Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41988475›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2026

Policy mix for a low-carbon food system.

Marta Buso, Sanchayan Banerjee, Thales A P West

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marta BusoInstitute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Sanchayan BanerjeeInstitute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Thales A P WestInstitute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current food system accounts for approximately a third of the global greenhouse gas emissions, necessitating an urgent shift toward low-carbon food production and consumption practices. Carbon pricing can help internalize the negative externalities of deriving animal-based protein. There have been suggestions to complement meat and dairy taxes with softer policy tools, such as behavioral nudges, that instead encourage people to adopt plant-based diets. Nonetheless, both hard and soft tools have limitations when applied in isolation-taxation is perceived to be unpopular, while softer tools might be ineffective. In this perspective, we argue that innovations to this policy toolkit are key for a food systems transformation. Our proposition includes novel hard policy tools, such as the Emission Trading System (ETS), and seemingly softer policy tools, such as Voluntary Carbon Offsetting (VCO), both of which can be combined with softer tools like nudge and nudge+ interventions. We argue that policy innovations, as well as sequencing soft and hard tools, could enhance existing food policies, by creating a more socially acceptable pathway toward the urgently needed transition to a sustainable food system, thereby improving the effectiveness of these policies.

Indexed as

carbon offsetcarbon pricingETSnudgenudge+sequencing

Identifiers

PMID41988475
PMCPMC13076141

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.