meat).

Another limitation to our analysis was the restriction to European FBDGs, which may fail to capture global variability in how sustainability principles are incorporated into dietary guidance. Other regions, such as Africa and Latin America, have recently published dietary guidelines that integrate environmental sustainability [60,61]. Future research should extend this work to a broader set of countries and examine regional similarities and differences.

This study makes several contributions to the emerging literature on sustainability in FBDGs. It provides an updated overview of the integration of environmental sustainability criteria in European guidelines, capturing a recent wave of FBDG updates occurring in the context of heightened public and political attention to climate and environmental issues. With around one-third of the studied consumer-facing documents published between 2024 and August 2025 and additional revisions currently underway, the presence and prominence of sustainability messages are likely to evolve further in the near future. As countries with diverse population profiles revise their FBDGs or develop them for the first time, the incorporation of environmental sustainability, as well as other aspects of sustainability (social, economic), will require additional attention.