Review highlights how coffee farming intensification worsens health risks and biodiversity loss, suggesting agroecological practices can improve food security.
In Latin America, coffee is cultivated in distinct coffee agroecosystems (CASs), ranging from traditional agroforestry (“shade”) systems (CAFSs) to intensive, unshaded (“sun”) monocultures (UCASs). While various socioenvironmental impacts of these systems have been studied, their implications have not yet been integrated within a planetary health perspective. This review of 146 studies applies the Planetary Boundaries and Nature’s Contributions to People frameworks and the DPSEEA (Drivers, Pressures, State, Exposure, Effects, Actions) model to map the relationships between socioenvironmental drivers of change, different CASs, the state of natural systems at local and global scales, and human health and well-being. The analysis shows that conventional intensification, driven by low revenues for producers, climate change, and disease outbreaks, has accelerated deforestation, biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas emissions, agrochemical use and leakage, and water pressures. These changes create health risks for coffee-growing communities, such as pesticide exposure and increased vulnerability to external shocks. Conversely, agroecological practices can mitigate environmental pressures while reducing exposure to health hazards and improving resilience, food security, and income stability. However, mainstreaming these practices requires addressing structural inequities in the global coffee value chain to ensure fairer revenue distribution, stronger institutional support, and the protection of coffee-growing communities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hersch-González et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: