Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The nexus between international trade, food systems, malnutrition and climate change


Trade agreements are a major determinant of the operation of food systems. Here, we examine how different aspects of trade can constrain or enable governments’ ability to implement food system-level actions aimed at enhancing nutrition and mitigating climate change. Concerning technical aspects, we focus on the potential impact of trade agreements on three major strategies for transforming food systems—namely the removal of market barriers for agricultural commodities, the protection of regulatory policy space and the revision of subsidies. Concerning non-technical aspects, we review the evidence on the political economy of trade to show that coherence between trade-policy goals and public-interest goals, such as nutrition and climate change, involves actors’ interests, ideas, and formal and informal institutional processes at various levels. With international agreements to liberalize trade and investment being binding, and recommendations to address malnutrition and climate change being non-binding, there is potential for trade to hinder efforts against malnutrition and climate change. Tempering this will require a deeper understanding of the complex trade–food system––nutrition–climate nexus and a new regulatory framework consistent with such complexity, as well as strategic stakeholder engagement.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1


  1. McCullough, E. B., Pingali, P. L. & Stamoulis, K. G. The transformation of agri-food systems: globalization, supply chains and smallholder farmers (FAO & Earthscan, 2008).

  2. Labonté, R. & Schrecker, T. in Globalization and health: pathways, evidence and policy (eds Labonté, R. et al.) Ch. 1 (Routledge, 2009).

  3. WTO. Understanding the WTO: The Agreements (2014).

  4. De Schutter, O. International trade in agriculture and the right to food (FES, 2009).

  5. Auboin, M. et al. World Trade Report 2013: Factors shaping the future of world trade (eds Martin, A. & Hancock, J.) (WTO, 2013).

  6. Baldwin, R. 21st century regionalism: Filling the gap between 21st century and 20th century trade rules Policy Insights 2011 No. 56 (Centre for Economic Policy Research Geneva, 2011).

  7. Rodrik, D. What do trade agreements really do? J. Econ. Persp. 32, 73–90 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Friel, S., Hattersley, L. & Townsend, R. Trade policy and public health. Annu. Rev. Pub. Health 36, 325–344 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mayer, J. Policy space: what, for what, and where? Dev. Pol. Rev. 27, 373–395 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Thow, A. M. et al. Will the next generation of preferential trade and investment agreements undermine prevention of noncommunicable diseases? A prospective policy analysis of the trans Pacific partnership agreement. Health Pol. 119, 88–96 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Labonte, R. Globalization, health, and the free trade regime: assessing the links. Persp. Glob. Dev. Technol. 3, 47–72 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Thow, A. M. Trade liberalisation and the nutrition transition: mapping the pathways for public health nutritionists. Pub. Health Nutr. 12, 2150–2158 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Legge, D., Gleeson, D. & Snowdon, W. Trade agreements and non-communicable diseases in the Pacific islands (WHO, 2011).

  14. Friel, S. et al. A new generation of trade policy: potential risks to diet-related health from the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement. Glob. Health 9, 46 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Friel, S. et al. Monitoring the impacts of trade agreements on food environments. Obesity Rev. 14, 120–134 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Schram, A. et al. A conceptual framework for investigating the impacts of international trade and investment agreements on noncommunicable disease risk factors. Health Pol. Plan. 33, 123–136 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Barlow, P., McKee, M., Basu, S. & Stuckler, D. The health impact of trade and investment agreements: a quantitative systematic review and network co-citation analysis. Glob. Health 13, 13 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Burns, D. K., Jones, A. P. & Suhrcke, M. The relationship between international trade and non-nutritional health outcomes: a systematic review of quantitative studies. Soc. Sci. Med. 152, 9–17 (2016).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cowling, K., Thow, A. M. & Porter, K. P. Analyzing the impacts of global trade and investment on non-communicable diseases and risk factors: a critical review of methodological approaches used in quantitative analyses. Glob. Health 14, 53 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  20. García-Dorado, S. C., Cornselsen, L., Smith, R. & Walls, H. Economic globalization, nutrition and health: a review of quantitative evidence. Glob. Health 15, 15 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Walls, H., Smith, R., Cuevas, S. & Hanefeld, J. International trade and investment: still the foundation for tackling nutrition related non-communicable diseases in the era of Trump? BMJ 365, l2217 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Baker, P., Kay, A. & Walls, H. Trade and investment liberalization and Asia’s noncommunicable disease epidemic: a synthesis of data and existing literature. Glob. Health 10, 66 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Swinburn, B. A. et al. The global syndemic of obesity, undernutrition, and climate change: The Lancet Commission report. Lancet 393, 791–846 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jha, S. & Srinivasan, P. V. Food inventory policies under liberalized trade. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 71, 21–29 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Santos‐Paulino, A. & Thirlwall, A. P. The impact of trade liberalisation on exports, imports and the balance of payments of developing countries. Econ. J. 114, F50–F72 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cadot, O., De Melo, J., Estevadeordal, A., Suwa-Eisenmann, A. & Tumurchudur, B. Assessing the effect of NAFTA’s rules of origin (World Bank, 2002).

  28. Wilson, J. S., Mann, C. L. & Otsuki, T. Assessing the benefits of trade facilitation: a global perspective. World Econ. 28, 841–871 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  29. McCorriston, S. H., Lamontagne-Godwin, J. D. Osborn, J., Parr, M. J. & Roberts, P. D. What is the evidence of the impact of agricultural trade liberalisation on food security in developing countries? A systematic review. (University of London, UK Government, 2013).

  30. Schram, A. et al. The role of trade and investment liberalization in the sugar-sweetened carbonated beverages market: a natural experiment contrasting Vietnam and the Philippines. Glob. Health 11, 41 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Barlow, P., McKee, M., Basu, S. & Stuckler, D. Impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement on high-fructose corn syrup supply in Canada: a natural experiment using synthetic control methods. CMAJ 189, E881–E887 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Chatterjee, S., Rae, A. & Ray, R. in Globalisation, agriculture and development: perspectives from the Asia-Pacific (eds Tonts, M. & Siddique, M. A. B.) Ch. 6 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).

  33. Hawkes, C. Promoting healthy diets and tackling obesity and diet-related chronic diseases: what are the agricultural policy levers? Food Nutr. Bulletin 28, S312–S322 (2007).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  34. Hawkes, C. in Trade, food, diet and health: perspectives and policy options (eds Hawkes, C. et al.) Ch. 3 (Wiley, 2010).

  35. Thow, A. M. & Hawkes, C. The implications of trade liberalization for diet and health: a case study from Central America. Glob. Health 5, 5 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Thow, A. M. & Snowdon, W. in Trade, food, diet and health: Perspectives and policy options (eds Hawkes, C. et al.) Ch. 9 (2010).

  37. Friel, S. et al. Shaping the discourse: what has the food industry been lobbying for in the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement and what are the implications for dietary health? Crit. Pub. Health 26, 518–529 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wilkinson, J. The globalization of agribusiness and developing world food systems. Monthly Rev. 61, 38 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. Only one of 44 attempts to Use the GATT Article XX/GATS Article XIV ‘General Exception’ Has Ever Succeeded: Replicating the WTO Exception Construct Will Not Provide for an Effective TPP General Exception. Public Citizen (2015).

  40. Goldstein, B. D. The precautionary principle also applies to public health actions. Am. J. Public Health 91, 1358–1361 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Scott, J. The WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).

  42. Stoler, A. L. in Preferential Trade Agreement Policies for Development (eds Maur, C. & Chauffour, J.-P.) 217–233 (World Bank Publications, 2011).

  43. Thow, A. M., Jones, A., Hawkes, C., Ali, I. & Labonté, R. Nutrition labelling is a trade policy issue: lessons from an analysis of specific trade concerns at the World Trade Organization. Health Prom. Int. 33, 561–571 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Labonte, R., Schram, A. & Ruckert, A. The Trans-Pacific Partnership: is it everything we feared for health? Int. J. Health Pol. Manag. 5, 487–496 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Schram, A., Friel, S., Anthony VanDuzer, J., Ruckert, A. & Labonté, R. Internalisation of international investment agreements in public policymaking: developing a conceptual framework of regulatory chill. Global Pol. 9, 193–202 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Van Harten, G. Sovereign Choices and Sovereign Constraints: Judicial Restraint in Investment Treaty Arbitration (Oxford Univ. Press, 2013).

  47. Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. Case studies: investor-state attacks on public interest policies. Public Citizen (2016).

  48. DFAT. Peru–Australia Free Trade Agreement (Australian Government, 2018).

  49. Gerasimchuk, I., Bridle, R., Beaton, C. & Charles, C. State of Play on Biofuel Subsidies: Are policies ready to shift? (The International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2012).

  50. Charles, C. et al. Biofuels—At What Cost? A review of costs and benefits of EU biofuel policies (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2013).

  51. Harmer, T. Biofuels subsidies and the law of the WTO (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, 2009).

  52. Hall, P. in Comparative politics: Rationality, culture, and structure (eds Lichbach, M. I. & Zuckerman, A. S.) 174–207 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997).

  53. Townsend, B., Schram, A., Baum, F., Labonté, R. & Friel, S. How does policy framing enable or constrain inclusion of social determinants of health and health equity on trade policy agendas? Crit. Public Health (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Baker, P. et al. What enables and constrains the inclusion of the social determinants of health inequities in government policy agendas? A narrative review. Int. J. Health Pol. Manag. 7, 101–111 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Tanner, T. & Allouche, J. Towards a new political economy of climate change and development. IDS Bulletin 42, 1–14 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Margulis, M. E. Trading out of the global food crisis? The World Trade Organization and the geopolitics of food security. Geopolitics 19, 322–350 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Cottier, T. & Payosova, T. in Research Handbook on Climate Change and Trade Law (ed. Delimatsis, P.) Ch. 1 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016).

  58. Farsund, A. A., Daugbjerg, C. & Langhelle Food security and trade: reconciling discourses in the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Trade Organization. Food Security 7, 383–391 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Clapp, J. Food Security and contested agricultural trade norms. J. Int. Law Int. Relat. 11, 104–115 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Margulis, M. E. The World Trade Organization between law and politics: negotiating a solution for public stockholding for food security purposes. Transnat. Legal Theory 9, 343–360 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Battams, S. & Townsend, B. Power asymmetries, policy incoherence and noncommunicable disease control. Crit. Public Health (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Schram, A. When evidence isn’t enough: ideological, institutional and interest-based constraints on achieving trade and health policy coherence. Glob. Soc. Pol. 18, 62–80 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Van Asselt, H. The fragmentation of global climate governance: consequences and management of regime interactions (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014).

  64. Benford, R. D. & Snow, D. A. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 26, 611–639 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Finnemore, M. & Sikkink, K. International norm dynamics and political change. Int. Organization 52, 897 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Townsend, B., Schram, A., Baum, F., Labonte, R. & Friel, S. How does policy framing enable or constrain inclusion of social determinants of health and health equity on trade policy agendas? Crit. Public Health (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Baker, P., Friel, S., Gleeson, D., Thow, A. & Labonte, R. Trade and nutrition policy coherence: A framing analysis and Australian case study. Pub. Health Nutrition 22, 2329–2337 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Friel, S. et al. Shaping the discourse: what has the food industry been lobbying for in the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement and what are the implications for dietary health? Crit. Public Health 26, 518–529 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Lencucha, R. & Thow, A. M. How neoliberalism is shaping the supply of unhealthy commodities and what this means for NCD prevention. Int. J. Health Pol. Manag. 8, 514–520 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Braithwaite, J. & Drahos, P. Global Business Regulation (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).

  71. Clapp, J. & Scrinis, G. Big Food, nutritionism, and corporate power. Globalizations 14, 578–595 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Clapp, J. The trade-ification of the food sustainability agenda. J. Peasant Studies 44, 335–353 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Clapp, J., Newell, P. & Brent, Z. W. The global political economy of climate change, agriculture and food systems. J. Peasant Studies 45, 80–88 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Lee, R. P. The politics of international agri-food policy: discourses of trade-oriented food security and food sovereignty. Environ. Politics 22, 216–234 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Burnett, K. & Murphy, S. What place for international trade in food sovereignty? J. Peasant Studies 41, 1065–1084 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Jarman, H. Trade policy governance: what health policymakers and advocates need to know. Health Policy 121, 1105–1112 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Friel, S. et al. An exposé of the realpolitik of trade negotiations: implications for population nutrition. Pub. Health Nutrition 22, 3038–3091 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Walls, H., Smith, R. D. & Drahos, P. Improving regulatory capacity to manage risks associated with trade agreements. Glob. Health 11, 14 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development A/RES/70/1 (United Nations, 2015).

  80. United Nations Decade of Action on Nutrition 2016–2025 Work Programme (WHO & FAO, 2017).

  81. Feldbaum, H., Lee, K. & Michaud, J. Global Health and Foreign Policy. Epidemiol. Rev. 32, 82–92 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Macgregor-Bowles, I. & Bowles, D. C. Trump, Brexit, right-wing anti-globalisation, and an uncertain future for public health. AIMS Public Health 4, 139–148 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Thow, A. M. & Nisbett, N. Trade, nutrition, and sustainable food systems. Lancet 394, 716–718 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Hawkes, C. Enhancing coherence between trade policy and nutrition action: implementing the framework for action of the second international conference on nutrition. (United Nations Standing Committee on Nutrition, 2015).

  85. Thaiprayoon, S. & Smith, R. Capacity building for global health diplomacy: Thailand’s experience of trade and health. Health Pol. Plan. 30, 1118–1128 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Thow, A., Annan, R., Mensah, L. & Chowdhury, S. N. Development, implementation and outcome of standards to restrict fatty meat in the food supply and prevent NCDs: learning from an innovative trade/food policy in Ghana. BMC Public Health 14, 249 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sharon Friel, Ashley Schram or Belinda Townsend.

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 Table 1

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Friel, S., Schram, A. & Townsend, B. The nexus between international trade, food systems, malnutrition and climate change. Nat Food 1, 51–58 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing