Researchers looked at 25 different tools that score meals and diets based on how nutritious they are and how much they help or hurt the environment. These tools work in different ways—some give one overall score, while others show nutrition and environmental scores separately. The study found that while these tools are helpful, they don’t all use the same methods, making it hard to compare them. This research could help create better, more consistent tools to help people choose meals that are good for their bodies and good for Earth.
The Quick Take
- What they studied: How different scoring systems measure whether meals and diets are healthy for people and sustainable for the environment
- Who participated: This was a review of 25 existing scoring tools and systems published between 2009 and 2025. No individual people participated—researchers analyzed published studies about these tools.
- Key finding: Scientists found 25 different tools that rate meals and diets, but they all work differently. Some use one combined score, others show separate nutrition and environment scores. This variety makes it hard to compare which tool works best.
- What it means for you: These tools could help you make better food choices, but they’re not standardized yet. In the future, having more consistent tools might make it easier to understand how your food choices affect your health and the planet.
The Research Details
Researchers conducted a systematic review, which means they searched six major scientific databases for all studies about tools that score meals and diets based on nutrition and environmental impact. They searched for studies published between January 2009 and August 2025 using specific search terms: nutrition, environment, index, and meal/diet. Two independent reviewers checked each study to make sure it met their criteria—the study had to measure both nutritional value and environmental impact of meals or diets.
The researchers followed strict international guidelines (PRISMA 2020) to make sure their review was thorough and reliable. They registered their plan ahead of time with an international database (PROSPERO) so other scientists could see exactly what they planned to do. This transparency helps prevent bias and makes the research more trustworthy.
Once they identified all the relevant studies, they carefully documented how each scoring tool worked, what it measured, how it combined information, and what databases it used. They looked at whether tools considered other factors beyond nutrition and environment, like cost and cultural preferences.
This research matters because people need clear, consistent ways to understand how their food choices affect both their personal health and the planet’s health. Right now, different tools use different methods, which can confuse consumers and make it hard for health organizations to recommend one approach. By identifying all existing tools and their differences, this review provides a foundation for creating better, more standardized tools in the future.
This is a high-quality systematic review because it followed international best-practice guidelines, had two independent reviewers check the work, and registered the study plan beforehand. The main limitation is that the 25 tools reviewed use very different methods, making direct comparison difficult. The review is current (searched through August 2025) and comprehensive, covering multiple databases. However, the findings are descriptive rather than providing a definitive answer about which tool is best.
What the Results Show
The researchers identified 25 different Nutritive and Environmental Combined Indices (NECIs)—tools that score meals and diets based on both nutrition and environmental impact. These 25 tools actually presented 27 different methodological approaches, showing how varied they are.
The tools differed significantly in how they scored nutrition (13 different approaches) and environmental impact (6 different approaches). Some tools were designed specifically for meals, some for diets, and some could be used for either. The way tools presented their results also varied: most (19 tools) gave one combined score, four showed nutrition and environment scores separately, and two used both methods.
Beyond nutrition and environment, 12 of the tools also considered other sustainability factors. Ten tools included economic factors (like cost), and six included socio-cultural factors (like cultural food preferences). Among tools that combined all dimensions into one score, researchers found major differences in how much weight they gave to each factor.
The review found that tools used different functional units (some measured per serving, others per day or per kilogram) and different system boundaries (some included farming only, others included transportation and packaging). The databases these tools relied on also varied significantly. Some tools focused on specific regions or countries, while others aimed to be more universal. These differences mean a meal might receive different scores depending on which tool you use.
Previous research has looked at tools measuring either nutrition or environmental impact separately, but this is one of the first comprehensive reviews specifically examining tools that combine both. This research builds on growing recognition that food choices need to be evaluated on multiple dimensions simultaneously. The findings align with increasing calls from health and environmental organizations for more integrated approaches to food assessment.
The main limitation is that the 25 tools use such different methods that direct comparison is challenging. The review is descriptive rather than evaluative—it describes what exists but doesn’t declare which tools are best. Some newer tools may not have been published in academic databases yet. The review also couldn’t assess how well these tools actually work in real-world situations or whether they actually help people make better food choices. Finally, the tools reviewed may have different geographic focuses, so some may work better in certain regions than others.
The Bottom Line
These scoring tools show promise for helping people understand the health and environmental impact of their food choices (moderate confidence). However, until more standardized tools are developed, it’s difficult to recommend one specific tool over others. In the meantime, general nutrition advice—eating more plants, less processed food, and less meat—aligns with most of these tools’ recommendations (high confidence). If you use any of these tools, understand that different tools may give different results.
Health professionals, nutritionists, and food policy makers should care about this research because it shows the need for standardized tools. Environmentally conscious consumers interested in sustainable eating may find these tools helpful, though they should understand the tools’ limitations. Food companies and restaurants developing sustainability claims should pay attention to this research. People with specific dietary needs should consult healthcare providers rather than relying solely on these tools.
If you start using one of these scoring tools to guide food choices, you might notice changes in your diet within weeks. However, health benefits from dietary changes typically take 4-12 weeks to become noticeable (like improved energy or digestion). Environmental impact is harder to measure personally but accumulates over time—choosing sustainable meals consistently contributes to long-term planetary health.
Want to Apply This Research?
- Track your meals using one consistent scoring tool for 4 weeks, recording the nutrition score and environmental score separately. Note your energy levels, digestion, and how you feel. This creates a personal baseline to see if the tool’s recommendations correlate with how you actually feel.
- Choose one meal per day to score using a NECI tool. Start by identifying which aspects of that meal have the highest environmental impact (usually meat and dairy) and experiment with one small substitution per week—like using beans instead of beef in tacos, or trying plant-based milk in your coffee.
- Weekly: Review your meal scores and identify patterns in your highest and lowest-scoring meals. Monthly: Assess whether your average nutrition and environmental scores are improving. Quarterly: Evaluate whether dietary changes feel sustainable and whether you’ve noticed any personal health benefits. Adjust your approach based on what actually works for your lifestyle.
This research is a review of existing tools and does not provide medical advice. The scoring tools discussed have not been universally validated, and different tools may produce different results for the same meal. If you have specific health conditions, dietary restrictions, or nutritional concerns, consult with a registered dietitian or healthcare provider before making significant dietary changes. This research suggests these tools may be helpful for general consumers interested in sustainable eating, but they should not replace personalized medical or nutritional advice. Environmental impact assessments vary by region and methodology, so results may differ based on your location and the tool used.
This research translation is published by Gram Research, the science division of Gram, an AI-powered nutrition tracking app.