By Philippe Reclus
summary
Climate change poses significant threats to the global food system by altering soil health, water availability, crop yields, and the nutrient composition of foods, thereby raising risks of food insecurity and malnutrition worldwide. Proponents argue that integrating climate adaptation with nutrition-focused policies (through resilient farming, diversified, nutrient-rich diets, and reduced animal-sourced intake) can safeguard both the quantity and quality of future food supplies while mitigating environmental impacts. A growing body of evidence explores how climate mitigation and agricultural practices intersect with nutrition. Climate-smart strategies, improved nutrient management, precision agriculture, soil carbon stewardship, and reductions in food loss and waste are seen as jointly capable of sustaining yields and nutrient availability, albeit with context-dependent effects on diet quality and health outcomes. At the same time, shifts toward crop diversification and fortification or biofortification programs are pursued to counteract potential nutrient declines associated with climate stress, underscoring the nutrition-sensitive nature of climate-responsive food systems . The topic intersects with notable debates and uncertainties, including questions about the universality of findings across regions, the balance between efficiency gains and nutrient preservation, and the feasibility of deploying certain technologies at scale. Critics highlight limitations in the evidence base, study designs, and regional applicability, while supporters emphasize integrated, just-transition approaches that align emissions reductions with nutrition and equity goals. The discussion also emphasizes governance, land tenure, market instruments, and gender-inclusive policies as essential to translating climate–nutrition insights into action . Together, the literature argues that pursuing a coordinated strategy (combining adaptation and mitigation with nutrition-sensitive design, sustainable land management, and effective governance) offers a plausible path to secure a high-quality, sufficient global food supply in a changing climate. Realizing this potential requires addressing data gaps, scaling proven practices, and ensuring equitable access to nutritious foods while reducing environmental footprints .
Lead
Climate change threatens the reliability and quality of the global food supply by altering soil fertility, water availability, crop yields, and the nutrient composition of foods, thereby increasing the risk of food insecurity and malnutrition worldwide. Sustainable, low-environmental-impact dietary patterns (emphasizing diverse, nutrient-rich foods and moderated animal-sourced intake) are proposed as part of a broader strategy to reduce the environmental footprint of food systems while safeguarding nutrition and health . At the same time, dietary shifts and homogenization of crops have historically reduced crop diversity and key nutrient availability, underscoring the need to broaden cultivated crops and preserve traditional varieties to maintain nutritional adequacy in the face of climate pressures . Efforts to mitigate climate impacts also include fortification, biofortification, and micronutrient supplementation programs, alongside promotion of dietary diversity to meet essential nutrient requirements with lower environmental costs. Emerging research highlights a gap in understanding how agricultural practices and soil management affect farmland soil carbon sequestration, which could inform both climate mitigation and farm livelihoods by quantifying carbon footprints and potential sequestration on farms . Overall, integrating climate adaptation with nutrition-focused policies and resilient agricultural practices is viewed as essential to securing a high-quality, sufficient global food supply for humanity .
Climate mitigation and agricultural/food pathways
Climate mitigation efforts in agriculture interact with nutrition and food security in complex ways, generating both synergies and trade-offs that vary by context and design. Climate-smart agricultural strategies have contributed to adaptation and mitigation objectives in some settings, but their nutrition impacts vary widely, underscoring the need to align climate goals with dietary quality and public health outcomes . Nutrient density and public health considerations are central to climate–food pathways. Elevated greenhouse gas–related stresses, along with shifts in carbon–nitrogen balance, can reduce crop nutrient density and alter mineral uptake and secondary metabolites, with potential consequences for anemia risk, immune function, and neurodevelopment across populations. As such, nutrient density declines under changing climate conditions are increasingly viewed as a component of “hidden hunger,” even when yields may rise in certain crops . Strategies to secure a high-quality, sufficient food supply in the face of climate pressures emphasize nutrient management and sustainable production practices. Integrated nutrient management, precision agriculture, and the use of biofertilizers are discussed as approaches to improve nutrient use efficiency, maintain soil health, and support yields while mitigating environmental impacts. Studies and reviews advocate balancing inputs (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) and adopting practices such as returning straw to soils, conservation tillage, and adopting biofertilizers to enhance soil organic matter and macro- and micronutrient availability, thereby supporting both yield stability and nutritional outcomes . The broader food-system implications of climate change include potential shifts in food prices and dietary patterns, with implications for nutrition quality and health equity. Rising prices can influence consumer choices, sometimes reducing the intake of nutrient-dense foods and altering fat, sodium, and micronutrient profiles in populations. Conversely, climate mitigation pathways that reduce demand for high-emission foods (e.g., red meat) can have mixed effects on mineral intakes such as zinc and iron, highlighting the need for carefully designed policies that preserve essential nutrients while reducing emissions . In sum, integrating climate mitigation with agricultural and food pathways requires a holistic, nutrition-sensitive approach. This includes promoting resilient crop production, improving nutrient management, and designing climate strategies that safeguard or enhance dietary quality to meet public health objectives in a changing climate.
Mitigation options in agriculture and land systems
Supply-side practices can contribute to climate change mitigation by reducing crop and livestock emissions, sequestering carbon in soils and biomass, and decreasing emissions intensity within sustainable production systems (high confidence). The total technical mitigation potential from crop and livestock activities and agroforestry is estimated at 2.3–9.6 GtCO2-eq yr–1 by 2050 (medium confidence). In cropping systems, large mitigation potential lies in soil carbon sequestration (though at decreasing rates over time), reductions in N2O emissions from fertilisers, reductions in CH4 emissions from paddy rice, and bridging yield gaps, while in livestock systems, benefits come from better grazing land management that increases net primary production and soil carbon stocks, improved manure management, and higher-quality feed. Reductions in GHG emissions intensity (emissions per unit product) from livestock can support absolute emission reductions if governance to limit total production is implemented concurrently (medium confidence). A broader suite of supply-side options emphasizes cropland management, restoration of organic matter, and integrated land-use approaches identified by IPCC assessments, including measures to reduce emissions from soils and to increase carbon sinks across agricultural landscapes. Reducing food loss and waste (which accounts for roughly 25–30% of total food produced) can lower GHG emissions and improve food security (medium confidence). Global food loss and waste during 2010–2016 equalled 8–10% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions, with costs around 1 trillion USD2012 per year (low confidence). Land-use planning and governance also influence the success of mitigation in agriculture. A greater emphasis on understanding gender-specific differences in land use and management can improve land restoration outcomes, while improved access to markets raises profitability and motivates investment into climate change adaptation and sustainable land management (SLM) (medium confidence). Payments for ecosystem services and expanded access to rural advisory services can provide incentives and knowledge to adopt SLM practices (medium confidence). Access to cleaner energy sources and technologies can reduce desertification and climate impacts by lowering the use of fuelwood and crop residues for energy (medium confidence). However, large-scale deployment of dedicated biomass production for bioenergy raises concerns about land competition with food production and potential land degradation, especially where intensification includes fertiliser use, irrigation, or monoculture energy crops (high confidence). In degraded lands, afforestation and reforestation offer restoration opportunities with potential co-benefits, but outcomes depend on whether restoration involves natural or plantation forests (high confidence). The total area of degraded lands is estimated to be 10–60 million square kilometers (very low confidence). Without action, land degradation will increase emissions and reduce carbon sinks, undermining reductions needed to limit warming to 1.5–2°C (high confidence). Better soil management can offset about 5–20% of current global anthropogenic GHG emissions (medium confidence). Across the AFOLU sector, agriculture, forestry and other land use are substantial net sources of GHG emissions, contributing a significant share of combined CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions in 2007–2016 (high confidence). AFOLU fluxes include both emissions and removals and are influenced by interacting natural and human drivers, making attribution complex (high confidence). Land degradation affects livelihoods and ecosystems globally, occurring over a large portion of the world’s ice-free land and disproportionately impacting poor populations in developing countries (very high to medium confidence). Deforestation, peat degradation, and permafrost thawing contribute importantly to climate change through GHG releases and reductions in carbon uptake, while cropland soils have often lost substantial organic carbon prior to and during cultivation (high to medium confidence). In summation, mitigating climate change through agricultural and land-system pathways involves a mix of soil carbon enhancement, emissions reductions across N2O and CH4 pathways, improved manure and grazing management, smarter feed and productivity linkages, reduced food loss and waste, and governance and socio-economic measures that facilitate sustainable adoption at scale. These strategies collectively aim to preserve and enhance food security while limiting warming to the targets set for 1.5–2°C, though their success depends on coordinated policy, investment, and land-use planning (highconfidence).
Adaptation and mitigation as a combined strategy for food security
Adaptation to climate change and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions can be pursued together as a coherent strategy to sustain and improve global food security. There is high confidence that policies addressing vicious cycles of poverty, land degradation, and GHG emissions, when implemented holistically, can help achieve climate-resilient sustainable development and, in turn, support food security outcomes (including price stability and reduced exposure to climate shocks). The design and implementation of policy instruments (whether market-based, non-market, or a mix of both) play a decisive role in shaping future climate and land-use pathways and their implications for food systems. Coordinated action among diverse actors (businesses, producers, consumers, land managers, indigenous peoples, local communities, and policymakers) is required to create enabling conditions for the adoption of response options across scales from farm to international levels. These response options face a range of barriers (economic, technological, institutional, socio-cultural, environmental, and geophysical) that necessitate multi-actor collaboration to overcome and to assemble portfolios of measures tailored to different stakeholders. In parallel, recognizing the potential for carbon pricing and markets to reduce emissions in agriculture and food systems, albeit with challenges in practical implementation, supports the broader aim of aligning incentives with climate-resilient food security objectives. Climate-smart agricultural strategies have shown potential to contribute to both adaptation and mitigation, but their nutrition and health impacts are context-dependent and vary across settings. Food systems adaptations (including dietary shifts toward nutritionally balanced and diverse patterns) can enhance resilience and food security by supporting stable access to nutritious foods while reducing environmental pressures; however, food security remains sensitive to food loss and waste, which account for an estimated 25–30% of total food produced. Trade in food commodities can buffer price and supply volatility by enabling embodied flows of water, land, and nutrients, illustrating how climate risks in one region may be mitigated through spared resources and markets elsewhere. Intensified attention to sustainable food supply and consumption, oriented toward balanced diets and reduced emissions, is linked to improved land use, nutrition, and food security outcomes. For example, sustainable development pathways (as described in SSP1) emphasize effective land-use regulation, reduced reliance on traditional biomass, moderated meat consumption, and coordinated international trade with connected regional markets, factors associated with lower food prices, fewer climate-related disruptions, and expanded forest cover in some scenarios. Conversely, mismanagement of land use and forest transitions, even under sustainable forest management, can incur emissions or biodiversity losses during transitional periods, highlighting the need for careful design of mitigation and land-use policies to support food security. Addressing climate change in food systems also requires robust data and monitoring capabilities. Remote sensing and other data sources can provide geographically explicit, globally consistent proxies to track land-use change and ecosystem health over decadal time scales, supporting planning and evaluation of adaptation and mitigation interventions. At the same time, knowledge gaps remain regarding the cumulative and interacting effects of multiple stressors, including potential large-scale deployment of negative emission technologies on ecosystems and livelihoods, underscoring the importance of ongoing research and adaptive governance. In terms of practical interventions, climate change impacts on crops and nutrition underscore the need for integrated strategies that improve soil health, optimize nutrient use, and promote diversification and resilience in cropping systems. Practices such as maintaining soil organic matter and adopting cover crops, minimal tillage, and crop rotations can enhance water retention and nutrient availability, contributing to drought resilience and lower emissions from fertilizer use, though adoption may be constrained by farm size, capital, and knowledge barriers in some contexts. Climate risk management and risk identification systems (supported by collaboration across sectors (environmental, health, agriculture, and nutrition)) can help detect and address emerging food safety concerns and nutritional risks associated with a changing climate.
Quantitative projections and evidence linking climate futures to food outcomes
Assessments of how climate futures will shape global and regional food security rely on integrated models that connect agricultural productivity, dietary patterns, nutrient content, prices, and trade. Across studies, the largest drivers of projected changes in nutrient availability over the 2010–2050 horizon are advances in technology and adjustments in agricultural markets; however, climate change introduces countervailing effects through changes in crop yields and the nutrient content of edible plant tissues. The inclusion of climate-related reductions in nutrient density generally moderates or offsets gain from higher yields driven by technological progress and market adaptation . One line of evidence attributes global and regional declines in per capita protein, iron, and zinc availability to the combined effects of climate-induced yield changes and higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which can reduce the nutrient content of crops. When carbon nutrient penalties are applied to nutrient content, projected decreases in global availability are approximately 2.9% for protein, 3.6% for iron, and 3.4% for zinc by 2050 under climate scenarios, relative to scenarios that do not account for CO2 effects on nutrient content. This pattern persists across regions, with larger relative influences in areas already facing nutrient deficiencies, such as parts of the Middle East and North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia. Supplementary materials emphasize that these CO2-related reductions in nutrient density compound the direct yields effects and imply a slower pace of improvement in global nutrition than would occur from technology and market changes alone. Modeling approaches used to generate these projections combine structural representations of the agricultural sector with scenarios for yields, prices, income, and trade. In particular, climate-induced yield changes are linked to ISI-MIP scenarios, and yield projections from the IMPACT model are adjusted to reflect regional and crop-specific responses to climate change over time. This framework enables simultaneous projection of future dietary patterns, crop productivity responses, and nutrient content under increased CO2, providing a more comprehensive picture of global food security in the context of climate change. A key finding across analyses is that simple extrapolations of current consumption patterns or static dietary projections are unlikely to capture the full scope of climate impacts on nutrition. Studies incorporating dynamic agricultural supply responses, trade, and potential nutrient penalties from elevated CO2 indicate that many countries (especially those with high baseline nutrient deficiencies) could experience disproportionately adverse effects on nutrient availability by mid-century, even as certain regions benefit from yield improvements due to technological progress and CO2 fertilisation in crops not limited by other factors. Without accounting for CO2 effects on nutrient content, models risk painting an overly optimistic view of future global dietary health and food security. The literature also stresses that there are distributional considerations within populations. Even when average micronutrient availability exceeds recommended intake levels in a region, subpopulations (such as children or disadvantaged groups) may still experience nutrient gaps with implications for cognitive development and health. The net effect of climate change on nutrition is thus regionally heterogeneous and intertwined with health determinants beyond food consumption, including sanitation, disease burden, water access, and education.
Research gaps, uncertainties, and limitations
Current evidence identifying links between climate action, food systems, and nutrition highlights several gaps and uncertainties that constrain policy and practice. Notably, knowledge about the effectiveness of policy instruments and institutions across land-use sectors remains limited, with calls for interdisciplinary research to understand impacts in land, forestry, agriculture, and bioenergy under diverse socio-economic contexts. The contextual and long time horizons required to evaluate land-use change complicate timely assessment of policy outcomes, and substantial investment in monitoring, evaluation, and cross-sector assessment is needed to improve decision-making across scales. Data scope and measurement inconsistencies pose additional challenges. There are differences in how data are defined and measured for food loss and waste (FLW), which hampers cross-country comparisons and the identification of intervention points along the supply chain. The adoption of standardized measurement methods and regional or national standards (e.g., in the EU, Mexico, and the United States) is seen as essential to improve comparability and to target interventions effectively. Moreover, nutrient losses within FLW are increasingly recognized as important, but global estimates remain uncertain due to limited high-quality, direct measurements; reliance on secondary data and a small number of frequently cited studies (e.g., older FAO reports) undermines reliability. In nutrition and health contexts, the relationship between diet quality and total food waste shows inconsistent patterns, with some studies finding that higher diet quality corresponds to greater overall waste but greater waste of fruits and vegetables in others. This mixed evidence underscores the need for more robust, standardized studies to disentangle how diet quality interacts with waste generation and to identify targeted mitigation strategies. The broader evidence base is also constrained by methodological limitations common to rapid scoping reviews, such as English-language restrictions, publication windows (2010–2021 in the cited work), and potential bias from single-researcher data abstraction and limited critical appraisal of sources. Technological readiness and upscaling remain key uncertainties for climate-adaptation and mitigation options. Some response options (e.g., BECCS) have been demonstrated only at small scales, raising concerns about near-term feasibility, scalability, and potential governance or financial barriers. This suggests that policymakers should be cautious about over-relying on unproven technologies in planning for near-term food security and sustainability goals. Finally, model-based projections and scenario analyses reveal limitations in representing the full range of land-management options and their implications. Integrated Assessment Models often omit many land-related options and do not consistently evaluate their economic, social, and environmental trade-offs, which can hinder comprehensive policy assessment and planning. Across agronomic studies, substantial heterogeneity in design, cultivars, soils, and practices further limits generalizability and underscores the need for standardized study designs and reporting, including adequate power calculations.
Policy, implementation, and governance
Effective policy design and governance are central to aligning climate change mitigation and adaptation with sustainable land management and food security. The evidence supports a range of policy instruments that account for gender differences, promote access to financing, information, technology, and extension services, and integrate women into existing programmes and civil society structures to enhance SLM and food security. A gender-inclusive approach is repeatedly highlighted as offering opportunities to strengthen land governance, improve management of land resources, and support integrated adaptation and mitigation measures, provided constraints such as discriminatory laws and social norms are addressed. Land tenure and governance arrangements have important implications for adaptation and mitigation. Understanding tenure contexts (and recognizing indigenous and communal land rights) can improve forest management and carbon storage outcomes, while large-scale land acquisitions and insecure tenure can hinder sustainable action; policy can either enable or constrain climate responses across cropping, rangeland, forest, and freshwater systems. To maximize adoption of response options, governance requires hybrid models that combine public and private sector participation with polycentric and transnational coordination, ensuring opportunities are maximized, trade-offs are managed equitably, and negative impacts are minimized. Market-based and non-market policy tools both have roles in reducing agricultural emissions and funding sustainable land management. Carbon pricing mechanisms, including markets and taxes, may help reduce GHG emissions in agriculture and food systems, though their application remains relatively untested in these sectors; equity considerations should be balanced with a mix of policy tools, and emissions leakage can be mitigated through multilateral action. Integrating agricultural emissions into mainstream climate policy is essential to realize the full mitigation potential discussed in the broader literature, with cross-cutting implications for nature’s contributions to people (NCP), biodiversity, water, and SDG progress. Early action, though challenged by technology readiness, upscaling, and institutional barriers, requires coordinated governance across sectors and scales to unlock the portfolio of land management, value-chain, and risk-management options.
Controversies and debates
Debates surrounding the proposition that fighting climate change can secure a high-quality and sufficient food supply center on methodological and practical uncertainties as well as potential unintended consequences. Some scholars point to limitations in the evidence base, noting that the rapid scoping review from which much of the discussion draws was not a formal systematic review and may have missed relevant publications, with data abstraction performed by a single researcher, potentially introducing bias into results and interpretations. Critics argue that such limitations call into question the universality of the conclusions drawn about climate-smart and nutrition-sensitive food systems, particularly across different regions and contexts beyond the study areas cited. Other points of contention focus on the dual imperative of reducing food loss and waste while maintaining or improving nutritional quality. While reductions in loss and waste are promoted as delivering benefits for economies and the environment, there is debate over how best to balance efficiency gains with the preservation of nutrient-rich foods, which are often perishable and susceptible to pests and disease. Some researchers argue that nutrient management should be central to climate-smart agriculture to ensure that adaptation and mitigation do not come at the expense of dietary quality. However, others caution that supply-side improvements must be complemented by demand-side interventions and policy measures to avoid adverse outcomes such as price volatility or inequitable access, particularly for vulnerable populations. A related controversy concerns the extent to which findings from narrative syntheses and cross-regional reviews can be generalized. Proponents of integrated food-system approaches emphasize the potential of combined supply- and demand-side actions to reduce emissions while maintaining nutrition and resilience, arguing for just transitions and attention to equity; critics caution that broader generalizations may overlook local differences in climate impacts, dietary practices, and food-system structures. Finally, there is disagreement about the pace and scale at which climate-informed policies and dietary guidelines can be implemented, given variability in political will, institutional capacity, and the credibility of evidence across peer-reviewed and gray literature.
Best practices and solution design principles
Precision nutrient management (PNM) and site-specific nutrient management (SSNM) are central to designing nutrient strategies that maximize crop yields while minimizing environmental impacts. PNM tailors fertilizer applications to crop needs based on soil characteristics, crop requirements, and environmental conditions, and it is enhanced by decision-support tools such as Nutrient Expert (NE) and by in-field sensors like SPAD meters, leaf color charts (LCCs), and optical devices such as Green Seeker. Collectively, these tools improve nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) and crop productivity, particularly within climate-smart agriculture (CSA) frameworks that emphasize optimizing yields, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and maintaining soil health through integration of remote sensing, GPS, and other precision technologies. Beyond digital tools, a holistic approach to nutrient management includes bio-based and circular strategies. Biofertilizers and organic amendments can mitigate emissions while strengthening soil biodiversity, and circular economy approaches (such as recycling urban waste into fertilizers) offer sustainable paths to address nutrient scarcity. Advances in biotechnology, including genetic engineering for enhanced nutrient uptake and gene editing for stress tolerance, may further reduce nutrient dilution effects linked to elevated CO2 and accelerate the development of resilient crop varieties. These integrated strategies are viewed as critical complements to PNM in striving toward robust, climate-resilient food systems. Implementation and adoption of these practices face several challenges. Farmers often lack access to real-time soil testing or climate forecasting tools, while the high costs and technical complexity of precision agriculture technologies hinder widespread uptake. Long-term data on climate–nutrient interactions across diverse agroecologies remain limited, complicating predictive modeling and the provision of tailored agronomic advice. Addressing these barriers requires user-friendly tools, accessible data, and policy and extension support to translate scientific advances into practical field recommendations. Policy and institutional actions also inform best practices. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has emphasized reducing food loss and waste as part of sustainable materials management, highlighting a life-cycle approach that prioritizes source reduction and prevention strategies. Such policy frameworks underscore the importance of reducing nutrient losses across the food system, increasing the efficiency of nutrient use, and aligning agricultural practices with broader sustainability goals. Incorporating waste reduction and sustainable management into nutrient design can amplify the climate and food-security benefits of precision and bio-based approaches. A broader portfolio of options is needed to realize sustainable food security. Reviving traditional crops and diversifying diets can enhance resilience and nutrient availability, while soil and land-management practices with co-benefits (such as maintaining soil carbon and reducing degradation) support emissions reductions and long-term productivity. The effectiveness of these measures depends on coordinated action among farmers, researchers, policymakers, industry, and society, addressing economic, technological, institutional, socio-cultural, and geophysical barriers to adoption. Measurable indicators, including those linked to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), land degradation neutrality (LDN), REDD+ monitoring, biodiversity, and governance capacity, should be used to track progress and adapt strategies accordingly. In sum, best practices for securing a high-quality and sufficient food supply under climate change combine precision nutrient management with bio-based and circular approaches, supported by decision-support tools and robust policy and extension systems. Overcoming adoption barriers and fostering cross-sector collaboration are essential to realizing these design principles at scale.
Future directions
Future research and policy development should emphasis adaptive capacity and proactive mitigation to secure a high-quality, sufficient global food supply in the face of climate change. Evidence highlights that the feasibility of many mitigation and adaptation options is constrained by economic, technological, institutional, socio-cultural, environmental, and geophysical barriers, and that rapid action remains challenging due to governance gaps, financial incentives, and policy lags. Addressing these barriers will require coordinated action across sectors, scales, and disciplines, integrating agricultural innovation with supportive institutions and finance mechanisms. A central priority is promoting healthy, sustainable diets as part of climate and nutrition strategies. Diets rich in grains, pulses, fruits, vegetables, and nuts (and lower in energy-intensive animal products and discretionary foods) show substantial mitigation potential, with estimates ranging from 0.7 to 8.0 GtCO2-eq yr–1 by 2050, though realisation depends on consumer choices, cultural factors, and income dynamics. Coupled with efforts to reduce food waste and optimize food systems, dietary shifts can yield co-benefits for health and environmental sustainability. Technological and managerial innovations should be scaled up to overcome upscaling and readiness barriers. While some response options, such as BECCS, have only demonstrated at small scales, others have been implemented widely in practice (e.g., various land-management, forest management, restoration efforts), underscoring the gap between potential and deployment and the need for improved governance and incentives to accelerate adoption. Future directions thus include accelerating research-to-practice pathways, strengthening climate-smart crop and livestock systems, and aligning policy timelines with the pace of technological and institutional change. Dietary and agricultural research should continue to integrate health, nutrition, and environmental outcomes to ensure co-benefits are maximized. Scoping and systematic reviews indicate interdisciplinary linkages among food waste, plastic waste, nutrition, and environmental health, suggesting that future interventions should simultaneously address multiple waste streams and nutritional quality to improve public health and food security messaging. This holistic approach can guide interventions that optimize resource use (land, water, fertilizers, energy) and reduce emissions across the food system. Precision agriculture and other precision-based management practices offer concrete avenues to enhance crop productivity while reducing environmental loading. By targeting inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides where and when they are needed, precision agriculture can improve sustainability and resilience in production systems, contributing to more stable food supplies under climate stress . In sum, future directions for securing a high-quality, ample food supply in a warming climate entail:
(1) overcoming institutional and financial barriers to rapid deployment of proven adaptation and mitigation options;
(2) pursuing healthy, sustainable dietary shifts coupled with aggressive food-w waste reduction and waste-stream management;
(3) scaling up research-to-practice pathways and governance mechanisms to support upscaling of innovative technologies;
and (4) leveraging precision agriculture and other climate-smart practices to build resilient, productive agro-ecosystems.