MEDIA SECTION:
Question: Why do the media headlines suggest that white people are the only ones impacting the environment through food consumption?
Answer: It was not the intent of our research team to single out any specific demographic group as being the only ones impacting the environment through food consumption. We all impact the environment through food choice. Although our study finds that white people's eating patterns impact the environment the greatest in water and greenhouse gas emissions, our study also finds that black people's eating patterns impact the environment the greatest in land - when comparing black, Latinx, and white demographics in the United States. Furthermore, our research team cannot control the accuracy of the stories or headline messaging that media outlets decide to use when reporting on this matter.
Question: Was your research team politically or racially motivated to publish this study?
Answer: No. Our research team was not politically or racially motivated to publish our scientific findings. In fact, our team did not know exactly how the study results would turn out when we began exploring this research question. This is particularly true because we could find little-to-no previous research that used these U.S. government and government-affiliated databases for studies on demographics, food, and climate change adaptation all at once.
Question: Was this study about demographic groups across the world?
Answer: No. This is a study of climate change adaptation and food consumption activities for the United States.
Question: Is it true that your study states the white demographic tends to eat more quantities of environmentally-intense food than the black or Latinx demographic groups?
Answer: No. Our study does not make this claim. Rather, our study results suggest that demographically-specific eating patterns impact the environment in different ways. This can be explained using a relatively simple example. Based on our study data, blueberries require about 7 times more water to produce than apples - per kilogram of food produced. This means that the white demographic could eat 6 times less blueberries than the black demographic eats apples and still impact more water resources. There are multitudes of complex demographic-to-food-consumption relationships similar to this that shape our study results and conclusions. Furthermore, phrasing like "significant" and "significantly more", as found in section 3.2 of the present study, refers to the statistical analysis that was performed - not necessarily the amount of food consumed by any demographic group.
FARMER SECTION:
Question: Did you consider how your study results and proposals would affect farmers?
Answer: Yes. The lead author of this study consulted and currently consults with urban and peri-urban farmers to ensure our study findings are rooted and contextualized by the people who tangibly provide food for us all. Some of our study findings were intended to inform farmers of the negative impacts climate change could have on crop and livestock cultivation, with the hope our study could assist farmers and policy makers in adapting to current and future climate change effects with increased understanding and effectiveness.
SCIENCE SECTION:
Question: Did Bayer-Monsanto influence this study in any way since they are listed as a partial funder?
Answer: No. Bayer-Monsanto provided the lead author with a Diversity Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Fellowship which provides tuition and fee support. This support allows the first author to research and communicate study findings with less financial burden. There were no conflicts of interest in this study.
Question: Why was there not a socioeconomic analysis performed in this study?
Answer: Our research team seriously considered performing a socioeconomic analysis as part of the present study but ultimately decided to perform a socioeconomic analysis in a separate study (this has now been published). Our reasons were wide ranging, but we generally concluded that adding a socioeconomic analysis to an already complex paper - which already highlighted several novel findings - would have weakened our methodological approach and, therefore, our study's foundation, results, and its findings/conclusions.
Question: Why do some of your study proposals and solutions seem to be more about climate change mitigation than adaptation?
Answer: It is true that some of the present study components could be used in either climate change mitigation or adaptation measures. It is also true that our demographically-specific results are a snapshot of the environmental impacts that food consumption has. Our research team did and still would like to find data that allows us to make projections with demographic specificity. However, we were unable to find data that would allow for such projections. Nonetheless, we used our results to satisfy the understanding phase of an established climate change adaptation framework (identified as "Moser et al." in the study). Our proposals spawn from addressing challenges in the planning and managing phases of this same adaptation framework. In other words, this study only claims to increase understanding of the socioecological factors of climate change adaptation and the food-energy-water nexus. Many new studies and analyses would need to be performed before scientists or policy makers could confidently make claims that address the planning and managing phases (this is discussed more thoroughly in the study's Discussion section).
Question: I have concerns about the survey-based databases you used to inform your findings (e.g., NHANES, CFII, and the EPA FCID). Why would you use these datasets if they are inaccurate?
Answer: We share your concerns about accuracy in survey responses. It is true that surveys can have inaccuracies if not managed well or qualified. However, we addressed these concerns in our Limitations and Assumptions section. We also addressed any statistical concerns with our robust statistical significance analysis.
Question: Why didn't you perform a sensitivity analysis in your study?
Answer: Since this study was unique in being truly cross-disciplinary - with the analysis of race and social identity by a social psychologist and the analysis of corresponding environmental impacts by engineers, statistical significance testing was performed using mean values rather than a sensitivity analysis sweeping through minimum and maximum values. We do feel that a future study which performs a sensitivity analysis on this demographically-specific dataset would be beneficial to the science community, but this approach was outside the scope of the present study. Please see our Methodology section for details of our statistical significance analysis.
Question: Is this the only study that has concluded race or demographics play a role in climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, or air pollution?
Answer: No. Although the present study is novel in its framing of climate change adaptation, food consumption, and demographics, other studies have found racial disparities associated with consumption. For example, Tessum et al. (2019) found that there are American racial inequities in air pollution and health risk factors.
NOTE: We will add to this list as frequent questions emerge. Thank you for your interest and engagement.
Question: Why do the media headlines suggest that white people are the only ones impacting the environment through food consumption?
Answer: It was not the intent of our research team to single out any specific demographic group as being the only ones impacting the environment through food consumption. We all impact the environment through food choice. Although our study finds that white people's eating patterns impact the environment the greatest in water and greenhouse gas emissions, our study also finds that black people's eating patterns impact the environment the greatest in land - when comparing black, Latinx, and white demographics in the United States. Furthermore, our research team cannot control the accuracy of the stories or headline messaging that media outlets decide to use when reporting on this matter.
Question: Was your research team politically or racially motivated to publish this study?
Answer: No. Our research team was not politically or racially motivated to publish our scientific findings. In fact, our team did not know exactly how the study results would turn out when we began exploring this research question. This is particularly true because we could find little-to-no previous research that used these U.S. government and government-affiliated databases for studies on demographics, food, and climate change adaptation all at once.
Question: Was this study about demographic groups across the world?
Answer: No. This is a study of climate change adaptation and food consumption activities for the United States.
Question: Is it true that your study states the white demographic tends to eat more quantities of environmentally-intense food than the black or Latinx demographic groups?
Answer: No. Our study does not make this claim. Rather, our study results suggest that demographically-specific eating patterns impact the environment in different ways. This can be explained using a relatively simple example. Based on our study data, blueberries require about 7 times more water to produce than apples - per kilogram of food produced. This means that the white demographic could eat 6 times less blueberries than the black demographic eats apples and still impact more water resources. There are multitudes of complex demographic-to-food-consumption relationships similar to this that shape our study results and conclusions. Furthermore, phrasing like "significant" and "significantly more", as found in section 3.2 of the present study, refers to the statistical analysis that was performed - not necessarily the amount of food consumed by any demographic group.
FARMER SECTION:
Question: Did you consider how your study results and proposals would affect farmers?
Answer: Yes. The lead author of this study consulted and currently consults with urban and peri-urban farmers to ensure our study findings are rooted and contextualized by the people who tangibly provide food for us all. Some of our study findings were intended to inform farmers of the negative impacts climate change could have on crop and livestock cultivation, with the hope our study could assist farmers and policy makers in adapting to current and future climate change effects with increased understanding and effectiveness.
SCIENCE SECTION:
Question: Did Bayer-Monsanto influence this study in any way since they are listed as a partial funder?
Answer: No. Bayer-Monsanto provided the lead author with a Diversity Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Fellowship which provides tuition and fee support. This support allows the first author to research and communicate study findings with less financial burden. There were no conflicts of interest in this study.
Question: Why was there not a socioeconomic analysis performed in this study?
Answer: Our research team seriously considered performing a socioeconomic analysis as part of the present study but ultimately decided to perform a socioeconomic analysis in a separate study (this has now been published). Our reasons were wide ranging, but we generally concluded that adding a socioeconomic analysis to an already complex paper - which already highlighted several novel findings - would have weakened our methodological approach and, therefore, our study's foundation, results, and its findings/conclusions.
Question: Why do some of your study proposals and solutions seem to be more about climate change mitigation than adaptation?
Answer: It is true that some of the present study components could be used in either climate change mitigation or adaptation measures. It is also true that our demographically-specific results are a snapshot of the environmental impacts that food consumption has. Our research team did and still would like to find data that allows us to make projections with demographic specificity. However, we were unable to find data that would allow for such projections. Nonetheless, we used our results to satisfy the understanding phase of an established climate change adaptation framework (identified as "Moser et al." in the study). Our proposals spawn from addressing challenges in the planning and managing phases of this same adaptation framework. In other words, this study only claims to increase understanding of the socioecological factors of climate change adaptation and the food-energy-water nexus. Many new studies and analyses would need to be performed before scientists or policy makers could confidently make claims that address the planning and managing phases (this is discussed more thoroughly in the study's Discussion section).
Question: I have concerns about the survey-based databases you used to inform your findings (e.g., NHANES, CFII, and the EPA FCID). Why would you use these datasets if they are inaccurate?
Answer: We share your concerns about accuracy in survey responses. It is true that surveys can have inaccuracies if not managed well or qualified. However, we addressed these concerns in our Limitations and Assumptions section. We also addressed any statistical concerns with our robust statistical significance analysis.
Question: Why didn't you perform a sensitivity analysis in your study?
Answer: Since this study was unique in being truly cross-disciplinary - with the analysis of race and social identity by a social psychologist and the analysis of corresponding environmental impacts by engineers, statistical significance testing was performed using mean values rather than a sensitivity analysis sweeping through minimum and maximum values. We do feel that a future study which performs a sensitivity analysis on this demographically-specific dataset would be beneficial to the science community, but this approach was outside the scope of the present study. Please see our Methodology section for details of our statistical significance analysis.
Question: Is this the only study that has concluded race or demographics play a role in climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, or air pollution?
Answer: No. Although the present study is novel in its framing of climate change adaptation, food consumption, and demographics, other studies have found racial disparities associated with consumption. For example, Tessum et al. (2019) found that there are American racial inequities in air pollution and health risk factors.
NOTE: We will add to this list as frequent questions emerge. Thank you for your interest and engagement.