Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Diets cannot be sustainable without ensuring the well-being of communities, workers and animals in food value chains

Nature Food volume 5, pages 818–824 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The social dimension of sustainable diets, which addresses the impacts of food value chains on people, animals and communities, is under-represented in the food systems field. We present a definition of the social dimension of sustainable diets, clarify its boundaries and propose corresponding outcomes. Three case studies highlight the connectivity of social outcomes with the health, environment and economic dimensions of sustainable diets. The continued development of social metrics, data and methods and the implementation of integrated solutions co-developed with affected communities are needed to transform systems and structures that perpetuate unjust and inequitable food systems outcomes.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Linkages between the social, health, environmental and economic outcomes of dietary patterns in the case examples.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023: Urbanization, Agrifood Systems Transformation and Healthy Diets across the Rural–Urban Continuum (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO, 2023); https://doi.org/10.4060/cc3017en

  2. 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  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Estimating Global and Country-Level Employment in Agrifood Systems (FAO, 2023); https://doi.org/10.4060/cc4337en

  4. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Springmann, M., Clark, M. A., Rayner, M., Scarborough, P. & Webb, P. The global and regional costs of healthy and sustainable dietary patterns: a modelling study. Lancet Planet. Health 5, e797–e807 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Webb, P. et al. Measurement of diets that are healthy, environmentally sustainable, affordable, and equitable: a scoping review of metrics, findings, and research gaps. Front. Nutr. 10, 1125955 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Biesbroek, S. et al. Toward healthy and sustainable diets for the 21st century: importance of sociocultural and economic considerations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2219272120 (2023).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Mazac, R., Renwick, K., Seed, B. & Black, J. L. An approach for integrating and analyzing sustainability in food-based dietary guidelines. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 5, 544072 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sustainable Healthy Diets—Guiding Principles (FAO & WHO, 2019).

  10. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organisations 2020 (United Nations Environment Programme, 2020).

  11. Traverso, M. et al. Methodological Sheets for Subcategories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) 2021 (Life Cycle Initiative, 2021); https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/library/methodological-sheets-for-subcategories-in-social-life-cycle-assessment-s-lca-2021/#:~:text=The%20Methodological%20Sheets%20for%20subcategories,the%20application%20of%20S%2DLCA

  12. Chaudhary, A. & Krishna, V. Region-specific nutritious, environmentally friendly, and affordable diets in India. One Earth 4, 531–544 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. Downs, S. M., Payne, A. & Fanzo, J. The development and application of a sustainable diets framework for policy analysis: a case study of Nepal. Food Policy 70, 40–49 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ahmed, S., Downs, S. & Fanzo, J. Advancing an integrative framework to evaluate sustainability in national dietary guidelines. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 3, 76 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Downs, S. M., Ahmed, S., Fanzo, J. & Herforth, A. Food environment typology: advancing an expanded definition, framework, and methodological approach for improved characterization of wild, cultivated, and built food environments toward sustainable diets. Foods 9, 532 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Clapp, J., Moseley, W. G., Burlingame, B. & Termine, P. Viewpoint: the case for a six-dimensional food security framework. Food Policy 106, 102164 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Blackstone, N. T. et al. Forced labour risk is pervasive in the US land-based food supply. Nat. Food 4, 596–606 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Drewnowski, A. The Chicago consensus on sustainable food systems science. Front. Nutr. 4, 74 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. LeBaron, G., Howard, N., Thibos, C. & Kyritsis, P. Confronting Root Causes: Forced Labour in Global Supply Chains (openDemocracy & SPERI, 2018); https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/126167/1/Confronting_Root_Causes_Forced_Labour_In_Global_Supply_Chains.pdf

  20. Safety and Health in Agriculture: ILO Code of Practice (ILO, 2011); https://www.ilo.org/resource/other/safety-and-health-agriculture

  21. Allain, J., Crane, A., LeBaron, G. & Behbahani, L. Forced Labour’s Business Models and Supply Chains (JRF, 2013); https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/forced-labours-business-models-and-supply-chains

  22. Forsythe, L. Gender-based violence in food systems. Nat. Food 4, 472–475 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Costa, D. & Martin, P. How much would it cost consumers to give farmworkers a significant raise? Working Economics Blog https://go.nature.com/3XN4jBS (2020).

  24. Kurtz, J., Blackstone, N. T., Sparks, J. L. D., Rodriguez, R. & Pinto, C. The true cost of labour must be worker-defined. Nat. Food 2, 630–631 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Coleman-Jensen, A., Rabbitt, M., Gregory, C. & Singh, A. Household Food Security in the United States in 2021 (U.S. Department of Agriculture & Economic Research Service, 2022).

  26. Huang, J., Neufeld, L. M., Badiane, O., Caron, P. & Forsse, L. S. Equitable livelihoods must underpin food systems transformation. Nat. Food 3, 394–396 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Halpern, B. S. et al. The environmental footprint of global food production. Nat. Sustain. 5, 1027–1039 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Battaglia Richi, E. et al. Health risks associated with meat consumption: a review of epidemiological studies. Int. J. Vitam. Nutr. Res. 85, 70–78 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Elson, H. A. Poultry welfare in intensive and extensive production systems. World Poultry Sci. J. 71, 449–460 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tainika, B., Şekeroğlu, A., Akyol, A. & Waithaka Ng’ang’a, Z. Welfare issues in broiler chickens: overview. World Poultry Sci. J. 79, 285–329 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kirychuk, S. P. et al. Total dust and endotoxin in poultry operations: comparison between cage and floor housing and respiratory effects in workers. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 48, 741–748 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Autenrieth, D. A., Brazile, W. J., Douphrate, D. I., Román-Muñiz, I. N. & Reynolds, S. J. Comparing occupational health and safety management system programming with injury rates in poultry production. J. Agromed. 21, 364–372 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Constance, D. H., Martinez-Gomez, F., Aboites-Manrique, G. & Bonanno, A. in The Ethics and Economics of Agrifood Competition Vol. 20 (ed. James, H. S.) 155–175 (Springer, 2013).

  34. Contract Broiler Growers Have Higher Median But a Greater Range of Household Income Compared to All U.S. Farms and Households (Economic Research Service, USDA, 2020); https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=104677

  35. Ponce-Caballero, C., Cardeña-Echalaz, F., Giácoman-Vallejos, G., de Lille, M. V. & Góngora-Echeverría, V. R. Pesticide management and farmers perception of environmental and health issues due to pesticide use in the state of Yucatán, Mexico: a study case. Rev. Int. Contam. Amb. 38, 289–300 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Costa, L. G. in Casarett & Doull’s Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons 9th edn (ed. Klaassen, C. D.) Ch. 22 (McGraw-Hill Education, 2019).

  37. Polanco Rodríguez, A. G. et al. Contamination by organochlorine pesticides in the aquifer of the Ring of Cenotes in Yucatán, México: contamination by organochlorine pesticides. Water Environ. J. 29, 140–150 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Perera-Rios, J. et al. Agricultural pesticide residues in water from a karstic aquifer in Yucatan, Mexico, pose a risk to children’s health. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 32, 2218–2232 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Polanco Rodríguez, Á. G. et al. Levels of persistent organic pollutants in breast milk of Maya women in Yucatan, Mexico. Environ. Monit. Assess. 189, 59 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rodríguez, A. G. P., López, M. I. R., Casillas, Á. D., León, J. A. A. & Banik, S. D. Impact of pesticides in karst groundwater. Review of recent trends in Yucatan, Mexico. Groundwater Sustain. Dev. 7, 20–29 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Coman, M. A., Marcu, A., Chereches, R. M., Leppälä, J. & Van Den Broucke, S. Educational interventions to improve safety and health literacy among agricultural workers: a systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, 1114 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Afshari, M., Karimi-Shahanjarini, A., Khoshravesh, S. & Besharati, F. Effectiveness of interventions to promote pesticide safety and reduce pesticide exposure in agricultural health studies: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 16, e0245766 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Fanzo, J. et al. Viewpoint: rigorous monitoring is necessary to guide food system transformation in the countdown to the 2030 global goals. Food Policy 104, 102163 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Chaudhary, A., Gustafson, D. & Mathys, A. Multi-indicator sustainability assessment of global food systems. Nat. Commun. 9, 848 (2018).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Béné, C. et al. Global map and indicators of food system sustainability. Sci. Data 6, 279 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. LeBaron, G. The Global Business of Forced Labour: Report of Findings (SPERI & University of Sheffield, 2018).

  47. Béné, C. et al. Global drivers of food system (un)sustainability: a multi-country correlation analysis. PLoS ONE 15, e0231071 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Oya, C., Schaefer, F. & Skalidou, D. The effectiveness of agricultural certification in developing countries: a systematic review. World Dev. 112, 282–312 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Meemken, E.-M., Sellare, J., Kouame, C. N. & Qaim, M. Effects of Fairtrade on the livelihoods of poor rural workers. Nat. Sustain. 2, 635–642 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Meemken, E.-M. et al. Sustainability standards in global agrifood supply chains. Nat. Food 2, 758–765 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Guidelines Concerning the Measurement of Forced Labour (ILO Department of Statistics, 2018).

  53. Guidelines for Measuring Youth Employment and Decent Work in Agriculture within Developing Countries (FAO, 2020); https://www.fao.org/3/ca6390en/ca6390en.pdf

  54. Anker, R. & Anker, M. Living Wages Around the World (Edward Elgar, 2017).

  55. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products (United Nations Environment Programme, 2009); https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/7912/-Guidelines%20for%20Social%20Life%20Cycle%20Assessment%20of%20Products-20094102.pdf?sequence=3&amp%3BisAllowed=

  56. Pelletier, N. Social sustainability assessment of Canadian egg production facilities: methods, analysis, and recommendations. Sustainability 10, 1601 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Iofrida, N. et al. Psychosocial risk factors’ impact pathway for social life cycle assessment: an application to citrus life cycles in South Italy. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 24, 767–780 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Frehner, A. et al. How food choices link sociodemographic and lifestyle factors with sustainability impacts. J. Clean. Prod. 300, 126896 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Turner, I., Heidari, D., Widowski, T. & Pelletier, N. Development of a life cycle impact assessment methodology for animal welfare with an application in the poultry industry. Sustain. Prod. Consump. 40, 30–47 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Blackstone, N. T., Norris, C. B., Robbins, T., Jackson, B. & Decker Sparks, J. L. Risk of forced labour embedded in the US fruit and vegetable supply. Nat. Food 2, 692–699 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Food Is Medicine: Peer-Reviewed Research in the U.S.: Medically Tailored Meals, Medically Tailored Food Packages, and Nutritious Food Referrals (Center for Health Law & Policy Innovation, 2020); https://chlpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Food-is-Medicine_Peer-Reviewed-Research-in-the-U.S.1.pdf

  62. Collaborative Food is Medicine Initiative Launches in Mississippi Delta (Gerald J. and Dorothy R. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, 2022); https://nutrition.tufts.edu/news/collaborative-food-medicine-initiative-launches-mississippi-delta

  63. Miller, J. D. & Woods, L. A. Black co-op farms: building a worker strategy in Mississippi. NPQ https://nonprofitquarterly.org/black-co-op-farms-building-a-worker-strategy-in-mississippi (2022).

  64. Kronthal-Sacco, R. & Whelan, T. Sustainable Market Share Index (NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business, 2024); https://www.stern.nyu.edu/experience-stern/about/departments-centers-initiatives/centers-of-research/center-sustainable-business/research/csb-sustainable-market-share-index

  65. Alae-Carew, C. et al. The role of plant-based alternative foods in sustainable and healthy food systems: consumption trends in the UK. Sci. Total Environ. 807, 151041 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Vermeir, I. et al. Environmentally sustainable food consumption: a review and research agenda from a goal-directed perspective. Front. Psychol. 11, 1603 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Vermeir, I. & Verbeke, W. Sustainable food consumption: exploring the consumer “attitude – behavioral intention” gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 19, 169–194 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Procuring Food Justice: Grassroots Solutions for Reclaiming Public Supply Chains (Food Chain Workers Alliance & HEAL Food Alliance, 2023); https://procuringfoodjustice.org/

  69. Decent Work Indicators: Guidelines for Producers and Users of Statistical and Legal Framework Indicators (ILO, 2013).

  70. Schneider, K. R. et al. The state of food systems worldwide in the countdown to 2030. Nat. Food 4, 1090–1110 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Turner, C. et al. Concepts and critical perspectives for food environment research: a global framework with implications for action in low- and middle-income countries. Glob. Food Secur. 18, 93–101 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Turner, G. M. et al. Squandering Australia’s food security—the environmental and economic costs of our unhealthy diet and the policy path we’re on. J. Clean. Prod. 195, 1581–1599 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Irz, X., Jensen, J. D., Leroy, P., Réquillart, V. & Soler, L.-G. Promoting climate-friendly diets: what should we tell consumers in Denmark, Finland and France? Environ. Sci. Policy 99, 169–177 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge B. Harney and J. Nelson for their support with manuscript submission. This work was supported by the Interdisciplinary Research Innovation Fund (RAFINS) at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA

    Nicole Tichenor Blackstone, Kyra Battaglia, Brooke M. Bell, Jessica L. Decker Sparks, Sean B. Cash, Amin Nikkhah, Julia Matteson, Shijun Gao, Kathy Fuller, Fang Fang Zhang & Patrick Webb

  2. Rights Lab, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

    Edgar Rodríguez-Huerta, Jessica L. Decker Sparks & Bethany Jackson

  3. Global Research Institute, William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA

    Zach Conrad

  4. Department of Kinesiology, William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA

    Zach Conrad

  5. School of Geography, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

    Bethany Jackson

Authors
  1. Nicole Tichenor Blackstone
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kyra Battaglia
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edgar Rodríguez-Huerta
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brooke M. Bell
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jessica L. Decker Sparks
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sean B. Cash
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Zach Conrad
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Amin Nikkhah
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Bethany Jackson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Julia Matteson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Shijun Gao
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Kathy Fuller
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Fang Fang Zhang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Patrick Webb
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

N.T.B. and P.W. conceptualized the Perspective. N.T.B., K.B., E.R.-H., J.L.D.S. and P.W. wrote the original draft. B.M.B., J.L.D.S., S.B.C., Z.C., A.N., B.J. and J.M. provided feedback and edits. All authors contributed to editing and revising the manuscript. K.B., B.M.B. and N.T.B. created Fig. 1. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole Tichenor Blackstone.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

N.T.B. has independent consulting agreements with a conservation non-profit and a cellular agriculture company to conduct critical reviews of environmental LCAs as outlined in international standards for LCA (ISO 14040, ISO 14044, and ISO 14071). Z.C. receives funding from the National Pork Board for a research project unrelated to the present work. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Food thanks Lisa-Marie Hemerijckx, Rebecca St. Clair and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blackstone, N.T., Battaglia, K., Rodríguez-Huerta, E. et al. Diets cannot be sustainable without ensuring the well-being of communities, workers and animals in food value chains. Nat Food 5, 818–824 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-01048-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-024-01048-0

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene