Intersections of climate change with food systems, nutrition, and health: an overview and evidence map

Abstract

Abstract Scientific research linking climate change to food systems, nutrition and nutrition-related health (FSNH) has proliferated, showing bidirectional and compounding dependencies that create cascading risks for human and planetary health. Within this proliferation, it is unclear which evidence to prioritise for action, and which research gaps, if filled, would catalyse most impact. We systematically searched for synthesis literature (i.e. reviews) related to FSNH, published after January 1, 2018. We screened and extracted relevant characteristics of these reviews, and mapped them in an interactive Evidence and Gap Map (EGM), supplemented by expert consultation. 844 synthesis reports met inclusion criteria (from 2,739 records) and were included in the EGM. The largest clusters of evidence were those describing climate impacts on crop and animal source food (ASF) production, and emissions from such (86%). Comparatively few reports assessed climate change related to nutrition-related health, or food manufacture, processing, storage, and transportation. Reports focused on strategies of adaptation (40%), mitigation (29%), both (19%) or none (12%). A striking lack of reports critically evaluated equity (25%), and even fewer reports suggesting changes to equity and equitable practices would alter the climate-FSNH dynamic (6%). The expert consultation mirrored the results of the EGM, and contextualised findings further. This novel map describes a wide research landscape linking climate change to FSNH. We identified four key evidence gaps, including 1) Research on whole food systems or post-harvest elements 2) Research evaluating relationships between climate change and nutrition-related health outcomes, especially among vulnerable populations; 3) Promising methods (and additional data required) that can a) identify inflection points or levers for intervention, b) incorporate complex dynamics and characterize trade-offs, c) be understood and applied in context-specific, localised ways for decision-making; and 4) Promoting interdisciplinary collaborations that enable producing and translating evidence to action, especially those that inherently consider co-production and fairness.