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.

Food system development pathways for healthy, nature-positive and inclusive food systems


Sustainable food systems require the integration of and alignment between recommendations for food and land use practices, as well as an understanding of the political economy context and identification of entry points for change. We propose a food systems transformation framework that takes these elements into account and links long-term goals with short-term measures and policies, ultimately guiding the decomposition of transformation pathways into concrete steps. Taking the transition to healthier and more sustainable diets as an example, we underscore the centrality of social inclusion to the food systems transformation debate.

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: Food systems transformation framework.


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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Soergel, B. Climate action within the UN 2030 Agenda: a sustainable development pathway. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 656–664 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Afshin, A. et al. Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 393, 1958–1972 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hirvonen, K., Bai, Y., Headey, D. & Masters, W. A. Affordability of the EAT–Lancet reference diet: a global analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 8, e59–e66 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020: Transforming Food Systems for Affordable Healthy Diets Vol. 2020 (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2020).

  6. Locke, H. et al. A Nature-Positive World: The Global Goal for Nature (Wildlife Conservation Society, 2020).

  7. Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the Shared Socio-economic Pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hasegawa, T. et al. Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 699–703 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Pathways to achieve a set of ambitious global sustainability objectives by 2050: explorations using the IMAGE integrated assessment model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 98, 303–323 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Springmann, M. et al. Health-motivated taxes on red and processed meat: a modelling study on optimal tax levels and associated health impacts. PLoS ONE 13, e0204139 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gerten, D. et al. Feeding ten billion people is possible within four terrestrial planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain. 3, 200–208 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Moyer, J. D. & Hedden, S. Are we on the right path to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals? World Dev. 127, 104749 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Farm to Fork Strategy: For a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System (European Union, 2020).

  15. Valin, H., Hertel, T., Bodirsky, B. L., Hasegawa, T. & Stehfest, E. Achieving Zero Hunger by 2030: A Review of Quantitative Assessments of Synergies and Tradeoffs amongst the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Scientific Group for the UN Food System Summit, 2021).

  16. Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Soergel, B. et al. Combining ambitious climate policies with efforts to eradicate poverty. Nat. Commun. 12, 2342 (2021).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. Mora, O. et al. Exploring the future of land use and food security: a new set of global scenarios. PLoS ONE 15, e0235597 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. van Meijl, H. et al. Modelling alternative futures of global food security: insights from FOODSECURE. Glob. Food Secur. 25, 100358 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Collaborative Framework for Food Systems Transformation: A Multi-Stakeholder Pathway for Sustainable Food Systems (UN Environment, 2019).

  21. Arslan, A. et al. IFAD RDR 2021—Framework for the Analysis and Assessment of Food Systems Transformations (IFAD and Wageningen Univ., 2021).

  22. Ekmekcioglu, C. et al. Red meat, diseases, and healthy alternatives: a critical review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 58, 247–261 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. The State of Food and Agriculture: Livestock in the Balance (FAO, 2009);

  24. Springmann, M. et al. Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planet. Health 2, e451–e461 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zaharia, S. et al. Sustained intake of animal-sourced foods is associated with less stunting in young children. Nat. Food 2, 246–254 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Temme, E. H. et al. Demand-side food policies for public and planetary health. Sustainability 12, 5924 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Laborde, D., Mamun, A., Martin, W., Piñeiro, V., & Vos, R. Modeling the Impacts of Agricultural Support Policies on Emissions from Agriculture (No. w27202) (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020).

  28. A Multi-Billion-Dollar Opportunity—Repurposing Agricultural Support to Transform Food Systems (FAO, UNDP and UNEP, 2021);

  29. Kalkuhl, M., Knopf, B. & Edenhofer, O. CO2-Bepreisung: Mehr Klimaschutz mit mehr Gerechtigkeit (MCC Working Paper, 2021).

  30. Edenhofer, O. & Kowarsch, M. Cartography of pathways: a new model for environmental policy assessments. Environ. Sci. Policy 51, 56–64 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Swinburn, B. et al. Monitoring and benchmarking government policies and actions to improve the healthiness of food environments: a proposed Government Healthy Food Environment Policy Index. Obes. Rev. 14, 24–37 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Smed, S., Scarborough, P., Rayner, M. & Jensen, J. D. The effects of the Danish saturated fat tax on food and nutrient intake and modelled health outcomes: an econometric and comparative risk assessment evaluation. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 70, 681–686 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Huber, R. et al. Representation of decision-making in European agricultural agent-based models. Agric. Syst. 167, 143–160 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dunn, W. N. Public Policy Analysis (Routledge, 2015).

  35. Implementing Fiscal and Pricing Policies to Promote Healthy Diets: A Review of Contextual Factors (World Health Organisation, 2021).

  36. 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. Brit. Med. J. 352, h6704 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kehlbacher, A., Tiffin, R., Briggs, A., Berners-Lee, M. & Scarborough, P. The distributional and nutritional impacts and mitigation potential of emission-based food taxes in the UK. Climatic Change 137, 121–141 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  38. Making Better Policies for Food Systems (OECD, 2021);

  39. Saxena, A. et al. The distributional impact of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages: findings from an extended cost-effectiveness analysis in South Africa. BMJ Glob. Health 4, e001317 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Maniadakis, N., Kapaki, V., Damianidi, L. & Kourlaba, G. A systematic review of the effectiveness of taxes on nonalcoholic beverages and high-in-fat foods as a means to prevent obesity trends. Clin. Outcomes Res. (2013).

  41. Saget, C., Vogt-Schilb, A. & Luu, T. Jobs in a Net-Zero Emissions Future in Latin America and the Caribbean (Inter-American Development Bank and International Labour Organization, 2020).

  42. China and Global Food Policy Report: Rethinking Agrifood Systems for the Post-COVID World (AGFEP, 2021).

  43. Vallgårda, S., Holm, L. & Jensen, J. D. The Danish tax on saturated fat: why it did not survive. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 69, 223–226 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Parsons, K., Sharpe, R. & Hawkes, C. Who Makes Food Policy in England? A Map of Government Actors and Activities (Food Research Collaboration, 2020).

  45. Beatty, T. K., Blow, L., Crossley, T. F. & O’Dea, C. Cash by any other name? Evidence on labeling from the UK Winter Fuel Payment. J. Public Econ. 118, 86–96 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. GBD Diet Collaborators Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 393, 1958–1972 (2019).

  47. Crippa, M. et al. Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2, 198–209 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Abdeen, Z. & NCD Risk Factor Collaboration Worldwide trends in body-mass index, underweight, overweight, and obesity from 1975 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 2416 population-based measurement studies in 128.9 million children, adolescents, and adults. Lancet 390, 2627–2642 (2017).

  49. Bodirsky, B. L. et al. The ongoing nutrition transition thwarts long-term targets for food security, public health and environmental protection. Sci. Rep. 10, 19778 (2020).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  50. Sutton, M. A. et al. Our Nutrient World: The Challenge to Produce More Food and Energy with Less Pollution (Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, 2013).

  51. Beusen, A. H., Bouwman, A. F., Van Beek, L. P., Mogollón, J. M. & Middelburg, J. J. Global riverine N and P transport to ocean increased during the 20th century despite increased retention along the aquatic continuum. Biogeosciences 13, 2441–2451 (2016).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  52. Lee, K. K. et al. Adverse health effects associated with household air pollution: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and burden estimation study. Lancet Glob. Health 8, e1427–e1434 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Statistical Database (FAOSTAT, 2021);

  54. State of Global Air 2019: A Special Report on Global Exposure to Air Pollution and its Disease Burden (Health Effects Institute, 2019).

  55. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).

  56. Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2020: Reversals of Fortune (World Bank, 2020).

  57. World Social Report 2020: Inequality in a Rapidly Changing World (United Nations, 2020).

  58. Willoughby, R. & Gore, T. Ripe for Change: Ending Human Suffering in Supermarket Supply Chains (Oxfam, 2018).

  59. 2020 Global Food Policy Report: Building Inclusive Food Systems (IFPRI, 2020).

  60. Uneven Ground: Land Inequality at the Heart of Unequal Societies (Land Inequality Initiative, 2020).

  61. Andrews, C. et al. The State of Economic Inclusion Report 2021: The Potential to Scale (World Bank Publications, 2021).

  62. The State of Food and Agriculture—Social Protection and Agriculture: Breaking the Cycle of Rural Poverty (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2015).

  63. Barrett, C. B. et al. Bundling innovations to transform agri-food systems. Nat. Sustain. 3, 974–976 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Growing Better: Ten Critical Transitions to Transform Food and Land Use (Food and Land Use Coalition, 2019).

  65. Nutrition and Food Systems: A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security (HLPE, 2017).

  66. Dragusanu, R., Giovanucci, D. & Nunn, N. The economics of fair trade. J. Econ. Perspect. 28, 217–236 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Wilshaw, R. UK Supermarket Supply Chains: Ending the Human Suffering Behind our Food (Oxfam, 2018).

  68. Thiele, G. & Friedmann, M. The Vital Importance of RTB Crops in the One CGIAR Portfolio Research Brief 02 (CGIAR, 2020).

  69. Kuik, O. & Hofkes, M. Border adjustment for European emissions trading: competitiveness and carbon leakage. Energy Policy 38, 1741–1748 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Mehling, M. A. & Ritz, R. A. Going Beyond Default Intensities in an EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2087 (Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge, 2020).

  71. Brown, A. J. & Koettl, J. Active Labor Market Programs: How, Why, When, and to What Extent are they Effective? Europe and Central Asia Knowledge Brief Issue No. 58 (World Bank, 2012).

  72. Olsho, L. E., Klerman, J. A., Wilde, P. E. & Bartlett, S. Financial incentives increase fruit and vegetable intake among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants: a randomized controlled trial of the USDA Healthy Incentives Pilot. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 104, 423–435 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Hartmann-Boyce, J. et al. Grocery store interventions to change food purchasing behaviors: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 107, 1004–1016 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Janssen, M. & Hamm, U. Product labelling in the market for organic food: consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Qual. Prefer. 25, 9–22 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Global Impacts Report 2017 (Marine Stewardship Council, 2017).

Download references


We thank B. Harriss-White (University of Oxford) for helpful comments on the manuscript. This work has been supported by the Food System Economics Commission, funded by the Wellcome Trust, grant agreement no. 221362/Z/20/Z. The present work reflects only the authors’ views, and the funding agency cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. The work also does not necessarily reflect the views of the authors’ organizations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All authors contributed to the material, and all authors reviewed the manuscript. F.G., C.R.L., H.L.-C., F.D., B.L.B. and S.L. initially developed and drafted the concept. All other authors contributed equally to the further conceptualization, writing and editing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Gaupp.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Food thanks Yodit Kebede and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gaupp, F., Ruggeri Laderchi, C., Lotze-Campen, H. et al. Food system development pathways for healthy, nature-positive and inclusive food systems. Nat Food 2, 928–934 (2021).

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