Intersections of Climate Change with Food Systems, Nutrition, and Health: An Overview and Evidence Map

Scientific research linking climate change to food systems, nutrition, and nutrition-related health (FSNH) has proliferated, showing bidirectional and compounding dependencies that create cascading risks for human and planetary health. Within this proliferation, it is unclear which evidence to prioritize for action and which research gaps, if filled, would catalyze the most impact. We systematically searched for synthesis literature (i.e., reviews) related to FSNH published after 1 January, 2018. We screened and extracted characteristics of these reviews and mapped them in an interactive Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) supplemented by expert consultation. Eight hundred forty-four synthesis reports met inclusion criteria (from 2739 records) and were included in the EGM. The largest clusters of reports were those describing climate impacts on crop and animal-source food production and emissions from such (86%). Comparatively few reports assessed climate change impacts on nutrition-related health or food manufacture, processing, storage, and transportation. Reports focused on strategies of climate adaptation (40%), mitigation (29%), both (19%), or none (12%). Only 1 quarter of reports critically evaluated equity (25%), and fewer reports suggested that changes to equity and equitable practices would alter climate-FSNH dynamics (6%). The expert consultation mirrored the results of the EGM and contextualized findings further. This novel map describes a wide research landscape linking climate change to FSNH. We identified 4 key research gaps: 1) research on whole food systems or postharvest elements; 2) research evaluating relationships between climate change and nutrition-related health outcomes, especially among vulnerable populations; 3) promising methods (and additional data required) that can i) identify inflection points or levers for intervention, ii) incorporate complex dynamics and characterize trade-offs, iii) be understood and applied in context-specific, localized ways for decision making; and 4) research undertaken through interdisciplinary collaborations that enables producing and translating evidence to action, especially those that inherently consider coproduction and fairness.