Search

Blue foods, sourced in aquatic environments, are important for the economies, livelihoods, nutritional security and cultures of people in many nations. They are often nutrient rich1, generate lower emissions and impacts on land and water than many terrestrial meats2, and contribute to the health3, wellbeing and livelihoods of many rural communities4. The Blue Food Assessment recently evaluated nutritional, environmental, economic and justice dimensions of blue foods globally. Here we integrate these findings and translate them into four policy objectives to help realize the contributions that blue foods can make to national food systems around the world: ensuring supplies of critical nutrients, providing healthy alternatives to terrestrial meat, reducing dietary environmental footprints and safeguarding blue food contributions to nutrition, just economies and livelihoods under a changing climate. To account for how context-specific environmental, socio-economic and cultural aspects affect this contribution, we assess the relevance of each policy objective for individual countries, and examine associated co-benefits and trade-offs at national and international scales. We find that in many African and South American nations, facilitating consumption of culturally relevant blue food, especially among nutritionally vulnerable population segments, could address vitamin B12 and omega-3 deficiencies. Meanwhile, in many global North nations, cardiovascular disease rates and large greenhouse gas footprints from ruminant meat intake could be lowered through moderate consumption of seafood with low environmental impact. The analytical framework we provide also identifies countries with high future risk, for whom climate adaptation of blue food systems will be particularly important. Overall the framework helps decision makers to assess the blue food policy objectives most relevant to their geographies, and to compare and contrast the benefits and trade-offs associated with pursuing these objectives.

Dietary shifts from staples toward meats, fruits, and vegetables increase environmental impacts. Excessive red meat intake and micro-nutrient deficiencies also raise health concerns. Previous research examined environmental and health consequences of alternative diets but overlooked impacts on air pollution and land use change. Here we examine implications of four potential Chinese dietary shifts on ammonia and particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, carbon storage loss associated with land-use change, water use, and human health. We show that a diet that replaces red meat with soy benefits the environment and avoids 57,000 PM2.5-related premature deaths annually. Dietary health benefits, however, appear larger with adoption of the Chinese Dietary Guideline (CDG) and EAT-Lancet diets, which prevent over one million premature deaths annually. However, both diets increase water use and GHGs. CDG also increases land use change, but EAT-Lancet reduces it by cutting dairy and red meat. Complex benefits and trade-offs of dietary shifts emphasize the need for further improvements in agricultural management to enable larger health-environment co-benefits.

Transforming the global food system is necessary to avoid exceeding planetary boundaries. A robust evidence base is crucial to assess the scale and combination of interventions required for a sustainable transformation. We developed a risk assessment framework, underpinned by a meta-regression of 60 global food system modeling studies, to quantify the potential of individual and combined interventions to mitigate the risk of exceeding the boundaries for land-system change, freshwater use, climate change, and biogeochemical flows by 2050. Limiting the risk of exceedance across four key planetary boundaries requires a high but plausible level of ambition in all demand-side (diet, population, waste) and most supply-side interventions. Attaining the required level of ambition for all interventions relies on embracing synergistic actions across the food system.

Fil: Smith, Matthew R. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Department of Environmental Health. Estados Unidos. Fil: Mueller, Nathaniel D. Colorado State University. Department of Ecosystem Science and Department of Soil and Crop Sciences. Estados Unidos. Fil: Springmann, Marco. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Centre on Climate Change and Planetary Health. Reino Unido. Fil: Sulser, Timothy B. International Food Policy Research Institute. Environment and Production Technology Division. Estados Unidos. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Gerber, James. University of Minnesota. Institute on the Environment. Estados Unidos. Fil: Wiebe, Keith. International Food Policy Research Institute. Environment and Production Technology Division. Estados Unidos. Fil: Myers, Samuel S. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Department of Environmental Health. Estados Unidos. Background: Animal pollination supports agricultural production for many healthy foods, such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes, that provide key nutrients and protect against noncommunicable disease. Today, most crops receive suboptimal pollination because of limited abundance and diversity of pollinating insects. Animal pollinators are currently suffering owing to a host of direct and indirect anthropogenic pressures: land-use change, intensive farming techniques, harmful pesticides, nutritional stress, and climate change, among others. Objectives: We aimed to model the impacts on current global human health from insufficient pollination via diet. Methods: We used a climate zonation approach to estimate current yield gaps for animal-pollinated foods and estimated the proportion of the gap attributable to insufficient pollinators based on existing research. We then simulated closing the "pollinator yield gaps" by eliminating the portion of total yield gaps attributable to insufficient pollination. Next, we used an agriculture-economic model to estimate the impacts of closing the pollinator yield gap on food production, interregional trade, and consumption. Finally, we used a comparative risk assessment to estimate the related changes in dietary risks and mortality by country and globally. In addition, we estimated the lost economic value of crop production for three diverse case-study countries: Honduras, Nepal, and Nigeria. Results: Globally, we calculated that 3%-5% of fruit, vegetable, and nut production is lost due to inadequate pollination, leading to an estimated 427,000 (95% uncertainty interval: 86,000, 691,000) excess deaths annually from lost healthy food consumption and associated diseases. Modeled impacts were unevenly distributed: Lost food production was concentrated in lower-income countries, whereas impacts on food consumption and mortality attributable to insufficient pollination were greater in middle- and high-income countries with higher rates of noncommunicable disease. Furthermore, in our three case-study countries, we calculated the economic value of crop production to be 12%-31% lower than if pollinators were abundant (due to crop production losses of 3%-19%), mainly due to lost fruit and vegetable production. Discussion: According to our analysis, insufficient populations of pollinators were responsible for large present-day burdens of disease through lost healthy food consumption. In addition, we calculated that low-income countries lost significant income and crop yields from pollinator deficits. These results underscore the urgent need to promote pollinator-friendly practices for both human health and agricultural livelihoods. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10947.

Summary Background Adoption of healthy and sustainable diets could be essential for safe-guarding the Earth's natural resources and reducing diet-related mortality, but their adoption could be hampered if such diets proved to be more expensive and unaffordable for some populations. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the costs of healthy and sustainable diets around the world. Methods In this modelling study, we used regionally comparable food prices from the International Comparison Program for 150 countries. We paired those prices with estimates of food demand for different dietary patterns that, in modelling studies, have been associated with reductions in premature mortality and environmental resource demand, including nutritionally balanced flexitarian, pescatarian, vegetarian, and vegan diets. We used estimates of food waste and projections of food demand and prices to specify food system and socioeconomic change scenarios up to 2050. In the full cost accounting, we estimated diet-related health-care costs by pairing a comparative risk assessment of dietary risks with cost-of-illness estimates, and we estimated climate change costs by pairing the diet scenarios with greenhouse gas emission footprints and estimates of the social cost of carbon. Findings Compared with the cost of current diets, the healthy and sustainable dietary patterns were, depending on the pattern, up to 22–34% lower in cost in upper-middle-income to high-income countries on average (when considering statistical means), but at least 18–29% more expensive in lower-middle-income to low-income countries. Reductions in food waste, a favourable socioeconomic development scenario, and a fuller cost accounting that included the diet-related costs of climate change and health care in the cost of diets increased the affordability of the dietary patterns in our future projections. When these measures were combined, the healthy and sustainable dietary patterns were up to 25–29% lower in cost in low-income to lower-middle-income countries, and up to 37% lower in cost on average, for the year 2050. Variants of vegetarian and vegan dietary patterns were generally most affordable, and pescatarian diets were least affordable. Interpretation In high-income and upper-middle-income countries, dietary change interventions that incentivise adoption of healthy and sustainable diets can help consumers in those countries reduce costs while, at the same time, contribute to fulfilling national climate change commitments and reduce public health spending. In low-income and lower-middle-income countries, healthy and sustainable diets are substantially less costly than western diets and can also be cost-competitive in the medium-to-long term, subject to beneficial socioeconomic development and reductions in food waste. A fuller accounting of the costs of diets would make healthy and sustainable diets the least costly option in most countries in the future. Funding Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition and Wellcome Trust.

About a quarter of all food produced for human consumption is internationally traded, including foods with important public health implications such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and red meat. Food trade is generally perceived to increase the availability and diversity of foods available to consumers, but there is little empirical evidence on its implications for human health. Here we show that food trade has a substantial impact on dietary risks and mortality worldwide, and that whether impacts are positive or negative depends on the types of foods traded. Using bilateral trade data for 2019, together with food-specific risk-disease relationships, we estimate that international trade in fruits, vegetables, legumes, and nuts improved dietary risks in the importing countries and was associated with a reduction in mortality from non-communicable diseases of ~ 1.4 million deaths globally. In contrast, trade in red meat aggravated dietary risks in the importing countries and was associated with an increase of ~ 150,000 deaths. We identified European countries as the greatest importers of health-promoting foods, and countries in the Americas as the greatest exporters, whilst Germany, the USA, Spain, Brazil, and Australia were leading exporters of foods that increase dietary risks. The magnitude of our findings suggests that safeguarding the trade in health-promoting foods from disruptions, whilst limiting those of unhealthy ones can make substantial contribution to maintaining and improving population health. We anticipate that considering impacts on dietary risks will become important aspects for health-sensitive trade and agriculture policies, and for policy responses to disruptions in food chains.

The United Kingdom’s food system will be greatly impacted by Brexit-related trade deals and policy developments—with implications for dietary risk factors and public health. Here we use an integrated economic–health modelling framework to analyse the impacts of different policy approaches to Brexit. A ‘soft Brexit’ that is in line with the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement increases diet-related mortality in the United Kingdom as costs for health-promoting and import-dependent foods increase and their consumption decreases. Negotiating free-trade agreements with the United States and Commonwealth countries as part of a ‘global Britain’ approach could triple the negative health impacts of Brexit as greater availability of energy-dense foods increases weight-related risks without meaningfully reducing dietary risks. Eliminating import tariffs on health-sensitive horticultural products could mitigate the negative health impacts of Brexit, and reforming agricultural subsidies to incentivize greater domestic horticultural production could lead to net health gains. Combining these health-sensitive approaches to trade policy and subsidy reform doubled the health gains, offering a promising approach for mitigating the detrimental impacts Brexit could have on dietary health in the United Kingdom. Post-Brexit free-trade agreements could increase diet-related health risks—but tariff and subsidy reforms could mitigate these risks.

Executive summary. The 2022 report of the Lancet Countdown is published as the world confronts profound and concurrent systemic shocks. Countries and health systems continue to contend with the health, social, and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, while Russia's invasion of Ukraine and a persistent fossil fuel overdependence has pushed the world into global energy and cost-of-living crises. As these crises unfold, climate change escalates unabated. Its worsening impacts are increasingly affecting the foundations of human health and wellbeing, exacerbating the vulnerability of the world's populations to concurrent health threats...

The Lancet Countdown is an international collaboration, established to provide an independent, global monitoring system dedicated to tracking the emerging health profile of the changing climate. The 2020 report presents 43 indicators across five sections: climate change impacts, exposures, and vulnerability; adaptation, planning, and resilience for health; mitigation actions and health co-benefits; economics and finance; and public and political engagement. This report represents the findings and consensus of the 35 leading academic institutions and UN agencies that make up the Lancet Countdown, and draws on the expertise of climate scientists, geographers, and engineers; of energy, food, and transport experts; and of economists, social and political scientists, data scientists, public health professionals, and doctors.

In response to anthropogenic climate change, developed countries have committed themselves to raising 100 billion USD a year from 2020 onwards to address the needs of developing countries. In this ...

Sustainable development of India’s food system must ensure a growing population is fed while minimizing both widespread malnutrition and the environmental impacts of food production. After assessing current adequacy of nutrient supplies at the national level, associated natural resource use (land, fresh water) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, we apply an integrated subnational environmental and nutritional optimization approach to explore resource constraints that might limit the achievement of national food self-sufficiency goals. We find that India currently has the capacity to produce sufficient amounts of nutritious foods, supplying vitamins and minerals that would mostly exceed requirements. Regional cropland use could be reduced by up to 50%, water demand by up to 65% and combined resource inputs by up to 40% while still supporting adequate nutrition. Associated GHG emissions would decline by 26–34% and could possibly be sequestered in agroforestry systems. Such dietary shifts could lower the number of diet-related premature deaths by 14–30%. Achieving these potential gains, however, would require a major transition from current production and consumption patterns, particularly of refined cereals, to free-up resources for more traditional and nutritious foods. An integrated subnational environmental and nutritional optimization approach indicates that, with a transition from current production and consumption patterns, India has the capacity to achieve national food self-sufficiency goals while reducing regional cropland use, water demand and GHG emissions.

In the past few decades, major public health advances have happened in Europe, with drastic decreases in premature mortality and a life expectancy increase of almost 9 years since 1980. European countries have some of the best health-care systems in the world. However, Europe is challenged with unprecedented and overlapping crises that are detrimental to human health and livelihoods and threaten adaptive capacity, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the fastest-growing migrant crisis since World War 2, population displacement, environmental degradation, and deepening inequalities. Compared with pre-industrial times, the mean average European surface air temperature increase has been almost 1°C higher than the average global temperature increase, and 2022 was the hottest European summer on record. As the world's third largest economy and a major contributor to global cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, Europe is a key stakeholder in the world's response to climate change and has a global responsibility and opportunity to lead the transition to becoming a low-carbon economy and a healthier, more resilient society. Peer Reviewed Article signat per 44 autors/autores: Institute for Global Health (K R van Daalen MPhil, M Romanello PhD), Institute for Sustainable Resources (P Drummond MSc, D Scamman EngD), and Energy Institute (Prof I Hamilton PhD, H Kennard PhD), University College London, London, UK; Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK (K R van Daalen); Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany (Prof J Rocklöv PhD, Prof J C Semenza PhD); Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine (Prof J Rocklöv, Z Farooq MSc, M O Sewe PhD, H Sjödin PhD) and Department of Epidemiology and Global Health (Prof M Nilsson PhD), Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden; Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), Barcelona, Spain (C Tonne ScD, H Achebak PhD, J Ballester PhD, S J Lloyd PhD, C Milà MSc, Prof J C Minx PhD, Prof M Nieuwenhuijsen PhD, M Quijal-Zamorano MSc, Prof J M Anto MD); Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain (C Tonne, C Milà, M Nieuwenhuijsen, M Quijal-Zamorano, J M Anto); CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain (C Tonne, C Milà, J C Minx, M Nieuwenhuijsen, J M Anto); BC3 Basque Centre for Climate Change, Bilbao, Spain (Prof A Markandya PhD); School of Government, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK (N Dasandi PhD); Data Science Lab, Hertie School, Berlin, Germany (Prof S Jankin PhD, H Bechara PhD, O Gasparyan PhD); Priestley International Centre for Climate, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK (M W Callaghan MPP); Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany (M W Callaghan); Energy Efficiency Group, Institute for Environmental Sciences (ISE), University of Geneva, Switzerland (J Chambers PhD); Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici (CMCC), Venice, Italy (S Dasgupta PhD); Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Sciences (LSE), UK (S Dasgupta, Prof E J Z Robinson PhD); Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC), Barcelona, Spain (N Gonzalez-Reviriego PhD, B Solaraju-Murali MSc, Prof R Lowe PhD, M Lotto Batista MSc); Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI), Helsinki, Finland (R Hänninen DSci, J Palamarchuk PhD, M Sofiev PhD); European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark (A Kazmierczak PhD); European Centre for Environment and Health, WHO Regional Office for Europe, Bonn, Germany (V Kendrovski PhD, O Schmoll Dipl Ing); Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Programme, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria (G Kiesewetter PhD); Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, Department of Epidemiology, Brunswick, Germany (M Lotto Batista); Department of Genetics and Microbiology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain (Prof J Martinez-Urtaza PhD); Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food and Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK (M Springmann PhD); Department of Electronics and Computer Science, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago, Spain (J Triñanes PhD); Centre for Climate Change and Planetary Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), London, UK (Prof R Lowe); Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies (ICREA), Barcelona, Spain (Prod R Lowe)

In recent decades there has been a sustained and substantial shift in human diets across the globe towards including more livestock-derived foods. Continuing debates scrutinize how these dietary shifts affect human health, the natural environment, and livelihoods. However, amidst these debates there remain unanswered questions about how demand for livestock-derived foods may evolve over the upcoming decades for a range of scenarios for key drivers of change including human population, income, and consumer preferences. Future trends in human population and income in our scenarios were sourced from three of the shared socioeconomic pathways. We used scenario-based modeling to show that average protein demand for red meat (beef, sheep, goats, and pork), poultry, dairy milk, and eggs across the globe would increase by 14% per person and 38% in total between the year 2020 and the year 2050 if trends in income and population continue along a mid-range trajectory. The fastest per person rates of increase were 49% in South Asia and 55% in sub-Saharan Africa. We show that per person demand for red meat in high-income countries would decline by 2.8% if income elasticities of demand (a partial proxy for consumer preferences, based on the responsiveness of demand to income changes) in high-income countries decline by 100% by 2050 under a mid-range trajectory for per person income growth, compared to their current trajectory. Prices are an important driver of demand, and our results demonstrate that the result of a decline in red meat demand in high-income countries is strongly related to rising red meat prices, as projected by our scenario-based modeling. If the decline in the income elasticity of demand occurred in all countries rather than only in high-income countries, then per person red meat demand in high-income countries would actually increase in 2050 by 8.9% because the income elasticity-driven decline in global demand reduces prices, and the effect of lower prices outweighs the effect of a decline in the income elasticity of demand. Our results demonstrate the importance of interactions between income, prices, and the income elasticity of demand in projecting future demand for livestock-derived foods. We complement the existing literature on food systems and global change by providing quantitative evidence about the possible space for the future demand of livestock-derived foods, which has important implications for human health and the natural environment.

Background The preventable premature mortality achievable by improvement in dietary quality at a global level is unclear. Objective The aim of this study was to assess dietary quality globally, and to quantify the potential global impact of improving dietary quality on population health. Methods We applied the Alternate Healthy Eating Index (AHEI, potential range 0-100) to a global dietary database to assess dietary quality among adults in 190 countries/territories. The relation of AHEI score to risks of major chronic disease was estimated from 2 large cohorts of men and women for whom many repeated dietary assessments during up to 30 years were available. We calculated the preventable premature deaths achievable by shifting from current national diets to a reference healthy diet. Results The global mean AHEI score in 2017 was 49.5 for males and 50.5 for females. Large differences between current and target intakes existed for whole grains, sodium, long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats, and fruits. From 1990 to 2017, the global mean AHEI score increased modestly from 45.4 to 50.0. Diet quality varied substantially across the world. Coastal Mediterranean nations, the Caribbean region, and Eastern Asia (except China and Mongolia) had a higher AHEI score, whereas Central Asia, the South Pacific, and Eastern and Northern Europe had a lower score. An improvement in dietary quality from the current global diet to the reference healthy diet could prevent >11 million premature deaths, ∼24% of total deaths in 2017. These included 1.6 million cancer deaths, 3.9 million coronary artery disease deaths, 1.0 million stroke deaths, 1.7 million respiratory disease deaths, 0.4 million neurodegenerative disease deaths, 0.5 million kidney disease deaths, 0.6 million diabetes deaths, and 1.2 million digestive disease deaths. Conclusions Global dietary quality is slowly improving, but remains far from optimal and varies across countries. Improvements in dietary quality have the potential to reduce mortality rates substantially.

Summary Background Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) serve to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement of staying “well below 2°C”, which could also yield substantial health co-benefits in the process. However, existing NDC commitments are inadequate to achieve this goal. Placing health as a key focus of the NDCs could present an opportunity to increase ambition and realise health co-benefits. We modelled scenarios to analyse the health co-benefits of NDCs for the year 2040 for nine representative countries (ie, Brazil, China, Germany, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, South Africa, the UK, and the USA) that were selected for their contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and their global or regional influence. Methods Modelling the energy, food and agriculture, and transport sectors, and mortality related to risk factors of air pollution, diet, and physical activity, we analysed the health co-benefits of existing NDCs and related policies (ie, the current pathways scenario) for 2040 in nine countries around the world. We compared these health co-benefits with two alternative scenarios, one consistent with the goal of the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (ie, the sustainable pathways scenario), and one in line with the sustainable pathways scenario, but also placing health as a central focus of the policies (ie, the health in all climate policies scenario). Findings Compared with the current pathways scenario, the sustainable pathways scenario resulted in an annual reduction of 1·18 million air pollution-related deaths, 5·86 million diet-related deaths, and 1·15 million deaths due to physical inactivity, across the nine countries, by 2040. Adopting the more ambitious health in all climate policies scenario would result in a further reduction of 462 000 annual deaths attributable to air pollution, 572 000 annual deaths attributable to diet, and 943 000 annual deaths attributable to physical inactivity. These benefits were attributable to the mitigation of direct greenhouse gas emissions and the commensurate actions that reduce exposure to harmful pollutants, as well as improved diets and safe physical activity. Interpretation A greater consideration of health in the NDCs and climate change mitigation policies has the potential to yield considerable health benefits as well as achieve the “well below 2°C” commitment across a range of regional and economic contexts. Funding This work was in part funded through an unrestricted grant from the Wellcome Trust (award number 209734/Z/17/Z) and supported by an Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council grant (grant number EP/R035288/1).

Brexit is expected to have significant impacts on the UK food system, which has implications for dietary risk factors and public health. Here we use an integrated economic-health modelling framework to analyse the impacts of different policy approaches to Brexit. According to our analysis, a “Hard Brexit” could increase diet-related mortality in the UK as costs for health-promoting and import-dependent foods, such as fruits and vegetables, increase and their consumption decreases. Negotiating free-trade agreements with the USA and Commonwealth countries as part of a “Global Britain” approach led to relative increases in food availability, but not of health-promoting foods, resulting in further increases in diet and weight-related mortality. Negotiating a free-trade agreement with the EU addressed both food availability and fruit and vegetable intake, which halved the increases in mortality. Combining this “Soft Brexit” approach with an agricultural subsidy reform that incentivises greater production of fruits and vegetables mitigated the Brexit-related increases in risk factors and led to net improvements in diet-related mortality.

Livestock is known to play a significant role in climate change and to negatively impact global nitrogen cycles and biodiversity. However, economically efficient policies for regulating meat production and consumption are under-researched. In the absence of first-best policy instruments for the livestock sector, second-best consumption taxes on meat can address multiple environmental externalities simultaneously, while improving diet-related public health. Here, we review the empirical basis for the ‘social costs of meat’ and study rationales for regulatory efforts to tax meat in high-income countries from the perspective of public, behavioural and welfare economics: (i) multiple environmental externalities, (ii) adverse effects on one’s own health, (iii) animal welfare, (iv) learning curves for 'alternative protein technologies', and (v) distributional effects. We conclude that meat is significantly underpriced and provide preliminary estimates of the environmental social costs associated with meat consumption. We identify several directions for future research towards optimal meat taxation.

The Lancet Countdown is an international collaboration that independently monitors the health consequences of a changing climate. Publishing updated, new, and improved indicators each year, the Lancet Countdown represents the consensus of leading researchers from 43 academic institutions and UN agencies. The 44 indicators of this report expose an unabated rise in the health impacts of climate change and the current health consequences of the delayed and inconsistent response of countries around the globe—providing a clear imperative for accelerated action that puts the health of people and planet above all else.\ud \ud The 2021 report coincides with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26), at which countries are facing pressure to realise the ambition of the Paris Agreement to keep the global average temperature rise to 1·5°C and to mobilise the financial resources required for all countries to have an effective climate response. These negotiations unfold in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic—a global health crisis that has claimed millions of lives, affected livelihoods and communities around the globe, and exposed deep fissures and inequities in the world's capacity to cope with, and respond to, health emergencies. Yet, in its response to both crises, the world is faced with an unprecedented opportunity to ensure a healthy future for all.

ObjectiveTo analyse the health and environmental implications of adopting national food based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) at a national level and compared with global health and environmental targets.DesignModelling study.Setting85 countries.ParticipantsPopulation of 85 countries.Main outcome measuresA graded coding method was developed and used to extract quantitative recommendations from 85 FBDGs. The health and environmental impacts of these guidelines were assessed by using a comparative risk assessment of deaths from chronic diseases and a set of country specific environmental footprints for greenhouse gas emissions, freshwater use, cropland use, and fertiliser application. For comparison, the impacts of adopting the global dietary recommendations of the World Health Organization and the EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems were also analysed. Each guideline’s health and sustainability implications were assessed by modelling its adoption at both the national level and globally, and comparing the impacts to global health and environmental targets, including the Action Agenda on Non-Communicable Diseases, the Paris Climate Agreement, the Aichi biodiversity targets related to land use, and the sustainable development goals and planetary boundaries related to freshwater use and fertiliser application.ResultsAdoption of national FBDGs was associated with reductions in premature mortality of 15% on average (95% uncertainty interval 13% to 16%) and mixed changes in environmental resource demand, including a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 13% on average (regional range −34% to 35%). When universally adopted globally, most of the national guidelines (83, 98%) were not compatible with at least one of the global health and environmental targets. About a third of the FBDGs (29, 34%) were incompatible with the agenda on non-communicable diseases, and most (57 to 74, 67% to 87%) were incompatible with the Paris Climate Agreement and other environmental targets. In comparison, adoption of the WHO recommendations was associated with similar health and environmental changes, whereas adoption of the EAT-Lancet recommendations was associated with 34% greater reductions in premature mortality, more than three times greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and general attainment of the global health and environmental targets. As an example, the FBDGs of the UK, US, and China were incompatible with the climate change, land use, freshwater, and nitrogen targets, and adopting guidelines in line with the EAT-Lancet recommendation could increase the number of avoided deaths from 78 000 (74 000 to 81 000) to 104 000 (96 000 to 112 000) in the UK, from 480 000 (445 000 to 516 000) to 585 000 (523 000 to 646 000) in the USA, and from 1 149 000 (1 095 000 to 1 204 000) to 1 802 000 (1 664 000 to 1 941 000) in China.ConclusionsThis analysis suggests that national guidelines could be both healthier and more sustainable. Providing clearer advice on limiting in most contexts the consumption of animal source foods, in particular beef and dairy, was found to have the greatest potential for increasing the environmental sustainability of dietary guidelines, whereas increasing the intake of whole grains, fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and legumes, reducing the intake of red and processed meat, and highlighting the importance of attaining balanced energy intake and weight levels were associated with most of the additional health benefits. The health results were based on observational data and assuming a causal relation between dietary risk factors and health outcomes. The certainty of evidence for these relations is mostly graded as moderate in existing meta-analyses.

Summary: Background: Sustainable diets are intended to address the increasing health and environmental concerns related to food production and consumption. Although many candidates for sustainable diets have emerged, a consistent and joint environmental and health analysis of these diets has not been done at a regional level. Using an integrated health and environmental modelling framework for more than 150 countries, we examined three different approaches to sustainable diets motivated by environmental, food security, and public health objectives. Methods: In this global modelling analysis, we combined analyses of nutrient levels, diet-related and weight-related chronic disease mortality, and environmental impacts for more than 150 countries in three sets of diet scenarios. The first set, based on environmental objectives, replaced 25–100% of animal-source foods with plant-based foods. The second set, based on food security objectives, reduced levels of underweight, overweight, and obesity by 25–100%. The third set, based on public health objectives, consisted of four energy-balanced dietary patterns: flexitarian, pescatarian, vegetarian, and vegan. In the nutrient analysis, we calculated nutrient intake and changes in adequacy based on international recommendations and a global dataset of nutrient content and supply. In the health analysis, we estimated changes in mortality using a comparative risk assessment with nine diet and weight-related risk factors. In the environmental analysis, we combined country-specific and food group-specific footprints for greenhouse gas emissions, cropland use, freshwater use, nitrogen application, and phosphorus application to analyse the relationship between the health and environmental impacts of dietary change. Findings: Following environmental objectives by replacing animal-source foods with plant-based ones was particularly effective in high-income countries for improving nutrient levels, lowering premature mortality (reduction of up to 12% [95% CI 10–13] with complete replacement), and reducing some environmental impacts, in particular greenhouse gas emissions (reductions of up to 84%). However, it also increased freshwater use (increases of up to 16%) and had little effectiveness in countries with low or moderate consumption of animal-source foods. Following food-security objectives by reducing underweight and overweight led to similar reductions in premature mortality (reduction of up to 10% [95% CI 9–11]), and moderately improved nutrient levels. However, it led to only small reductions in environmental impacts at the global level (all impacts changed by

The food system is a major driver of climate change, changes in land use, depletion of freshwater resources, and pollution of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems through excessive nitrogen and phosphorus inputs. Here we show that between 2010 and 2050, as a result of expected changes in population and income levels, the environmental effects of the food system could increase by 50-90% in the absence of technological changes and dedicated mitigation measures, reaching levels that are beyond the planetary boundaries that define a safe operating space for humanity. We analyse several options for reducing the environmental effects of the food system, including dietary changes towards healthier, more plant-based diets, improvements in technologies and management, and reductions in food loss and waste. We find that no single measure is enough to keep these effects within all planetary boundaries simultaneously, and that a synergistic combination of measures will be needed to sufficiently mitigate the projected increase in environmental pressures.

inVIVO Planetary Health (inVIVO) is a progressive scientific movement providing evidence, advocacy, and inspiration to align the interests and vitality of people, place, and planet. Our goal is to transform personal and planetary health through awareness, attitudes, and actions, and a deeper understanding of how all systems are interconnected and interdependent. Here, we present the abstracts and proceedings of our 8th annual conference, held in Detroit, Michigan in May 2019, themed “From Challenges, to Opportunities”. Our far-ranging discussions addressed the complex interdependent ecological challenges of advancing global urbanization, including the biopsychosocial interactions in our living environment on physical, mental, and spiritual wellbeing, together with the wider community and societal factors that govern these. We had a strong solutions focus, with diverse strategies spanning from urban-greening and renewal, nature-relatedness, nutritional ecology, planetary diets, and microbiome rewilding, through to initiatives for promoting resilience, positive emotional assets, traditional cultural narratives, creativity, art projects for personal and community health, and exploring ways of positively shifting mindsets and value systems. Our cross-sectoral agenda underscored the importance and global impact of local initiatives everywhere by contributing to new normative values as part of a global interconnected grass-roots movement for planetary health.

Significance Dietary choices are a leading global cause of mortality and environmental degradation and threaten the attainability of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement. To inform decision making and to better identify the multifaceted health and environmental impacts of dietary choices, we describe how consuming 15 different food groups is associated with 5 health outcomes and 5 aspects of environmental degradation. We find that foods associated with improved adult health also often have low environmental impacts, indicating that the same dietary transitions that would lower incidences of noncommunicable diseases would also help meet environmental sustainability targets., Food choices are shifting globally in ways that are negatively affecting both human health and the environment. Here we consider how consuming an additional serving per day of each of 15 foods is associated with 5 health outcomes in adults and 5 aspects of agriculturally driven environmental degradation. We find that while there is substantial variation in the health outcomes of different foods, foods associated with a larger reduction in disease risk for one health outcome are often associated with larger reductions in disease risk for other health outcomes. Likewise, foods with lower impacts on one metric of environmental harm tend to have lower impacts on others. Additionally, of the foods associated with improved health (whole grain cereals, fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, olive oil, and fish), all except fish have among the lowest environmental impacts, and fish has markedly lower impacts than red meats and processed meats. Foods associated with the largest negative environmental impacts—unprocessed and processed red meat—are consistently associated with the largest increases in disease risk. Thus, dietary transitions toward greater consumption of healthier foods would generally improve environmental sustainability, although processed foods high in sugars harm health but can have relatively low environmental impacts. These findings could help consumers, policy makers, and food companies to better understand the multiple health and environmental implications of food choices.

The COVID-19 pandemic reveals that societies place a high value on healthy lives. Leveraging this momentum to establish a more central role for human health in the policy process will provide further impetus to a sustainable transformation of energy and food systems.

What we eat greatly influences our personal health and the environment we all share. Recent analyses have highlighted the likely dual health and environmental benefits of reducing the fraction of animal-sourced foods in our diets. Here, we couple for the first time, to our knowledge, a region-specific global health model based on dietary and weight-related risk factors with emissions accounting and economic valuation modules to quantify the linked health and environmental consequences of dietary changes. We find that the impacts of dietary changes toward less meat and more plant-based diets vary greatly among regions. The largest absolute environmental and health benefits result from diet shifts in developing countries whereas Western high-income and middle-income countries gain most in per capita terms. Transitioning toward more plant-based diets that are in line with standard dietary guidelines could reduce global mortality by 6-10% and food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 29-70% compared with a reference scenario in 2050. We find that the monetized value of the improvements in health would be comparable with, or exceed, the value of the environmental benefits although the exact valuation method used considerably affects the estimated amounts. Overall, we estimate the economic benefits of improving diets to be 1-31 trillion US dollars, which is equivalent to 0.4-13% of global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2050. However, significant changes in the global food system would be necessary for regional diets to match the dietary patterns studied here.

Current diets are neither healthy nor sustainable. Dietary risk factors that describe unhealthy consumption patterns, such as diets low in fruits and vegetable and high in red and processed meat, are together responsible for the greatest health burden on mortality globally and in most regions. At the same time, food production is a significant driver of climate change, biodiversity loss via land-use changes, and chemical pollution of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. In addressing these challenges, a large body of literature has emerged that explores ways to reduce the environmental and health impacts of the food system, both from the consumption and the production side. Here I summarize and contextualize the current state of the literature on sustainable diets. I base this chapter on global studies on the environmental impacts of agriculture, recent reviews of the sustainable-diet literature, and meta-analyses of epidemiological studies that detail the health associations of dietary changes.

In March 2019, German-speaking scientists and scholars calling themselvesScientists for Future, published a statement in support of the youth protesters in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland(Fridays for Future, Klimastreik/Climate Strike), verifying the scientific evidence that the youth protestors refer to. In this article, they provide the full text of the statement, including the list of supporting facts (in both English and German) as well as an analysis of the results and impacts of the statement. Furthermore, they reflect on the challenges for scientists and scholars who feel a dual responsibility: on the one hand, to remain independent and politically neutral, and, on the other hand, to inform and warn societies of the dangers that lie ahead.

The future of meat Meat consumption is rising annually as human populations grow and affluence increases. Godfray et al. review this trend, which has major negative consequences for land and water use and environmental change. Although meat is a concentrated source of nutrients for low-income families, it also enhances the risks of chronic ill health, such as from colorectal cancer and cardiovascular disease. Changing meat consumption habits is a challenge that requires identifying the complex social factors associated with meat eating and developing policies for effective interventions. Science , this issue p. eaam5324

White and Hall (1) suggest that removing animals from US agriculture would create a food supply incapable of supporting the United States population’s nutritional requirements and increase nutritional deficiencies compared with the current food system. However, their analysis suffers from an uncritical use of nutritional values and optimization algorithms, and a highly unrealistic and narrow scenario design. In constructing their dietary scenarios, White and Hall use a linear-programming algorithm that optimizes diets to meet nutrient constraints at lowest cost. This approach is problematic: since 1945, it has been recognized to result in highly unrealistic and monotonous diets if not properly constrained (2), for example, by realistic serving sizes or deviation from current diets (3 … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: marco.springmann{at}dph.ox.ac.uk. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

China has embarked on an ambitious pathway for establishing a national carbon market in the next 5–10 years. In this study, we analyze the distributional aspects of a Chinese emissions-trading scheme from ethical, economic, and stated-preference perspectives. We focus on the role of emissions permit allocation and first show how specific equity principles can be incorporated into the design of potential allocation schemes. We then assess the economic and distributional impacts of those allocation schemes using a computable general equilibrium model with regional detail for the Chinese economy. Finally, we conduct a survey among Chinese climate-policy experts on the basis of the simulated model impacts. The survey participants indicate a relative preference for allocation schemes that put less emissions-reduction burden on the western provinces, a medium burden on the central provinces, and a high burden on the eastern provinces. Most participants show strong support for allocating emissions permits based on consumption-based emissions responsibilities., China. Ministry of Science and Technology (Grant No. 2012BAC20B07), Rio Tinto (Group)

Objective: To estimate the impact of integrating the price of greenhouse gas emissions into the price of food commodities on dietary and weight‐related risk factors and associated disease burden in Australia, as well as on national emissions reductions and public revenues. Methods: We used country‐specific data for Australia to build a coupled modelling framework that includes economic, environmental and health analyses. Data sources included the 2011‐12 Australian food and nutrition survey, meta‐analysis of food‐related lifecycle emissions, and price and income elasticities. Consumption‐related changes in disease burden were calculated using a comparative risk assessment framework with 11 disease states and seven diet and weight‐related risk factors. Results: Including a price of 23 dollars per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2‐eq) – the starting price of the former Australian carbon pricing mechanism – into the price of food commodities in our model simulations led to 49,500 avoided disability‐adjusted life years (DALYs) (95% confidence interval [CI] 43,200‐55,200). Food‐related greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by 6% (2.3 MtCO2‐eq), and greenhouse gas tax revenues amounted to $866 million. Conclusion: Incorporating the price of food‐related greenhouse gas emissions into the price of food commodities in Australia could be beneficial for population health, while generating public finance revenues and supporting Australia's emission‐reduction commitment. Implications for public health: Climate policies that integrate the price of greenhouse gas emissions into the price of food commodities in Australia are compatible with public health objectives to reduce diet‐related disease mortality.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has been one of the core issues of the world climate summits under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in recent years. However, the GCF has not progressed smoothly, and currently there are no satisfactory schemes for raising and distributing the fund. This paper first discusses how to finance the GCF among Annex II countries. It introduces the’ preference score compromises’ (PSC) approach which is based on environmental responsibility and economic capacity, with historical emissions as an indicator for environmental responsibility and GDP as indicator for economic capacity. The results show that the United States and the European Union are the two largest contributors to the GCF, sponsoring more than 80% of the funds. Second, we discuss how to allocate the funds among non-Annex II parties. The ‘adaptation needs’ (AN) approach, which takes account of economic strength and climate damages, is proposed to achieve the adaptation purpose of the GCF, and the results reveal that African countries with high levels of climate vulnerability could get most funds, with a share of almost 30%. Regarding the mitigation purpose of the GCF, this research introduces two approaches: the ‘carbon reduction contribution’ (CC) approach and the ‘incremental cost’ (IC) approach. Both approaches could achieve significant reductions in carbon emissions in non-Annex II parties, whereas the latter may provide limited adaptation finance but result in more mitigation effects. This paper also develops a method to combine abatement efficiency and adaptation fairness of the GCF, and we find that with an equal split between the AN and CC (or AN and IC) approaches, the amount of USD 100 billion could finance an emissions reduction of 1613 MtCO2 (2477 MtCO2), while allocating USD 16 (or USD 9) per capita for adaptation in non-Annex II parties. The schemes proposed may be useful for promoting the development of the GCF in the future.

In order to address carbon leakage and preserve the competitiveness of domestic industries, some industrialized Annex I countries have proposed to implement carbon tariffs. These tariffs would be levied on energy-intensive imports from developing non-Annex I countries that have not agreed to binding emissions reductions. This action could have detrimental welfare impacts, especially on those developing countries, and may not lead to significant reductions in leakage. A recent proposal is to use the revenues generated from carbon tariffs to finance clean development in the relevant exporting non-Annex I countries. This proposal is evaluated using an energy-economic model of the global economy. The model is supplemented by marginal abatement cost curves and bottom-up information on abatement potentials in order to represent how clean development financing affects emissions reductions. The results indicate that carbon tariffs could raise US$3.5-24.5 billion (with a central value of $9.8 billion) for clean development financing. This could reduce the emissions of non-Annex I countries by 5-15% and still leave funds available for other purposes, such as adaptation. Furthermore, recycling the revenues generated from carbon tariffs back to the exporting country itself could alleviate some of the negative welfare impacts associated with them. However, a net negative impact especially on the welfare and gross domestic product of developing countries would remain. © 2013 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.