Background Unhealthy dietary patterns have in recent decades contributed to an endemic-level burden from non-communicable disease (NCDs) in high-income countries. In low- and middle-income countries rapid changes in diets are also increasingly linked to malnutrition in all its forms as persistent undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies continue to coexist with a rising prevalence of obesity and associated NCDs. Economic globalization and trade liberalization have been identified as potentially important factors driving these trends, but the mechanisms, pathways and actual impact are subject to continued debate. Methods We use a ‘rigorous review’ to synthesize evidence from empirical quantitative studies analysing the links between economic globalization processes and nutritional outcomes, with a focus on impact as well as improving the understanding of the main underlying mechanisms and their interactions. Findings While the literature remains mixed regarding the impacts of overall globalization, trade liberalization or economic globalization on nutritional outcomes, it is possible to identify different patterns of association and impact across specific sub-components of globalization processes. Although results depend on the context and methods of analysis, foreign direct investment (FDI) appears to be more clearly associated with increases in overnutrition and NCD prevalence than to changes in undernutrition. Existing evidence does not clearly show associations between trade liberalization and NCD prevalence, but there is some evidence of a broad association with improved dietary quality and reductions in undernutrition. Socio-cultural aspects of globalization appear to play an important yet under-studied role, with potential associations with increased prevalence of overweight and obesity. The limited evidence available also suggests that the association between trade liberalization or globalization and nutritional outcomes might differ substantially across population sub-groups. Overall, our findings suggest that policymakers do not necessarily face a trade-off when considering the implications of trade or economic liberalization for malnutrition in all its forms. On the contrary, a combination of nutrition-sensitive trade policy and adequate regulation of FDI could help reduce all forms of malnutrition. In the context of trade negotiations and agreements it is fundamental, therefore, to protect the policy space for governments to adopt nutrition-sensitive interventions. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12992-019-0456-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Livestock value chains globally are increasingly dualistic, with integrated market-leaders co-existing with comparatively disadvantaged small producers who, nevertheless, support rural livelihoods and food access, and can also contribute to more resilient supply chains. The South African broiler value chain provides a highly illustrative case study. The purpose of this study is to identify potential leverage points for policy intervention to support small and emerging producers in the South African broiler value chain, and to discuss the strengths and limitations of system dynamics approaches to promote inclusive food value chains. This study develops a causal loop diagram (CLD) based on semi-structured stakeholder interviews and policy documents. The main challenges, key variables and causal relationships between them are systematically identified. Variables are coded, generalised and graphically represented, and entry points for intervention and their links to existing policies are mapped. The challenges faced by smallholders in the context of our study can be characterised, using a CLD, as a set of interlinked and reinforcing dynamics which perpetuate existing disadvantages and reinforce duality in the value chain. Key policy entry points have been identified that could be targeted by a coordinated policy package, including: Direct support for infrastructure investment and input access through grants, subsidies or other policies; credit and liquidity provision for day-to-day expenses; creation of aggregation mechanisms for both inputs and outputs; regulations or initiatives that directly target the relationship of farmers with the commercial segment to improve access to day-old-chicks and, finally, training in business and technical skills. Although most of these interventions have been addressed at some point, implementation has been fragmented, failing to fully consider their complementary nature, thus undermining effectiveness. Existing approaches to consensus building and stakeholder participation in system dynamics research can present challenges when it comes to engaging with complex policy processes and issues of conflict of interest that are relevant in the context of smallholder promotion and equitable food systems, but there are promising avenues for addressing. Despite some methodological challenges, we find that there is considerable scope for system dynamics approaches to inform policy for smallholder promotion, even in contexts characterised by complex policy processes.

Background: It is crucial to understand the benefits to human health from decarbonisation to galvanise action among decision makers. Most of our existing evidence comes from modelling studies and little is known about the extent to which the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation actions are realised upon implementation. We aim to analyse evidence from mitigation actions that have been implemented across a range of sectors and scales, to identify those that can improve and sustain health, while accelerating progress towards a zero-carbon economy. Objectives: To understand the implementation process of actions and the role of key actors; explain the contextual elements influencing these actions; summarise what effects, both positive and negative, planned and unplanned they may have on emissions of greenhouse gases and health; and to summarise environmental, social, or economic co-benefits. Data: We will review evidence collected through partnership with existing data holders and an open call for evidence. We will also conduct a hand search of reference lists from systematic reviews and websites of organisations relevant to climate change mitigation. Screening: Screening will be done by two reviewers according to a pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Analysis: We will identify gaps where implementation or evaluation of implementation of mitigation actions is lacking. We will synthesise the findings to describe how actions were implemented and how they achieved results in different contexts, identifying potential barriers and facilitators to their design, implementation, and uptake. We will also synthesise their effect on health outcomes and other co-benefits. Quantitative synthesis will depend on the heterogeneity of outcomes and metrics. Conclusions: Findings will be used to identify lessons that can be learned from successful and unsuccessful mitigation actions, to make inferences on replicability, scalability, and transferability and will contribute to the development of frameworks that can be used by policy makers.