Tackling food consumption inequality to fight hunger without pressuring the environment


Ending hunger is a Sustainable Development Goal of the UN. However, feeding a growing world population by increasing food production without implementing more sustainable consumption will threaten the environment. We explore alternative hunger eradication scenarios that do not compromise environmental protection. We find that an economy-growth-oriented scenario, which ignores inequitable food distribution and is aimed at ending hunger by increasing overall food availability, would require about 20% more food production, 48 Mha of additional agricultural land and would increase greenhouse gas emissions by 550 Mt of CO2 equivalents yr−1 in 2030, compared with the business-as-usual scenario. If hunger eradication efforts were focused solely on the under-nourished, food demand would increase by only 3%, and the associated environmental trade-offs would be largely reduced. Moreover, a combined scenario that targets the under-nourished while also reducing over-consumption, food waste, agricultural intensification and other environmental impacts would reduce food demand by 9% compared with the business-as-usual scenario and would lead to the multiple benefits of reducing hunger and contributing to environmental sustainability.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Possible food distribution transformation to achieve the eradication of hunger.
Fig. 2: Additional food supplies and responses of agricultural systems to ending hunger under the Baseline scenario and different combinations of hunger and food security policies in 2030 relative to 2010.
Fig. 3: Global agricultural impacts on the environment under different hunger eradication policies in 2030.

Data availability

The data repository, including scenario data, is stored on Harvard Dataverse (https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RQZELX).

Code availability

The authors declare that the program code used to generate results in this study is available from the corresponding author on request.

Change history

  • 11 November 2019

    An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.


  1. 1.

    The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2017: Builiding Resilience for Peace and Food Security (FAO, UNICEF, WFP, WHO, 2017).

  2. 2.

    IAASTD: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development Global Report (Island, 2009).

  3. 3.

    Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision (FAO, 2012).

  4. 4.

    FAOSTAT (FAO, 2017); http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home

  5. 5.

    Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M. & Watson, J. E. M. Biodiversity: The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536, 143–145 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Shiklomanov, I. A. Appraisal and assessment of world water resources. Water Int. 25, 11–32 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Smith, P. M. B. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) 811–922 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  8. 8.

    Rockstrom, J. et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Obersteiner, M. et al. Assessing the land resource–food price nexus of the Sustainable Development Goals. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501499 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Rosegrant, M. W. S. et al. Quantitative Foresight Modeling to Inform the CGIAR Research Portfolio (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2017).

  12. 12.

    Erb, K.-H. et al. Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation. Nat. Commun. 7, 11382 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Nelson, G. C. et al. Food Security, Farming, and Climate Change to 2050: Scenarios, Results, Policy Options (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2010).

  14. 14.

    Muller, A. et al. Strategies for feeding the world more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat. Commun. 8, 1290 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Springmann, M. et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 562, 519–525 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Cafiero, C. Advances in Hunger Measurement: Traditional FAO Methods and Recent Innovations (FAO, 2014).

  17. 17.

    The State of Food Insecurity in the World Meeting the 2015 International Hunger Targets: Taking Stock of Uneven Progress (FAO, 2015).

  18. 18.

    The CELAC Plan for Food and Nutrition Security and the Eradication of Hunger 2025: Executive Summary (FAO, ECLAC, ALADI, 2015).

  19. 19.

    CELAC Food Security, Nutrition and Hunger Eradication 2025: Matters for Discussion and Regional Cooperation (FAO, 2016).

  20. 20.

    Drèze, J. & Sen, A. Hunger and Public Action (Oxford Univ. Press, 1989).

  21. 21.

    Gobin, V. J., Santos, P. & Toth, R. No longer trapped? Promoting entrepreneurship through cash transfers to ultra-poor women in northern Kenya. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 99, 1362–1383 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Burney, J. A., Davis, S. J. & Lobell, D. B. Greenhouse gas mitigation by agricultural intensification. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 12052–12057 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Valin, H. et al. Agricultural productivity and greenhouse gas emissions: trade-offs or synergies between mitigation and food security? Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 035019 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Hasegawa, T. et al. Consequence of climate mitigation on the risk of hunger. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 7245–7253 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Hasegawa, T., Fujimori, S., Takahashi, K. & Masui, T. Scenarios for the risk of hunger in the twenty-first century using Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 014010 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Lin, B.-H., Smith, T. A., Lee, J.-Y. & Hall, K. D. Measuring weight outcomes for obesity intervention strategies: the case of a sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Econ. Hum. Biol. 9, 329–341 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Duffey, K. J. et al. Food price and diet and health outcomes: 20 years of the CARDIA study. Arch. Intern. Med. 170, 420–426 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Colchero, M. A., Popkin, B. M., Rivera, J. A. & Ng, S. W. Beverage purchases from stores in Mexico under the excise tax on sugar sweetened beverages:observational study. BMJ 352, h6704 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

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

  32. 32.

    Legge sugli sprechi alimentari (Legge 19 agosto 2016 n.166): Disposizioni concernenti la donazione e la distribuzione di prodotti alimentari e farmaceutici a fini di solidarieta’ sociale e per la limitazione degli sprechi (16G00179) GU Serie Generale n.202 del 30-08-2016 (Gazzetta Ufficiale della Republicca Italiana, 2016); http://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2016/08/30/16G00179/sg

  33. 33.

    Herrero, M. et al. Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 20888–20893 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Fricko, O. et al. The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: a middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 251–267 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Frank, S. et al. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture without compromising food security? Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 105004 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on Work of the Statistical Commission Pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development A/RES/71/313 (UN, 2017).

  37. 37.

    AQUASTAT Main Database (FAO, 2016).

  38. 38.

    Food Security Indicators (FAO, 2016); http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/ess-fadata/en/#.V7KYqpgqq9I

  39. 39.

    Rand, W. M., Pellett, P. L. & Young, V. R. Meta-analysis of nitrogen balance studies for estimating protein requirements in healthy adults. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 77, 109–127 (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Protein and Amino Acid Requirements in Human Nutrition: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation (WHO, FAO, UNU, 2007).

  41. 41.

    Walpole, S. C. et al. The weight of nations: an estimation of adult human biomass. BMC Public Health 12, 439 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Energy and Protein Requirements (FAO, WHO, 1973).

  43. 43.

    Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) Database Version 0.9.3 (IIASA, accessed 1 August 2012); https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/SspDb

Download references


T.H. is supported by JSPS Overseas Research Fellowships and Global Environmental Research Fund 2–1702 of the Ministry of Environment of Japan. P.H., S.F. and H.V. are supported by the H2020 SUSFANS project—Metrics, Models and Foresight for European Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security under grant agreement no. 633692. P.H., A.P., S.F. and H.V. are supported by the UNIDO IS-WEL project—Integrated Solutions for Water, Energy and Land under grant no. 140312. T.H. is grateful to IIASA and NIES for the opportunity to visit IIASA and for this collaborative work with IIASA colleagues.

Author information




T.H. and P.H. designed the research and carried out the analysis of the modelling results. T.H. created figures and led the writing of the paper. All authors contributed to the discussion and interpretation of the results and to writing the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomoko Hasegawa.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

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. 1–7, Table 1, methods and references.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hasegawa, T., Havlík, P., Frank, S. et al. Tackling food consumption inequality to fight hunger without pressuring the environment. Nat Sustain 2, 826–833 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0371-6

Download citation

Further reading