CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,339Food Security and Socioeconomic DynamicsAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactClimate change impacts on agriculture

A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010–2050

Open access
van Dijk, Michiel, Morley, Tom, Rau, Marie Luise, Saghai, Yashar·2021·Nature Food
DOI 10.1038/s43016-021-00322-9

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Quantified global scenarios and projections are used to assess long-term future global food security under a range of socio-economic and climate change scenarios. Here, we conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to assess the range of future global food security projections to 2050. We reviewed 57 global food security projection and quantitative scenario studies that have been published in the past two decades and discussed the methods, underlying drivers, indicators and projections. Across five representative scenarios that span divergent but plausible socio-economic futures, the total global food demand is expected to increase by 35% to 56% between 2010 and 2050, while population at risk of hunger is expected to change by -91% to +8% over the same period. If climate change is taken into account, the ranges change slightly (+30% to +62% for total food demand and -91% to +30% for population at risk of hunger) but with no statistical differences overall. The results of our review can be used to benchmark new global food security projections and quantitative scenario studies and inform policy analysis and the public debate on the future of food.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review and meta-analysis of 57 global food security projection studies finds that total global food demand is projected to rise 35–56% between 2010 and 2050 across five SSPs, while population at risk of hunger could fall 91% or rise 8%. Climate change widens ranges slightly but does not produce statistically different overall patterns.

Key findings

  • The review identified 57 relevant studies and built a database with 593 projections of food demand and 358 projections of population at risk of hunger.
  • Under no climate change, total food demand is projected to change by +35% to +56%, per capita food demand by +0% to +20%, and population at risk of hunger by -91% to +8% between 2010 and 2050. With climate change, ranges are +30% to +62% for total food demand, -1% to +20% for per capita food demand, and -91% to +30% for population at risk of hunger, with no statistical difference from no-climate-change projections.
  • Under SSP2, total food consumption is projected to increase by 51% (95% CI +45% to +56%), substantially lower than the often-cited FAO and Tilman et al. projections of +60% to +110%.
  • SSP1 and SSP5 show the largest reductions in population at risk of hunger under no climate change (point estimates -71% to -68%), SSP3 the smallest (-11%), and SSP2 and SSP4 fall in the middle (-57% to -17%).

Methods

  • Systematic literature review following EPPI-Centre guidelines, searching five bibliographic databases, Google Scholar, organization websites, experts, and snowballing; 3,667 unique studies were screened down to 57 studies published between 2000 and early 2018.
  • Quantitative, comparable projections were extracted from 26 of the 57 studies for per capita food consumption, total food consumption, and population at risk of hunger; projections were harmonized and mapped to SSPs and RCPs.
  • Meta-regression used separate linear mixed models for the three indicators, with fixed effects for SSP-RCP combinations and pure/derived scenario dummies, random effects for study and model, and restricted maximum likelihood via lme4/lmerTest; only baseline projections were used, after removing outliers and “No class” projections.

Limitations

  • Stated: classifying studies into simulation, statistical extrapolation, or expert input was not always straightforward, and driver information should be interpreted with care because not all studies provide full model specifications; in some cases driver information was taken from other studies using the same model.
  • Stated: models are continuously updated and the reviewed studies do not offer sufficient information to track changes in model design and input data; a small number of projections could not be mapped to SSP/RCP because scenarios were incompatible, and SSPs cover only four of six scenario families.
  • Stated and evident: the analysis deals only with global-level projections, and regional or commodity-specific analysis was not feasible; quantitatively comparable data could be extracted from only 26 of 57 studies, so the meta-regression relies on a subset, although the authors report checks against selection bias.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s43016-021-00322-9

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 36 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    A pairwise comparison did not provide evidence that climate change results in significantly different patterns of food demand compared with no climate change.

    “However, a pairwise comparison did not provide evidence that climate change results in significantly different patterns of food demand compared with NOCC (Supplementary Fig. 7).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    The authors did not find evidence that climate change projections for population at risk of hunger are statistically different from NOCC projections.

    “Again, we did not find evidence that climate change projections are statistically different from NOCC projections (Supplementary Fig. 7).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    Nearly all projections point to a decrease in undernourishment compared with the base year.

    “Nearly all projections point to a decrease in undernourishment in comparison with the base year.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
  • Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    Total food consumption increase is lowest in SSP1, at +41%.

    “Taking population growth into account, total food consumption increase is the lowest in SSP1 (+41%) and the highest in SSP2 (+51%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
  • Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    Including climate change uncertainty changes the ranges of per capita food demand to -1% to +20% and total food demand to +30% to +62%.

    “If the uncertainty related to climate change is also taken into account, the ranges of per capita (-1% to +20%) and total food demand (+30% to +62%) projections change slightly.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.
  • May combine two claims. 38
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 32
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    When the confidence band of all SSPs is jointly considered, the plausible bandwidth of per capita food consumption is +0% to +20% and of total food consumption is +35% to +56%.

    “If the confidence band of all SSPs is jointly taken into account, the plausible bandwidth of per capita food consumption becomes +0% to +20% and of total food consumption becomes +35% to +56%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    In SSP3 and SSP4, per capita consumption is projected to increase by 4% to 7%, while in SSP1, SSP2, and SSP5 the increase is 12% to 16%.

    “In future worlds that are characterized by fragmentation (SSP3) and inequality (SSP4), per capita consumption will increase by 4% to 7%, while in scenarios that assume sustainability (SSP1), business-as-usual development (SSP2) and rapid growth (SSP5), the increase is 12% to 16%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    More than half of the studies covered land availability (41), diet change (39), trade (37), and climate change (32).

    “Other drivers that are covered by more than half of the studies include land availability (such as protected areas and land degradation) (n = 41), diet change (n = 39), trade (n = 37) and climate change (n = 32).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation
    § Overview of studies.

    A few studies (8) presented alternative indicators, including protein consumption, people at risk of protein deficiency, and recommended daily intake of macronutrients.

    “A few studies (n = 8) present alternative indicators, including protein consumption 25,26 , people at risk of protein deficiency 27 and recommended daily intake of macronutrients 26 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [25] Billen, G., Lassaletta, L., & Garnier, J. A vast range of opportunities for feeding the world in 2050: trade-off between diet, N contamination and international trade. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/2/025001 (2015). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [26] Msangi, S. & Batka, M. Major trends in diets and nutrition: a global perspective to 2050. In Frontiers of Economics and Globalization 227–241 (Emerald Group Publishing, 2015). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [27] Medek, D. E., Schwartz, J. & Myers, S. S. Estimated effects of future atmospheric CO2 concentrations on protein intake and the risk of protein deficiency by country and region. Environ. Health Perspect. 125, 87001–87002 (2017). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    The majority of studies (47) used simulation models, 9 used statistical extrapolation, and 1 mainly used expert input.

    “The majority of studies (n = 47) employ simulation models, while some use statistical extrapolation approaches (n = 9) that use regression techniques to estimate future food security 1,13 .Only one study 2 mainly used expert input to prepare the projections.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [1] Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20260 (2011). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [13] Bodirsky, B. L. et al. Global food demand scenarios for the 21st century. PLoS ONE 10, e0139201 (2015). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [2] Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2012).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    For a subset of studies, the authors extracted and harmonized projections for per capita demand (21) and population at risk of hunger (14).

    “For a subset of the selected studies, we were able to extract and harmonize projections for the two most used indicators: per capita demand (n = 21) and population at risk of hunger (n = 14).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    Food price (18) and childhood undernutrition (7) were other popular indicators.

    “Food price (n = 18) and, to a lesser extent, childhood undernutrition (n = 7) are other popular indicators.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Global Food Security Projections Database.

    The Global Food Security Projections Database contains 593 projections of food consumption per capita and total food consumption and 358 projections of population at risk of hunger.

    “The Global Food Security Projections Database contains 593 projections of food consumption per capita and total food consumption and 358 projections of population at risk of hunger.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    Nearly all SSP scenarios project an increase in per capita and global food consumption compared with 2010 levels, but the relative sizes of these increases differ.

    “Nearly all SSP scenarios project an increase in per capita and global food consumption in comparison with the 2010 levels, but the relative sizes of these increases differ.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    The projected change in population at risk of hunger is highest in SSP1 and SSP5 (NOCC point estimates -71% to -68%), smallest in SSP3 (-11%), and intermediate in SSP2 and SSP4 (-57% to -17%).

    “The change is highest in SSP1 and SSP5, with NOCC point estimates of -71% to -68%, while it is smallest in SSP3 (-11%), and SSP2 and SSP4 are located in the middle (-57% to -17%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    Partial equilibrium models were the most frequently used model type (42), followed by computable general equilibrium models (28) and other model types (11).

    “The most frequently used type of models is partial equilibrium models (n = 42), followed by computable general equilibrium market simulation models (n = 28) and other types of models (such as integrated assessment, biophysical and economic; n = 11).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    Under SSP2, total food consumption is projected to increase by 51%, with a 95% confidence interval of +45% to +56%, the highest among SSPs.

    “Taking population growth into account, total food consumption increase is the lowest in SSP1 (+41%) and the highest in SSP2 (+51%).”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “We find that under SSP2 (which, like the FAO projections, is regarded as a business-as-usual scenario), total food consumption will increase by 51%, with a 95% confidence interval of +45% to +56%.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    Only a very small number of studies explicitly addressed aquaculture (2) and urbanization (1) impacts on global food supply and demand projections.

    “Only a very small number of studies indicate that they explicitly address the impacts of aquaculture (n = 2) 22,23 and urbanization (n = 1) 23 on global food supply and demand projections.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [22] Linehan, V. et al. Global food production and prices to 2050: scenario analysis under policy assumptions. In 43rd ABARES Outlook Conference (2013).

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [23] The Future of Food and Agriculture—Alternative Pathways to 2050 (FAO, 2018).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    Nearly all reviewed studies included assumptions about future population (57) and income growth (52), which are key drivers of food demand, and technical change (52), the main driver of food supply.

    “Nearly all studies include assumptions on future population (n = 57) and income growth (n = 52), which are key drivers of food demand, and assumptions on technical change (including total factor productivity growth, crop yield increase and adoption of advanced inputs) (n = 52), which is the main driver of food supply (Fig. 2c).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    A large number of selected studies presented future trends for per capita food demand (37) and global population at risk of hunger (21).

    “A large number of the selected studies present future trends for two indicators (Fig. 2d).The first is per capita food demand, in most cases measured as the average diet per person (sum of crops, dairy, fish and meat in kcal per capita per day) (n = 37).The second indicator is global population at risk of hunger (n = 21), which implements the prevalence of undernourishment-the main statistic used”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] FAO, IFAD, and WFP The State of Food Insecurity in the World: The Multiple Dimensions of Food Security 2013 (FAO, 2013).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    The number of global food security projection studies increased substantially over the two decades before the review.

    “Figure 1 shows that the number of studies increased substantially over the past two decades.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Overview of studies.

    The IMPACT model was the most frequently used simulation model, appearing in 16 studies.

    “The IMPACT model 14 was the most frequently used simulation model (n = 16, Fig. 2b).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] Robinson, S. et al. The International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT): Model Description for Version 3 (IFPRI, 2015); http://ssrn.com/abstract=2741234

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Limitations.

    Projections for missing scenario families fall within the plausible range of SSP/RCP-based global food security projections and therefore do not affect the results.

    “A comparison shows that projections for missing scenario families are positioned within the plausible range of SSP/RCP-based global food security projections and therefore do not affect our results (Supplementary Fig. 10).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The core of the models does not change over time and cross-model comparison is possible.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Additional information

    The meta-regression analyzed 317 food consumption and 200 population at risk of hunger baseline projections.

    “We used a metaregression model to analyze 317 food consumption and 200 population at risk of hunger baseline projections”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The core of the models does not change over time and cross-model comparison is possible.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Additional information

    The literature search returned 3667 studies, and after abstract and full-text screening, 57 studies were selected for the systematic review.

    “The query of the scientific literature repositories resulted in 3667 studies.After abstract and full text screening, a total of 57 studies were selected to be included in the systematic literature review.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Systematic literature review design.

    The literature search generated 3,667 unique studies, and after abstract and full-text screening, 57 studies were selected.

    “The query of the scientific literature repositories resulted in 3,667 unique studies.After abstract and full text screening, 57 studies were selected to be included in the systematic literature review (Extended Data Fig. 1; see Supplementary Section E for the list of studies).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § Contribution

    Only a few studies present detailed information on shifts in diet, and their results are mostly not comparable because of differences in food group composition, making wider comparison impossible.

    “Only a few studies 68,69 present detailed information on the shifts in diet, and in most cases the results are not comparable due to differences in the composition of food groups, making wider comparison impossible.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [68] Gouel, C. & Guimbard, H. Nutrition Transition and the Structure of Global Food Demand (CEPI, 2017).

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [69] Bijl, D. L. et al. A physically-based model of long-term food demand. Glob. Environ. Change 45, 47–62 (2017). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Uncertainty and consistency in global food security projections.

    Using meta-regression, the authors formally tested the impact of model type on global food security projections but did not find convincing evidence to support it.

    “Using our meta-regression, we formally tested the impact of model type on global food security projections but did not find convincing evidence to support this (Supplementary Section C).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Outcomes vary across studies and models because of differences in study design and model specifications.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The projections in the sample can be regarded as random samples of all projections that could have been observed.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Additional information

    The database contains 593 unique projections for food consumption per capita and total food consumption and 358 projections for population at risk of hunger.

    “The database contains 593 unique projections for food consumption per capita and total food consumption and 358 projections for population at risk of hunger.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § Limitations.

    Not all reviewed studies provide full details on model specification, so the drivers that can be incorporated into models are not always clear.

    “Not all studies provide full details on the model specification and hence which drivers can be incorporated in the model.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Limitations.

    All reviewed studies incorporate multiple drivers and can produce multiple indicators.

    “All studies incorporate multiple drivers and can produce multiple indicators.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § Limitations.

    Several selected studies present regional-level food security projections that indicate different patterns and futures, but the analysis cannot analyze them.

    “Several of the selected studies present food security projections at the broad regional level 13,64,67 that clearly indicate different patterns and futures, which we are unable to analyse.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [13] Bodirsky, B. L. et al. Global food demand scenarios for the 21st century. PLoS ONE 10, e0139201 (2015). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [64] Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the Shared Socio-economic Pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017). source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [67] Hasegawa, T. et al. Risk of increased food insecurity under stringent global climate change mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 699–703 (2018). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Global Food Security Projections Database.

    Nearly all policy shock projections fall within the estimated bandwidth from the meta-regression, confirming the main findings.

    “The comparison shows that nearly all policy shock projections fall within the estimated bandwidth, confirming our main findings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § Uncertainty and consistency in global food security projections.

    The 95% confidence intervals of the point estimates show that there is a degree of uncertainty in the projections.

    “The 95% confidence intervals of the point estimates show that there is a degree of uncertainty in the projections.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Uncertainty and consistency in global food security projections.

    Under no climate change, per capita and total food demand are expected to change by +0% to +20% and +35% to +56% between 2010 and 2050, respectively, while population at risk of hunger is projected to change by -91% to +8%.

    “Our findings indicate that, under NOCC, per capita and total food demand are expected to change by +0% to +20% and +35% to +56% between 2010 and 2050, respectively, while population at risk of hunger is projected to change by -91% to +8%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Uncertainty and consistency in global food security projections.

    Projections that account for climate change show a wider range: -1% to +20% for per capita food demand, +30% to +62% for total food demand, and -91% to +30% for population at risk of hunger.

    “Projections that account for climate change show a somewhat wider range of outcomes (-1% to +20% for per capita food demand, +30% to +62% for total food demand and -91% to +30% for population at risk of hunger).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation
    § Overview of studies.

    The increase in publications after 2009 can almost certainly be attributed to renewed interest in global food and nutrition research triggered by the 2007-2008 global food price crisis.

    “The increase in publications after 2009 can almost certainly be attributed to the renewed interest in global food and nutrition research that was triggered by the 2007-2008 global food price crisis 11 .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [11] Headey, D. & Fan, S. Anatomy of a crisis: the causes and consequences of surging food prices. Agric. Econ. 39, 375–391 (2008). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Limitations.

    The data for 2018 are incomplete because they include only studies released in the first half of the year.

    “The data for 2018 are incomplete as they only include studies that were released in the first half of the year.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Uncertainty and consistency in global food security projections.

    SSP3 represents an opposite world, characterized by the highest population at risk of hunger, the lowest per capita consumption, and the highest total food consumption.

    “SSP3 represents an opposite world, characterized by the highest population at risk of hunger, the lowest per capita consumption and the highest total food consumption.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Uncertainty and consistency in global food security projections.

    These figures reflect global food security outcomes in five vastly different but plausible future worlds with respect to sustainability, equality, and technological development.

    “These figures reflect global food security outcomes in five vastly different but plausible future worlds with respect to sustainability, equality and technological development.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Uncertainty and consistency in global food security projections.

    Current developments show some resemblance with the SSP3 Regional Rivalry scenario, characterized by slow economic development, a focus on domestic security and sovereignty, and increasing inequality within and between nations.

    “Although it is too early to understand the full impact and consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, current developments show some resemblance with the SSP3 Regional Rivalry scenario, which is characterized by slow economic development, a focus on domestic security and sovereignty, and increasing inequality within and between nations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Limitations.

    For some studies, information on the incorporation of driving forces was taken from other studies that used the same model.

    “Occasionally, we took information on the incorporation of driving forces from other studies in which the same model was used.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Selection bias.

    A comparison of main characteristics between studies with extracted quantitative data and those with missing data does not suggest major structural differences and does not provide evidence for selection bias.

    “A comparison of the main characteristics between studies for which quantitative data were extracted and those for which data were missing does not suggest major structural differences between these groups and hence does not provide evidence for selection bias (Supplementary Fig. 9).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The projections in the sample can be regarded as random samples of all projections that could have been observed.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Limitations.

    The SSPs cover only four of the six scenario families identified by Van Vuuren and Carter, so projections from the two missing families are not captured by the analysis.

    “The SSPs cover only four of the six scenario families identified by Van Vuuren and Carter 52 , which means that projections that belong to the two missing families (or even other not-yet-identified scenario families) are not captured by our analysis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Van Vuuren and Carter 52

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Additional information

    One observation, identified as an outlier by IQR criteria, was excluded from the meta-regression.

    “One observation was considered as an outlier on the basis of IQR criteria and excluded from the meta-regression.”
    • Also stated in: § Limitations. · plain
      “The projections from Dawson et al.72 (the blue dashed line heading upwards in a) are considered outliers and are therefore excluded from the meta-regression.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § projections of 60-110%.

    In contrast to most other studies that use diet projections, Tilman et al. approximate food consumption by total crop calories including food and feed, resulting in much higher per capita projections.

    “In contrast to most other studies, which use diet projections, food consumption is approximated by total crop calories (including food and feed), resulting in much higher per capita projections.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20260 (2011). source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Limitations.

    The analysis is limited to global-level projections.

    “our analysis deals only with global-level projections.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data
    § Uncertainty and consistency in global food security projections.

    The authors believe their findings are more reflective of the current state of the literature than the often-cited range of +60% to +110% for food demand, which represents only business-as-usual scenarios.

    “We believe that these findings are more reflective of the current state of the literature than the often-cited range of +60% to +110% for food demand, which represents only business-as-usual scenarios.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § Limitations.

    SSP population projections are independent of climate change, so only no-climate-change projections are presented.

    “SSP Population projections are independent of climate change and therefore only no climate change (NOCC) projections are presented.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Uncertainty and consistency in global food security projections.

    SSP1 and SSP5 represent futures in which global food security will improve, reflected by a sharp decrease in population at risk of hunger, high per capita food consumption, and low total food consumption.

    “SSP1 and SSP5 represent futures in which global food security will improve, reflected by a sharp decrease in population at risk of hunger, high levels of food consumption per capita and low total food consumption.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Uncertainty and consistency in global food security projections.

    A third factor is that differences in how results are reported, such as base year or indicator definitions, potentially explain the wide range of outcomes.

    “Finally, differences in the way results are reported, such as differences in base year or definitions of indicators, potentially explain the wide range of outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Additional information

    The review followed EPPI Centre guidelines for qualified systematic review, including a research protocol, and prepared a PRISMA checklist and flowchart.

    “we followed the guidelines for the qualified application of systematic review by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI centre, University of London, https:// eppi.ioe.ac.uk), including the preparation of a research protocol.We also prepared a PRISMA checklist and flowchart.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § projections of 60-110%.

    FAO projections are comparable to other studies, but the results are highly sensitive to the selection of the base year.

    “This shows that the FAO projections are comparable to those of other studies, but the results are highly sensitive to the selection of the base year.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2012).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § projections of 60-110%.

    The latest update of the FAO study presents a projection of 54% for global change in calories; using a 2010 base year, this translates to a 44% increase, just outside the SSP2 confidence interval.

    “Interestingly, the latest update of the FAO study 2 also presents a projection of 54% for the global change in calories.Using a base year of 2010, this translates to an increase in consumption of 44%, which is just outside the confidence interval for SSP2.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] Alexandratos, N. & Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2012).

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § projections of 60-110%.

    Without mentioning the reference period, statements about future increases in food demand and production can be severely misleading.

    “Without mentioning the reference period, statements about future increases in food demand and production can be severely misleading.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Overview of studies.

    The review used a predetermined systematic review protocol to select studies.

    “We selected 57 global food security projection studies for further review using a predetermined systematic review protocol (Extended Data Fig. 1, Supplementary Information and Methods).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Selection bias.

    For all three indicators, almost all 'No class' projections fall within the estimated plausible range of global food security projections, so excluding them probably had little impact.

    “A comparison shows that for all three indicators, almost all 'No class' projections fall within the estimated plausible range of global food security projections (Supplementary Fig. 10).Hence, excluding them probably had little impact on our results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Additional information

    Literature screening was done in two phases, with title/abstract screening followed by full-text screening, and doubtful studies evaluated by a second reviewer and discussed by the research team.

    “The literature screening was done in two phases.A first selection was made by screening the title and abstract, followed by a full text screening for studies that were identified as being relevant.In case of doubt, the study was evaluated by a second reviewer and, if needed, further discussed by the research team.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Uncertainty and consistency in global food security projections.

    In light of the coronavirus pandemic, business-as-usual scenarios can no longer be considered plausible or realistic.

    “Moreover, in the light of the current coronavirus pandemic, which undoubtedly will have a lasting impact on all aspects of future global development (including food supply and demand), business-as-usual scenarios can no longer be considered plausible or realistic.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Additional information

    All data and code will be publicly available to reproduce the results.

    “All data and code will be publicly available to reproduce the results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Acknowledgements

    The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

    “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Data availability

    The complete code required to reproduce all figures and the meta-analysis is publicly available at the Zenodo repository.

    “The complete code required to reproduce all figures as well as the meta-analysis is publicly available at the Zenodo repository: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4911251.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Conflict

    The authors declare no competing interests.

    “The authors declare no competing interests.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Additional information

    The combination of data and code ensures that all results can be reproduced.

    “The combination of data and code ensures that all results can be reproduced.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Data availability

    The database with information from the 57 selected studies and the Global Food Security Projections Database are publicly available at the Zenodo repository.

    “The database with information from the 57 selected studies as well as the Global Food Security Projections Database are publicly available at the Zenodo repository: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4911252.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
60 of 60

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (the same scenario family) can be directly compared.

    “We assumed that projections based on the SSPs and projections based on scenarios with the same characteristics (that is, belonging to the same 'family') can be directly compared.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Outcomes vary across studies and models because of differences in study design and model specifications.

    “We added random effects for both study and model as we assume that, although comparable, outcomes will vary across both studies and models because of differences in study design and model specifications.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In studies where models are linked with other models, the model is still comparable to its stand-alone version.

    “In such cases, we assumed that the model is still comparable to its stand-alone version.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The projections in the sample can be regarded as random samples of all projections that could have been observed.

    “The projections in our sample can be regarded as random samples of all projections that could have been observed.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The core of the models does not change over time and cross-model comparison is possible.

    “Nonetheless, we think it is reasonable to assume that the core of the models does not change over time and that cross-model comparison is possible.”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Two scenarios are identified as having the highest total food consumption

    Major

    The results say SSP2 has the highest increase in total food consumption, but the discussion describes SSP3 as having the highest total food consumption. Both claims concern the 2010-2050 projections.

  • FAO historical-data citation points to a different source

    Minor

    The figure caption attributes the historical data to FAO reference 70, but reference 70 is a paper by Bijl and colleagues, not an FAO source.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Robinson, S. et al. The International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT): Model Description for Version 3 (IFPRI, 2015); http://ssrn.com/abstract=2741234
  2. Linehan, V. et al. Global food production and prices to 2050: scenario analysis under policy assumptions. In 43rd ABARES Outlook Conference (2013).
  3. Feed the world: a challenge and an opportunity. The John Deere Journal https://johndeerejournal.com/2015/12/smallholder-farmers-big-challenges (2015).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
van Dijk, M., Morley, T., Rau, M. L., & Saghai, Y.
Affiliations
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
  • The Millennium Project (US)
ORCID
Venue
Nature Food
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-07-21
Volume
2
Issue
7
Pages
494-501
ISSN
2662-1355 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s43016-021-00322-9
OpenAlex
W3186111258
Semantic Scholar
c39cb1d30420c0af70f0b1f72ace1c05a9d06e84
Cited by
2,339
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 541 · 2025: 713 · 2024: 578 · 2023: 344 · 2022: 149 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
18.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Food (publishedVersion)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • IIASA PURE (International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Wageningen University and Research Centre
  • Johns Hopkins Global Food Ethics Berman Institute of Bioethics and Policy Program
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Security and Socioeconomic Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Climate change impacts on agriculture
Keywords
global food security, food demand projections, hunger, climate change impacts on food security, socio-economic scenarios, future food demand, 2050 projections

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review