ArticleScientific reports2026
Assessing food security and environmental quality under policy stringency and geopolitics using counterfactual and machine learning approaches.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The provision of food security promotes sustainable economic growth by fostering healthier and more productive populations. However, achieving food security can impose environmental costs, as production and distribution processes contribute to deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, and resource depletion. Environmental policy stringency plays a critical role in mitigating these impacts by regulating industrial practices and promoting sustainable technologies. This study examines the relationship between food security and environmental policy stringency in shaping greenhouse gas emissions and ecological footprints, while accounting for energy consumption, geopolitical risks, and technological innovation. Using Canadian annual time series data from 1990 to 2022, the study employs the dynamic autoregressive distributed lag (DARDL) model to analyze long-run dynamics. The empirical results indicate that a 1% increase in food security raises CO₂ emissions by 0.16% and ecological footprint by 0.14%, confirming its environmentally detrimental effect. Energy consumption exerts the largest impact, increasing CO₂ emissions by 0.60% and ecological footprint by 0.67%. Geopolitical risk contributes positively to environmental degradation, increasing CO₂ emissions by 0.01% and ecological footprint by 0.79%. In contrast, environmental policy stringency reduces CO₂ emissions by 0.13% and ecological footprint by 0.16%, while technological innovation decreases emissions by 0.11% and ecological footprint by 0.10% in the long run. All estimated coefficients are statistically significant at conventional levels. Counterfactual analysis further evaluates the effects of ± 1% and ± 5% shocks among variables, revealing asymmetric environmental responses. The robustness of the findings is confirmed using Kernel-based Regularized Least Squares (KRLS). These results suggest that policymakers must balance food security objectives with environmental sustainability by strengthening environmental regulations and promoting green agricultural technologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.