Department of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Department of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Adv Nutr. 2024 Sep;15(9):100274. doi: 10.1016/j.advnut.2024.100274. Epub 2024 Jul 15.
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.
科学研究将气候变化与食物系统、营养以及与营养相关的健康联系起来，这些研究呈爆炸式增长，显示出双向且复杂的依存关系，为人类和地球健康带来了连锁风险。在这种增长中，不清楚应该优先考虑哪些证据来采取行动，以及如果填补哪些研究空白将最能产生影响。我们系统地搜索了自 2018 年 1 月 1 日以来发表的与 FSNH 相关的综合文献（即综述）。我们筛选并提取了这些综述的特征，并在补充专家咨询的互动式证据和差距图（EGM）中对其进行了映射。844 份综合报告符合纳入标准（来自 2739 份记录），并被纳入 EGM。报告数量最多的集群是那些描述气候对作物和动物源食品生产以及此类生产排放的影响的报告（86%）。比较少的报告评估了气候变化对与营养相关的健康或食品制造、加工、储存和运输的影响。报告重点关注气候适应（40%）、缓解（29%）、两者兼顾（19%）或不采取任何措施（12%）的策略。只有四分之一的报告批判性地评估了公平（25%），更少的报告表明公平和公平实践的改变将改变气候-FSNH 动态（6%）。专家咨询与 EGM 的结果相呼应，并进一步阐述了研究结果。这张新颖的地图描述了将气候变化与 FSNH 联系起来的广泛研究领域。我们确定了 4 个关键的研究差距：1）关于整个食物系统或收获后要素的研究；2）评估气候变化与营养相关健康结果之间关系的研究，特别是在脆弱人群中；3）有前途的方法（和所需的额外数据），可以 i）确定干预的转折点或杠杆，ii）纳入复杂动态并描述权衡，iii）以特定于上下文的、本地化的方式理解和应用，用于决策；4）通过跨学科合作进行的研究，能够将证据转化为行动，特别是那些固有地考虑共同生产和公平的研究。
