A comparison of the effects of local and EAT-Lancet dietary recommendations on selected economic and environmental outcomes in India
The global discourse is nearly unanimous that dietary transitions are crucial to achieve sustainability goals. In this context, healthy dietary recommendations offer demand-side solutions towards minimizing environmental impacts from food production. However, these guidelines have also faced some cr...
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Journal Article |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
Elsevier
2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/174995 |
| _version_ | 1855515097162579968 |
|---|---|
| author | Singh, Vartika Stevanović, Miodrag Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon Mishra, Abhijeet Ghosh, Ranjan Kumar Popp, Alexander Lotze-Campen, Hermann |
| author_browse | Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon Ghosh, Ranjan Kumar Lotze-Campen, Hermann Mishra, Abhijeet Popp, Alexander Singh, Vartika Stevanović, Miodrag |
| author_facet | Singh, Vartika Stevanović, Miodrag Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon Mishra, Abhijeet Ghosh, Ranjan Kumar Popp, Alexander Lotze-Campen, Hermann |
| author_sort | Singh, Vartika |
| collection | Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (CGSpace) |
| description | The global discourse is nearly unanimous that dietary transitions are crucial to achieve sustainability goals. In this context, healthy dietary recommendations offer demand-side solutions towards minimizing environmental impacts from food production. However, these guidelines have also faced some criticism for their blanket approach and limited consideration of regional preferences. Using a validated food-economy-environment integrated modelling framework, we compare between two types of healthy diets − the globally recommended EAT-Lancet diets and Indian government’s National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) local diets − by examining their impacts on agricultural production, agricultural commodity prices, food expenditures, trade impacts, Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and water withdrawals. Our results suggest that the adoption of regional recommendations (NIN diets) lead to better outcomes for select economic and environmental indicators. When India shifts to NIN diet, its domestic demand for cereal crops decreases, leading to a 36 % reduction in cereal crop production by 2050 and change in demand for sugars and animal-sourced foods (ASFs). This has the potential to reduce commodity prices of food by upto 24 % by 2050. A shift to the NIN diet in India reduces methane (CH4) emissions by 36 % and N2O by 35 % compared to business-as-usual, performing better than the EAT-Lancet diet, which reduces CH4 emissions by 13 %. Water withdrawals reduce almost by the same value under both the dietary scenarios primarily due to lesser dependence on cereal crops and livestock products. These findings remain consistent in our sensitivity analysis, with varying global trade scenarios, offering greater benefits of food systems transformation through liberal trade policies. Our analysis underscores the pivotal role of regional inclusivity in global assessments, enhancing our comprehension of how food systems can be reimagined to align with both food security and environmental sustainability. |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | CGSpace174995 |
| institution | CGIAR Consortium |
| language | Inglés |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publishDateRange | 2025 |
| publishDateSort | 2025 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| publisherStr | Elsevier |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | CGSpace1749952025-12-08T10:11:39Z A comparison of the effects of local and EAT-Lancet dietary recommendations on selected economic and environmental outcomes in India Singh, Vartika Stevanović, Miodrag Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon Mishra, Abhijeet Ghosh, Ranjan Kumar Popp, Alexander Lotze-Campen, Hermann agricultural production capacity development environment food systems healthy diets sustainability water The global discourse is nearly unanimous that dietary transitions are crucial to achieve sustainability goals. In this context, healthy dietary recommendations offer demand-side solutions towards minimizing environmental impacts from food production. However, these guidelines have also faced some criticism for their blanket approach and limited consideration of regional preferences. Using a validated food-economy-environment integrated modelling framework, we compare between two types of healthy diets − the globally recommended EAT-Lancet diets and Indian government’s National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) local diets − by examining their impacts on agricultural production, agricultural commodity prices, food expenditures, trade impacts, Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and water withdrawals. Our results suggest that the adoption of regional recommendations (NIN diets) lead to better outcomes for select economic and environmental indicators. When India shifts to NIN diet, its domestic demand for cereal crops decreases, leading to a 36 % reduction in cereal crop production by 2050 and change in demand for sugars and animal-sourced foods (ASFs). This has the potential to reduce commodity prices of food by upto 24 % by 2050. A shift to the NIN diet in India reduces methane (CH4) emissions by 36 % and N2O by 35 % compared to business-as-usual, performing better than the EAT-Lancet diet, which reduces CH4 emissions by 13 %. Water withdrawals reduce almost by the same value under both the dietary scenarios primarily due to lesser dependence on cereal crops and livestock products. These findings remain consistent in our sensitivity analysis, with varying global trade scenarios, offering greater benefits of food systems transformation through liberal trade policies. Our analysis underscores the pivotal role of regional inclusivity in global assessments, enhancing our comprehension of how food systems can be reimagined to align with both food security and environmental sustainability. 2025-07 2025-06-05T14:12:06Z 2025-06-05T14:12:06Z Journal Article https://hdl.handle.net/10568/174995 en Open Access Elsevier Singh, Vartika; Stevanović, Miodrag; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; Mishra, Abhijeet; Ghosh, Ranjan Kumar; Popp, Alexander; and Lotze-Campen, Hermann. 2025. A comparison of the effects of local and EAT-Lancet dietary recommendations on selected economic and environmental outcomes in India. Food Policy 134(July 2025): 102898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2025.102898 |
| spellingShingle | agricultural production capacity development environment food systems healthy diets sustainability water Singh, Vartika Stevanović, Miodrag Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon Mishra, Abhijeet Ghosh, Ranjan Kumar Popp, Alexander Lotze-Campen, Hermann A comparison of the effects of local and EAT-Lancet dietary recommendations on selected economic and environmental outcomes in India |
| title | A comparison of the effects of local and EAT-Lancet dietary recommendations on selected economic and environmental outcomes in India |
| title_full | A comparison of the effects of local and EAT-Lancet dietary recommendations on selected economic and environmental outcomes in India |
| title_fullStr | A comparison of the effects of local and EAT-Lancet dietary recommendations on selected economic and environmental outcomes in India |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of the effects of local and EAT-Lancet dietary recommendations on selected economic and environmental outcomes in India |
| title_short | A comparison of the effects of local and EAT-Lancet dietary recommendations on selected economic and environmental outcomes in India |
| title_sort | comparison of the effects of local and eat lancet dietary recommendations on selected economic and environmental outcomes in india |
| topic | agricultural production capacity development environment food systems healthy diets sustainability water |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/174995 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT singhvartika acomparisonoftheeffectsoflocalandeatlancetdietaryrecommendationsonselectedeconomicandenvironmentaloutcomesinindia AT stevanovicmiodrag acomparisonoftheeffectsoflocalandeatlancetdietaryrecommendationsonselectedeconomicandenvironmentaloutcomesinindia AT bodirskybenjaminleon acomparisonoftheeffectsoflocalandeatlancetdietaryrecommendationsonselectedeconomicandenvironmentaloutcomesinindia AT mishraabhijeet acomparisonoftheeffectsoflocalandeatlancetdietaryrecommendationsonselectedeconomicandenvironmentaloutcomesinindia AT ghoshranjankumar acomparisonoftheeffectsoflocalandeatlancetdietaryrecommendationsonselectedeconomicandenvironmentaloutcomesinindia AT poppalexander acomparisonoftheeffectsoflocalandeatlancetdietaryrecommendationsonselectedeconomicandenvironmentaloutcomesinindia AT lotzecampenhermann acomparisonoftheeffectsoflocalandeatlancetdietaryrecommendationsonselectedeconomicandenvironmentaloutcomesinindia AT singhvartika comparisonoftheeffectsoflocalandeatlancetdietaryrecommendationsonselectedeconomicandenvironmentaloutcomesinindia AT stevanovicmiodrag comparisonoftheeffectsoflocalandeatlancetdietaryrecommendationsonselectedeconomicandenvironmentaloutcomesinindia AT bodirskybenjaminleon comparisonoftheeffectsoflocalandeatlancetdietaryrecommendationsonselectedeconomicandenvironmentaloutcomesinindia AT mishraabhijeet comparisonoftheeffectsoflocalandeatlancetdietaryrecommendationsonselectedeconomicandenvironmentaloutcomesinindia AT ghoshranjankumar comparisonoftheeffectsoflocalandeatlancetdietaryrecommendationsonselectedeconomicandenvironmentaloutcomesinindia AT poppalexander comparisonoftheeffectsoflocalandeatlancetdietaryrecommendationsonselectedeconomicandenvironmentaloutcomesinindia AT lotzecampenhermann comparisonoftheeffectsoflocalandeatlancetdietaryrecommendationsonselectedeconomicandenvironmentaloutcomesinindia |