Mitigation potential and global health impacts from emissions pricing of food commodities

  • Nature Climate Change volume 7, pages 6974 (2017)
  • doi:10.1038/nclimate3155
  • Download Citation
Published online:


The projected rise in food-related greenhouse gas emissions could seriously impede efforts to limit global warming to acceptable levels. Despite that, food production and consumption have long been excluded from climate policies, in part due to concerns about the potential impact on food security. Using a coupled agriculture and health modelling framework, we show that the global climate change mitigation potential of emissions pricing of food commodities could be substantial, and that levying greenhouse gas taxes on food commodities could, if appropriately designed, be a health-promoting climate policy in high-income countries, as well as in most low- and middle-income countries. Sparing food groups known to be beneficial for health from taxation, selectively compensating for income losses associated with tax-related price increases, and using a portion of tax revenues for health promotion are potential policy options that could help avert most of the negative health impacts experienced by vulnerable groups, whilst still promoting changes towards diets which are more environmentally sustainable.

  • Subscribe to Nature Climate Change for full access:



Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.


  1. 1.

    , & Climate change and food systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 195–222 (2012).

  2. 2.

    et al. Livestock’s Long Shadow (FAO, 2006).

  3. 3.

    et al. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Emissions by Sources and Removals by Sinks: 1990–2011 Analysis (FAO Statistical Division, 2014).

  4. 4.

    , & Food consumption, diet shifts and associated non-CO2 greenhouse gases from agricultural production. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 451–462 (2010).

  5. 5.

    , & The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. Climatic Change 124, 79–91 (2014).

  6. 6.

    & Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature 515, 518–522 (2014).

  7. 7.

    et al. Importance of food-demand management for climate mitigation. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 924–929 (2014).

  8. 8.

    , , & Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 4146–4151 (2016).

  9. 9.

    et al. Ruminants, climate change and climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 2–5 (2014).

  10. 10.

    Livestock methane emission: from the individual grazing animal through national inventories to the global methane cycle. Agric. For. Meteorol. 142, 120–132 (2007).

  11. 11.

    , & Emissions of N2O and NO from fertilized fields: summary of available measurement data. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 16, 1058 (2002).

  12. 12.

    , , & Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 133, 247–266 (2009).

  13. 13.

    et al. Policy and technological constraints to implementation of greenhouse gas mitigation options in agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 118, 6–28 (2007).

  14. 14.

    et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 363, 789–813 (2008).

  15. 15.

    et al. Global climate policy impacts on livestock, land use, livelihoods, and food security. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 20894–20899 (2013).

  16. 16.

    et al. Climate change mitigation through livestock system transitions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3709–3714 (2014).

  17. 17.

    & The choice between emission taxes and output taxes under imperfect monitoring. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 32, 51–64 (1997).

  18. 18.

    , & Greenhouse gas taxes on animal food products: rationale, tax scheme and climate mitigation effects. Climatic Change 108, 159–184 (2010).

  19. 19.

    et al. Climate benefits of changing diet. Climatic Change 95, 83–102 (2009).

  20. 20.

    et al. How much land-based greenhouse gas mitigation can be achieved without compromising food security and environmental goals? Glob. Change Biol. 19, 2285–2302 (2013).

  21. 21.

    & Health-Related Taxes on Food and Beverages (Food Research Collaboration, 2015);

  22. 22.

    & Plates, Pyramids and Planets—Developments in National Healthy and Sustainable Dietary Guidelines: A State of Play Assessment (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and The Food Climate Research Network at University of Oxford, 2016).

  23. 23.

    et al. Assessing the impact on chronic disease of incorporating the societal cost of greenhouse gases into the price of food: an econometric and comparative risk assessment modelling study. BMJ Open 3, e003543 (2013).

  24. 24.

    et al. The International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT)—Model Description for Version 3, IFPRI Discussion Paper 1483 (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2015).

  25. 25.

    et al. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities (FAO, 2013).

  26. 26.

    Interagency Working Group Technical Update on the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under Executive Order 12866 (United States Government, 2013).

  27. 27.

    et al. Global and regional health effects of future food production under climate change: a modelling study. Lancet 387, 1937–1946 (2016).

  28. 28.

    et al. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 386, 2287–2323 (2015).

  29. 29.

    , , , & Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent, Causes and Prevention (FAO, 2011).

  30. 30.

    CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion—Highlights 2015 edn (IEA, 2015).

  31. 31.

    The Emissions Gap Report 2014 (United Nations Environment Programme, 2014).

  32. 32.

    et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 11, 811–922 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).

  33. 33.

    et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 452–461 (2016).

  34. 34.

    et al. Reducing emissions from agriculture to meet the 2 °C target. Glob. Change Biol. (2016).

  35. 35.

    et al. Co-benefits of mitigating global greenhouse gas emissions for future air quality and human health. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 885–889 (2013).

  36. 36.

    , , & Policies and Actions to Shift Eating Patterns: What Works? A Review of the Evidence of the Effectiveness of Interventions Aimed at Shifting Diets in More Sustainable and Healthy Directions (Food Climate Research Network, 2015).

  37. 37.

    et al. Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet 382, 427–451 (2013).

  38. 38.

    et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 8, 659–740 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).

  39. 39.

    et al. The potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from health care via diet change in the US. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014) 233–240 (American Center for Life Cycle Assessment, 2014).

  40. 40.

    , , , & Comparative quantification of health risks: conceptual framework and methodological issues. Popul. Health Metr. (2003).

  41. 41.

    et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380, 2224–2260 (2012).

  42. 42.

    et al. Body-mass index and mortality among 1.46 million white adults. N. Engl. J. Med. 363, 2211–2219 (2010).

  43. 43.

    Prospective Studies Collaboration et al. Body-mass index and cause-specific mortality in 900 000 adults: collaborative analyses of 57 prospective studies. Lancet 373, 1083–1096 (2009).

  44. 44.

    , & Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 121, 2271–2283 (2010).

  45. 45.

    , , & Red and processed meat consumption and risk of stroke: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 67, 91–95 (2013).

  46. 46.

    , & Fruit and vegetable consumption and risk of stroke: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Neurology 65, 1193–1197 (2005).

  47. 47.

    , , & Fruit and vegetable consumption and risk of coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. J. Nutr. 136, 2588–2593 (2006).

  48. 48.

    Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective (WCRF, AICR, 2007).

  49. 49.

    Continuous Update Project Report. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Pancreatic Cancer (WCRF, AICR, 2012).

  50. 50.

    , & Meat consumption, diabetes, and its complications. Curr. Diab. Rep. 13, 298–306 (2013).

  51. 51.

    , , , & Fruit and vegetable intake and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus: meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. BMJ Open 4, e005497 (2014).

  52. 52.

    et al. Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380, 2095–2128 (2012).

  53. 53.

    World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision Highlights and Advance Tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.228 (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, 2013).

  54. 54.

    , & Climate change, crop yields, and undernutrition: development of a model to quantify the impact of climate scenarios on child undernutrition. Environ. Health Perspect. 119, 1817–1823 (2011).

  55. 55.

    et al. GBD 2010: design, definitions, and metrics. Lancet 380, 2063–2066 (2012).

  56. 56.

    & Explaining Child Malnutrition in Developing Countries: A Cross-Country Analysis Vol. 111 (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2000).

  57. 57.

    Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866 (US Government, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, 2010).

  58. 58.

    et al. The effect of rising food prices on food consumption: systematic review with meta-regression. BMJ 346, f3703 (2013).

Download references


M.S., P.S., M.R. and H.C.J.G. acknowledge funding from the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food. D.M.-D’C., S.R. and K.W. undertook this work as a part of the Global Futures and Strategic Foresight Program (GFSF), a CGIAR initiative led by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), and the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS).

Author information


  1. Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, British Heart Foundation Centre on Population Approaches for Non-Communicable Disease Prevention, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK

    • Marco Springmann
    • , Mike Rayner
    •  & Peter Scarborough
  2. International Food Policy Research Institute, 2033 K Street NW, Washington DC 20006-1002, USA

    • Daniel Mason-D’Croz
    • , Sherman Robinson
    •  & Keith Wiebe
  3. Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK

    • H. Charles J. Godfray


  1. Search for Marco Springmann in:

  2. Search for Daniel Mason-D’Croz in:

  3. Search for Sherman Robinson in:

  4. Search for Keith Wiebe in:

  5. Search for H. Charles J. Godfray in:

  6. Search for Mike Rayner in:

  7. Search for Peter Scarborough in:


M.S. designed the study and conducted the initial analysis. M.S., P.S., D.M.-D’C. and S.R. contributed model components. M.S. wrote the manuscript, with contributions from H.C.J.G. All authors analysed the results and commented on the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Springmann.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Information