Agricultural subsidies significantly influence food production, contributing to an unhealthy and unsustainable food system. This research addresses the crucial need for reforming agricultural subsidies to align with health and environmental goals while maintaining economic viability. The study's importance stems from the interconnectedness of food production, public health, and the environment. Current subsidy systems often incentivize the production of commodities with negative health and environmental consequences. This study aims to evaluate various reform options, exploring their potential impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, population health outcomes, and economic welfare. The researchers utilize an integrated modeling approach, combining economic, environmental, and health assessments to provide a comprehensive analysis of the trade-offs and synergies involved in reforming agricultural subsidies. The results have significant implications for policymakers striving to create more sustainable and healthy food systems.

The paper references existing literature on the impacts of agricultural subsidies on obesity (Franck et al., 2013), food and nutrition security (Walls et al., 2018), and the environmental consequences of current agricultural practices (Poore & Nemecek, 2018; Clark & Tilman, 2017). It also acknowledges previous research on the need for a transition towards healthier and more sustainable food systems (Willett et al., 2019; Springmann et al., 2018; FOLU, 2019) and the potential for reforming the Common Agricultural Policy (Pe’er et al., 2019). The authors draw upon existing models and datasets (OECD, 2018; FAO, 2011, 2020; GBD 2017 Risk Factor Collaborators et al., 2018) to support their analysis, indicating a solid foundation in existing research and data resources related to agriculture, health, and economics.

The study employed a coupled modeling framework integrating economic, environmental, and health models. The economic analysis utilized the Modular Applied General Equilibrium Tool (MAGNET), a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model with detailed agricultural representation, focusing on the impacts of agricultural support measures on trade, production, consumption, and economic welfare. MAGNET incorporates land resources as a factor of production and considers various policy types (output, input, land, capital, and labor payments). The model encompasses 28 countries/regions and 34 sectors. Health impacts were assessed using a global risk-disease model with country-level detail, employing a comparative risk assessment method relating dietary changes to cause-specific mortality. This model incorporated eight diet/weight-related risk factors and five disease endpoints, using relative risk estimates from meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies. Environmental impacts focused on GHG emissions, combining economic model outputs with environmental footprints, including both direct and indirect emissions from animal source foods. The model also integrated feedback between health and economic impacts by adjusting population and workforce parameters in the economic model based on diet-related mortality estimates. Three main scenarios were modeled: (1) complete removal of subsidies; (2) repurposing a portion (50% or 100%) of subsidies towards healthier, lower-emission food commodities; and (3) combining repurposing with global restructuring of subsidies based on GDP or population shares. Uncertainty analysis involved using different socioeconomic development pathways.

The study revealed several key findings regarding the impacts of different agricultural subsidy reform options: **Removal of Subsidies (RMV):** While economically and environmentally beneficial in some aspects (increased allocative efficiency, reduced GHG emissions), this scenario led to a negative impact on population health due to reduced consumption of fruits and vegetables. **Repurposing Subsidies (S50, S100):** Redirecting subsidies towards healthier food commodities (fruits, vegetables) increased their production and consumption, leading to significant reductions in diet-related mortality. However, complete repurposing (S100) resulted in negative economic impacts due to reduced allocative efficiency, particularly in OECD countries. Partial repurposing (S50) mitigated economic losses but also reduced health benefits. **Repurposing and Restructuring (GDP, POP):** Combining subsidy repurposing with a more equitable global distribution (based on GDP or population) led to more evenly distributed increases in fruit and vegetable production and consumption, similar or greater reductions in GHG emissions, and overall global economic benefits. However, newly subsidized countries might require compensation for potential losses in allocative efficiency. Specific quantitative impacts varied by scenario and region. For instance, complete subsidy repurposing led to an estimated 444,000 fewer diet-related deaths in 2030, but also a net negative economic impact in OECD countries. Combining repurposing with global restructuring yielded global economic gains and health benefits, though some regions experienced economic losses that could be mitigated through transfer payments.

The study's findings highlight the complex interplay between economic, health, and environmental goals in agricultural subsidy reform. A simple removal of subsidies proves detrimental to public health, emphasizing the need for a more nuanced approach. Repurposing subsidies towards healthier food production offers substantial health benefits, but careful consideration of potential economic trade-offs is crucial. The most promising approach appears to be combining repurposing with a more equitable global distribution of subsidies. This strategy achieves substantial improvements in health and environmental outcomes while producing overall economic gains. The results underscore the need for integrated policy approaches that consider the interconnectedness of various sectors and the importance of health-related welfare measures in evaluating agricultural policies. The findings provide valuable insights for policymakers seeking to design effective and sustainable agricultural policies.

The study demonstrates the potential for significant improvements in public health and environmental sustainability through strategic reforms of agricultural subsidy systems. While complete removal of subsidies is shown to be detrimental to health, repurposing towards healthier foods offers substantial benefits. Combining repurposing with a more equitable global distribution presents the most promising pathway towards a healthier and more sustainable food system. Future research should focus on optimizing subsidy mechanisms, including incentives for sustainable production methods and further exploration of regional and sub-national impacts. Addressing political and social aspects related to implementation remains a critical next step.

The study acknowledges several limitations. The analysis primarily focused on GHG emissions and did not consider other environmental impacts like water and pesticide use, particularly for horticultural products. The model equally rewarded all horticultural production, neglecting differences in agricultural management practices. The study also concentrated on global, regional, and national levels, without detailed sub-national analyses relevant for local decision-making. Furthermore, the model doesn’t fully account for all factors influencing agricultural production, like geographical conditions, resource availability, and market demand. Finally, the political feasibility of implementing the proposed reforms is not fully addressed.