Abstract
Dietary shifts are key for enhancing the sustainability of current food systems but need to account for potential economic, social and environmental indirect effects as well. By tracing physical quantities of biomass along supply chains in a global economic model, we investigate the benefits of adopting the EAT–Lancet diet and other social, economic and environmental spillovers in the wider economy. We find that decreased global food demand reduces global biomass production, food prices, trade, land use and food loss and waste but also reduces food affordability for low-income agricultural households. In sub-Saharan Africa, increased food demand and higher prices decrease food affordability also for non-agricultural households. Economic spillovers into non-food sectors limit agricultural land and greenhouse gas reductions as cheaper biomass is demanded more for non-food use. From an environmental perspective, economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions increase as lower global food demand at lower prices frees income subsequently spent on non-food items.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The FLW database and results data are available in the Supplementary Information.
Code availability
The code used for the analysis is described in the Supplementary Information.
References
Sustainable Consumption and Production (United Nations, 2019); https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/
The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020: Transforming Food Systems for Affordable Healthy Diets (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO, 2020); https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9692en
Springmann, M., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M. & Scarborough, P. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4146–4151 (2016).
Willett, W., Rockström, J. & Loken, B. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet. 393, 447–492 (2019).
Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Resolution A/RES/70/1 (United Nations, 2015).
Springmann, M. et al. Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planet. Health 2, e451–e461 (2018).
Laine, J. E. et al. Co-benefits from sustainable dietary shifts for population and environmental health: an assessment from a large European cohort study. Lancet Planet. Health 5, e786–e796 (2021).
Tilman, D. & Clark, M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 7528 (2014).
Robinson, S. et al. The International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT): Model Description for Version 3 (IFPRI, 2015); http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/129825
Swinnen, J. The right price of food. Dev. Policy Rev. 29, 667–688 (2011).
Hirvonen, K., Bai, Y., Headey, D. & Masters, W. A. Affordability of the EAT–Lancet reference diet: a global analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 8, e59–e66 (2020).
Springmann, M., Clark, M. A., Rayner, M., Scarborough, P. & Webb, P. The global and regional costs of healthy and sustainable dietary patterns: a modelling study. Lancet Planet. Health 5, e797–e807 (2021).
Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018).
Frank, S. et al. Agricultural non-CO2 emission reduction potential in the context of the 1.5 °C target. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 66–72 (2019).
Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global Anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2, 198–209 (2021).
The State of Food and Agriculture 2019: Moving Forward on Food Loss and Waste Reduction (FAO, 2019).
van Meijl, H., van Rheenen, T., Tabeau, A. & Eickhout, B. The impact of different policy environments on land use in Europe. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 114, 21–38 (2006).
Britz, W. & van der Mensbrugghe, D. CGEBox: a flexible, modular and extendable framework for CGE analysis in GAMS. J. Glob. Econ. Anal. 3, 106–177 (2018).
Chepeliev, M. Incorporating nutritional accounts to the GTAP Data Base. J. Glob. Econ. Anal. 7, 1–43 (2022).
Clements, K. W. & Si, J. Engel’s law, diet diversity, and the quality of food consumption. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 100, 1–22 (2018).
Pyka, A., Cardellini, G., van Meijl, H. & Verkerk, P. J. Modelling the bioeconomy: emerging approaches to address policy needs. J. Clean. Prod. 330, 129801 (2022).
van der Mensbrugghe, D. & Peters, J. Volume Preserving CES and CET Formulations. GTAP Working Paper 87 (Purdue Univ., 2020); https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/10019.pdf
Horridge, M. Using CRETH to Make Quantities Add Up Without Efficiency Bias (Centre of Policy Studies & Victoria Univ. Melbourne, 2019); https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/9280.pdf
Britz, W. et al. Economy-Wide Analysis of Food Waste Reductions and Related Costs. Working Paper No. JRC113395 (Joint Research Centre Seville, 2019); https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/iptiptwpa/jrc113395.htm
Okawa, K. (2015). Market and trade impacts of food loss and waste reduction. OECD Food Agric. Fish. Pap. https://doi.org/10.1787/5js4w29h0wr2-en (2015).
Campoy-Muñoz, P., Cardenete, M. A., Delgado, M., del, C. & Sancho, F. Food losses and waste: a needed assessment for future policies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 11586 (2021).
Springmann, M., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M. & Scarborough, P. Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4146–4151 (2016).
Leclere D. et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2705-y (2020).
Parfitt, J., Croker, T. & Brockhaus, A. Global food loss and waste in primary production: a reassessment of its scale and significance. Sustainability 13, 12087 (2021).
UNEP Food Waste Index Report 2021 (UNEP, 2021); https://www.unep.org/resources/report/unep-food-waste-index-report-2021
van Hal, O. et al. Upcycling food leftovers and grass resources through livestock: impact of livestock system and productivity. J. Clean. Prod. 219, 485–496 (2019).
De Boer, I. J. M. & Van Ittersum, M. K. Circularity in Agricultural Production (Wageningen Univ. & Research, 2018); https://www.wur.nl/upload_mm/7/5/5/14119893-7258-45e6-b4d0e514a8b6316a_Circularity-in-agricultural-production-20122018.pdf
Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).
Gollin, D., Lagakos, D. & Waugh, M. E. The agricultural productivity gap. Q. J. Econ. 129, 939–993 (2014).
Kaza, S., Yao, L. C., Bhada-Tata, P. & Van Woerden, F. What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050 (World Bank, 2018); https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30317
Delgado, L., Schuster, M. & Torero, M. Quantity and quality food losses across the value chain: a comparative analysis. Food Policy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101958 (2021).
Latka, C. et al. Paying the price for environmentally sustainable and healthy EU diets. Glob. Food Secur. 28, 100437 (2021).
Woltjer, G. B. et al. The MAGNET Model: Module Description. Manual/LEI No. 14-57 (LEI Wageningen UR, 2014); https://edepot.wur.nl/310764
van Meijl, H., Tabeau, A., Stehfest, E., Doelman, J. & Lucas, P. How food secure are the green, rocky and middle roads: food security effects in different world development paths. Environ. Res. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ab7aba (2020).
Pérez-Domínguez, I. et al. Short- and long-term warming effects of methane may affect the cost-effectiveness of mitigation policies and benefits of low-meat diets. Nat. Food 2, 970–980 (2021).
Corong, E., Hertel, T., McDougall, R., Tsigas, M. & van der Mensbrugghe, D. The standard GTAP model, version 7. J. Glob. Econ. Anal. 2, 1–119 (2017).
van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 237–250 (2017).
Doelman, J. C. et al. Afforestation for climate change mitigation: potentials, risks and trade-offs. Glob.Change Biol. 26, 1576–1591 (2019).
Lele U. et al. Measuring Food and Nutrition Security: An Independent Technical Assessment and User’s Guide for Existing Indicators. Technical Working Group on Measuring Food and Nutrition Security (FAO, 2016).
Rutten, M., Tabeau, A. & Godeschalk, F. New Methodology for Incorporating Nutrition Indicators in Economy-Wide Scenario Analyses. FOODSECURE technical paper 1, (LEI Wageningen UR, 2013).
Britz, W. Maintaining Plausible Calorie Intakes, Crop Yields and Crop Land Expansion in Long-Run Simulations with Computable General Equilibrium Models (Institute for Food and Resource Economics & Univ. of Bonn, 2020); https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.302922
Aguiar, A., Chepeliev, M., Corong, E. L., McDougall, R., & van der Mensbrugghe, D. The GTAP Data Base: Version 10. J. Glob. Econ. Anal. https://doi.org/10.21642/JGEA.040101AF (2019).
Leontief, W. W. in Contributions to Input–Output Analysis (eds Carter, A. P. & Brody, A.) 17–46 (Elsevier, 1970).
World Economic Outlook October 2022 (IMF, 2022); https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/datasets/WEO
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality via the knowledge and innovation Connected Circularity programme (grant number KB-40-001-001), Circular and Climate Neutral Society (grant number KB-34-002-006) and Healthy and Safe food systems (grant number KB-37-001-007) and by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement number 86193). This publication reflects only the authors’ view; the funding agencies are not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
A.G., M.K. and H.v.M. conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analysed the data, contributed materials/analysis tools and wrote the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Food thanks Hanna Helander and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Figs. 1–18 and Tables 1–21.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Gatto, A., Kuiper, M. & van Meijl, H. Economic, social and environmental spillovers decrease the benefits of a global dietary shift. Nat Food 4, 496–507 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00769-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00769-y
This article is cited by
-
Spillover effects of dietary transitions
Nature Food (2023)