4.8 Article

Options for reforming agricultural subsidies from health, climate, and economic perspectives

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-27645-2

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition (GLOPAN)
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People (LEAP)) [205212/Z/16/Z]
  4. Wellcome Trust [205212/Z/16/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

By reforming agricultural subsidy schemes to support the production of healthy and environmentally-friendly foods and ensuring fair distribution of subsidy payments, it is possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve population health, and maintain economic welfare on a global scale.
Agricultural subsidies are an important factor for influencing food production and therefore part of a food system that is seen as neither healthy nor sustainable. Here we analyse options for reforming agricultural subsidies in line with health and climate-change objectives on one side, and economic objectives on the other. Using an integrated modelling framework including economic, environmental, and health assessments, we find that on a global scale several reform options could lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and improvements in population health without reductions in economic welfare. Those include a repurposing of up to half of agricultural subsidies to support the production of foods with beneficial health and environmental characteristics, including fruits, vegetables, and other horticultural products, and combining such repurposing with a more equal distribution of subsidy payments globally. The findings suggest that reforming agricultural subsidy schemes based on health and climate-change objectives can be economically feasible and contribute to transitions towards healthy and sustainable food systems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available