The Planetary Health Impacts of Coffee Farming Systems in Latin America: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposed by authors deals with a very interesting topic, that is to examine how different CAS in Latin America affect human and planetary health, applying the Planetary Boundaries framework and structuring results through the DPSEEA (Drivers, Pressures, State, Exposure, Effects, Actions) model to map the relationshipships between socio-environmental drivers, different CAS, natural systems at local and global scales, and human health and well-being. Overall, the manuscript is well-written but not easy to follow; The information used appears to be sufficient to achieve the objectives of the study and fits with the Journal's scope. The results and discussion match the objectives. After carefully reading the paper, I have a few modest comments.

As the authors point out, this review certainly has several strengths, since it involves a novel synthesis by integrating analytical frameworks such as Planetary Boundaries, Nature's Contributions to People and DPSEEA, conjugating assess coffee farming and Planetary Health. However, several disciplines overlap, such as ecological, agronomic, epidemiological, and sociopolitical. And although focused on Latin America, it is very pretentious in its spirit for global debates on sustainable food systems. And this is probably a weak point.

The Methodology used in the review is very broad and good, but perhaps numerous references have been removed, as authors point this out, admitting a certain degree of subjectivity. And yet, references such as those indicated below are taken into account, which are probably very interesting, but not very "serious" scientifically:

.Bermeo S, Leblang D (2021) Climate, violence, and Honduran migration to the United States. Brookings

.Cordes KY, Sagan M, Kennedy S (2021) Responsible Coffee Sourcing: Towards a Living Income for Producers

.ECLAC (2021) ECLAC Statistical Briefings

.European Coffee Federation (2022) The journey of the coffee bean

.Vázquez EF (2023) En Veracruz la lucha por el café justo cuesta la cárcel. Pie de Página

Figure 3 is very good.

Figure 8 is very complex. Migration, violence, and alcoholism may be consequences, but in my humble opinion, that's a much more complex issue. This detracts from this magnificent figure.

What is the reason for different font sizes in the text? And also, why highlight some words in the text in bold?

Figure 9 is very demanding, and I'm not sure if it should be included if it isn't previously summarized.

The journal's rules regarding references in the text and in the references section are not followed.

Finally, in my opinion, this paper is more like a book chapter than a paper. Therefore, I think it would be necessary to make an effort and change from the chapter model to the paper model.

I hope those changes will contribute to improving your paper.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their careful reading of our manuscript and for providing insightful and constructive comments. Their observations helped us clarify the scope, strengthen the methodological rigor, and improve the overall readability and structure of the paper. Here we provide detailed responses for each comment:

Comment 1:

“Overall, the manuscript is well-written but not easy to follow”

Response:
We have carefully revised the entire manuscript to improve readability and flow. Several sentences were shortened or divided for clarity, and redundant or overly complex phrasing was removed. In sections 3 (drivers of transformation), 4 (impacts on planetary health), and 5 (impacts on human health) we added brief introductory and linking sentences to facilitate transitions between topics. We believe this changes substantially improve the readability and overall quality of the manuscript.

Comment 2:

As the authors point out, this review certainly has several strengths, since it involves a novel synthesis by integrating analytical frameworks such as Planetary Boundaries, Nature's Contributions to People and DPSEEA, conjugating assess coffee farming and Planetary Health. However, several disciplines overlap, such as ecological, agronomic, epidemiological, and sociopolitical. And although focused on Latin America, it is very pretentious in its spirit for global debates on sustainable food systems. And this is probably a weak point.”

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s observation in this regard. We agree that some passages conveyed a broader global scope than was appropriate for the regional focus of this review. Accordingly, we revised all sections that suggested general relevance for global debates to better align the manuscript with its intended scope. For example, the following sentences have been modified:

1. “This review focuses on Latin America due to the region’s shared historical, cultural, and socioeconomic trajectories in coffee cultivation; however, the findings are intended to inform discussions on global food systems and agroecological transitions, and contribute to the identification and promotion of coffee systems that offer co-benefits for planetary health in diverse contexts worldwide.” (page 4, introduction)
   to
   “While this review focuses on Latin America due to the region’s shared historical, cultural, and socioeconomic trajectories in coffee cultivation, its results may be relevant for the identification and promotion of co-beneficial coffee-growing practices in other coffee producing regions.”
2. “Finally, coffee farming also offers a case study for understanding the interconnec-tions between livelihoods, ecosystems, and health in the Anthropocene. The tensions observed in coffee between intensification and sustainability, well-being and global trade, equity and profit are not unique, but characteristic of broader challenges across tropical agriculture. As such, the lessons drawn from coffee landscapes may inform pathways toward more sustainable, healthy and equitable food systems.”

to

“Coffee farming also offers an interesting case study on the interconnections between farming systems and planetary health in the Anthropocene, as the tensions observed between intensification and sustainability, well-being and global trade, equity and profit are not unique, but characteristic of broader challenges across tropical agriculture.” (page 45, conclussions)

Comment 3:
“The Methodology used in the review is very broad and good, but perhaps numerous references have been removed, as authors point this out, admitting a certain degree of subjectivity. And yet, references such as those indicated below are taken into account, which are probably very interesting, but not very "serious" scientifically. [list of references]”

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s careful attention to the quality and reliability of the references used. This comment helped us not only review the sources pointed out, but also correct some bibliographic record and improve the quality of our sources. We agree that the inclusion of certain grey literature sources could affect the overall scientific robustness of the review. We therefore conducted a careful reassessment of all grey and non–peer-reviewed sources, and retained only those reporting transparent data sources and sound methodologies. As a result, the following changes were made:

• We considered it important to retain selected high-quality grey literature in areas where peer-reviewed evidence remains limited—such as studies on coffee producers’ incomes relative to national living incomes, regional deforestation data, or the impacts of climate change on migration. To clarify this methodological choice, we added the following sentence to the methods section (page 5, line 12):

“Selected grey literature (e.g., policy briefs and institutional reports) that clearly reported their data sources and methodologies was also included when peer-reviewed evidence was scarce, particularly to capture relevant information in under-researched areas.”

• We removed the references to Devoney (2024), Hicks (2018), Craves (2006), Vázquez (2023), and Klein (2008) which did not met these criteria from the results and discussion sections. Importantly, these references had been treated as contextual and were not included in the listed search results nor the PRISMA diagram, so these elements have not been modified.

• The report “The Journey of the Coffee Bean” (European Coffee Federation, 2022) was also excluded. Although it mentioned that “the volume traded on the futures market is estimated to be about 10 times the volume of annual production,” it did not provide traceable data sources for this figure. Consequently, we revised the related sentence (page 9, line 5) from:

“Global coffee prices are largely determined in futures markets, where speculative trading has exploded since 1994 and now exceeds physical coffee production by a factor of ten (Hicks 2018; ICC 2019; European Coffee Federation 2022). Low prices are compounded by extreme volatility, driven by financial speculation and fluctuations in coffee supply and production costs (Barrios-Puente et al. 2022).”
      to:
“Global coffee prices are largely determined in futures markets, where futures con-tracts increased five-fold for Arabica between 1994 and 2018, outpacing production growth of 64% over the same period (ICC, 2019). This suggests a substantial rise in speculative trading, which, combined with fluctua-tions in coffee supply and production costs, drives extreme price volatility (Barrios-Puente et al. 2022).”

The ICC (2019) report used here as source is based on multiple international datasets and provides a transparent methodology for these estimates, stating: “the volume of futures contracts traded almost tripled in the Robusta futures market and increased five-fold for Arabica from 1994 to 2018 (...) This suggests that the coffee market has been subject to a significant process of financialization over the past two decades.” We therefore consider this a scientifically robust source.

• The reference to Bermeo & Leblang (2021) has been replaced by their Policy Brief version, which explicitly details the data sources and statistical methodology underlying their analysis linking rainfall variability to migrant apprehensions at the U.S. border. We consider this document scientifically sound.
• The report by Cordes, Sagan & Kennedy (2021) published by the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment provides explicit data sources and a transparent methodology for estimating coffee producers’ average incomes and calculating living income benchmarks across 10 producing countries. We consider this an important and sufficiently sound reference; however, we corrected its citation as follows:

Cordes, K.Y.; Sagan, M.; Kennedy, S. Responsible Coffee Sourcing: Towards a Living Income for Producers. Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, 2021. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3894124.

• Finally, the ECLAC (2021) statistical report was retained, as it provides official FAO-based national deforestation data aggregated for the Latin American region. Its bibliographic record was corrected to read:

Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). Forest Loss in Latin America and the Caribbean from 1990 to 2020: The Statistical Evidence. ECLAC Statistical Briefings, no. 2 (July), 2021.

• One newspaper article (González Álvarez, 2017) was retained in the discussion section to document the cultural preservation initiatives of the indigenous coffee cooperative Tosepan Titataniske, as no peer-reviewed equivalents were found for this topic.
• Finally, we removed the sentence referring to Klein (2008):

“Such reliance on crises to justify neoliberal restructuring exemplifies what Klein (2008) described as the ‘shock doctrine’.” (page 17, line 26)

Comment 4:
“Figure 8 is very complex. Migration, violence, and alcoholism may be consequences, but in my humble opinion, that's a much more complex issue. This detracts from this magnificent figure. What is the reason for different font sizes in the text? And also, why highlight some words in the text in bold?”

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. The conceptual link to alcoholism, which was only indicated as a hypothetical relationship (dotted lines) and not supported by the reviewed literature, has been removed from Figure 8. However, the associations between declines in coffee income—resulting from coffee price drops, Coffee Leaf Rust outbreaks, or rainfall variability—and migration are documented in Nava-Tablada (2012), Dupre et al. (2022), USAID (2021), and Bermeo & Leblang (2022), as discussed in Section 5.2.3. Similarly, links between falling coffee prices and increased violence are reported by Dube & Vargas (2013) and Rettberg (2010), as presented in Section 5.2.4. We therefore consider these relationships relevant to retain in the summary diagram.

Regarding formatting, bold text in the figure is used intentionally to distinguish the domains corresponding to the Planetary Boundaries and Human Health. This has now been clarified in the caption as follows:

 “Figure 8. Main impacts of the coffee intensification gradient extremes on the Planetary Boundaries and Human Health (bold).”

We could not identify different font sizes in the figure text (Arial 9 pt); the perceived variation may be due to the bold formatting.

Comment 5:
Figure 9 is very demanding, and I'm not sure if it should be included if it isn't previously summarized.”

Response:
We agree that the original version of Figure 9 was too tet-heavy and visually demanding. Accordingly, we have revised it to present a more concise and summarized version that better complements the text.

Comment 6:
“The journal's rules regarding references in the text and in the references section are not followed.”

Response:
We appreciate this observation. The in-text citations and reference list have been carefully revised to fully comply with the journal’s formatting requirements.

Comment 7:
“Finally, in my opinion, this paper is more like a book chapter than a paper. Therefore, I think it would be necessary to make an effort and change from the chapter model to the paper model.”

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. The full text has been carefully revised to remove repetitive or interpretative passages and to better distinguish factual results from discussion. We acknowledge that the manuscript is extensive and does not follow the conventional IMRaD structure; however, this approach was guided by the journal’s instructions for review articles, which recommend replacing the “Results” section with “Relevant Sections.” We would be grateful if the reviewer could indicate specific aspects where the manuscript could further align with a conventional paper format.

We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested by the reviewer in evaluating our manuscript. We believe that the revisions made in response to these comments have significantly improved the quality and readability of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an important topic that links coffee agroecosystems to planetary health impacts. The integration of the Planetary Boundaries and DPSEEA frameworks is innovative and provides valuable interdisciplinary insight. The literature review is comprehensive and supported by a strong conceptual foundation. 

Abstract

The abstract provides a clear overview of the study and highlights its main findings. It effectively connects coffee farming systems with planetary health. However, it could be more concise by removing repetitive phrases and adding the total number of reviewed studies to improve informativeness.

Introduction

The introduction provides solid background information and highlights the importance of the topic. It connects global coffee systems to regional realities in Latin America. The flow could improve if some long paragraphs were shortened and the novelty of using the DPSEEA and Planetary Boundaries frameworks was stated more clearly.

Methods

The methods section is well-documented, transparent, and systematic. Including a PRISMA-style flow diagram or a brief explanation of the inclusion/exclusion criteria in simpler terms could improve clarity for interdisciplinary audiences.

Results

Drivers of Transformation: This section clearly explains how economic pressures, climate change, and disease outbreaks have influenced coffee farming in Latin America. The discussion is detailed and well-supported. It could be improved by simplifying long sentences and clearly defining all abbreviations so that non-specialists can follow.

Impacts on Planetary Boundaries: The section effectively shows how various coffee systems impact biodiversity, soil health, and climate. The information is comprehensive and well-organized. Each subsection would read more smoothly if it began with a summary comparing shaded and unshaded systems and ended with a brief linking sentence to the next topic.

Human Health and Exposure: This part offers valuable insights into how environmental changes relate to human well-being. It presents strong evidence on pesticide exposure, food security, and mental health. A summary table outlining primary health risks and benefits across different systems would enhance clarity and usability.

Discussion

The discussion synthesizes the results and explains their broader significance. It effectively ties together environmental and social findings. However, it could be slightly shorter by removing repetitive explanations and separating factual results from interpretations for better clarity.

Conclusion

The conclusion is concise and policy oriented. It effectively emphasizes the need for fairer and more sustainable coffee systems. The authors might consider ending with a clearer statement on how their framework provides a new way to link coffee production with planetary health goals.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and detailed feedback. Their comments were highly helpful in refining the clarity, coherence, and presentation of our work.

Comment 1:

“The abstract provides a clear overview of the study and highlights its main findings. It effectively connects coffee farming systems with planetary health. However, it could be more concise by removing repetitive phrases and adding the total number of reviewed studies to improve informativeness.”

Response:
We appreciate this suggestion and have revised the abstract accordingly. Repetitive sentences were removed to improve conciseness, and the total number of reviewed studies (146) was added to enhance clarity and informativeness. The following modifications to the abstract were made:

This review examines how different CAS in Latin America affect human and planetary health, applying the Planetary Boundaries framework and structuring results through the DPSEEA (Drivers, Pressures, State, Exposure, Effects, Actions) model to map the relationships between socio-environmental drivers of coffee intensification, different CAS, natural systems at local and global scales, and human health and well-being. (…) These changes create health risks for coffee-growing communities, such as pesticide exposure, food insecurity, 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.

To

This review of 146 studies applies the Planetary Boundaries framework and the DPSEEA (Drivers, Pressures, State, Exposure, Effects, Actions) model to map the relationships between socio-environmental drivers of change, different CAS, the state of natural systems at local and global scales, and human health and well-being. 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.

Comment 2:

“The introduction provides solid background information and highlights the importance of the topic. It connects global coffee systems to regional realities in Latin America. The flow could improve if some long paragraphs were shortened and the novelty of using the DPSEEA and Planetary Boundaries frameworks was stated more clearly.”

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. The introduction section has been revised to improve readability by shortening or dividing long paragraphs (pages 2 and 4). To clarify the novelty of the study, the following sentence has been added:

“By integrating the Planetary Boundaries and DPSEEA frameworks, this review introduces a novel interdisciplinary approach to analyze how socioeconomic factors, environmental changes, and human health outcomes are interconnected across scales.”

Comment 3:

“The methods section is well-documented, transparent, and systematic. Including a PRISMA-style flow diagram or a brief explanation of the inclusion/exclusion criteria in simpler terms could improve clarity for interdisciplinary audiences.”

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. The selection criteria have been simplified and clarified to improve accessibility for interdisciplinary readers. A PRISMA-style flow diagram summarizing the review process is already included in Figure 3.

Comment 4:

“Drivers of Transformation: This section clearly explains how economic pressures, climate change, and disease outbreaks have influenced coffee farming in Latin America. The discussion is detailed and well-supported. It could be improved by simplifying long sentences and clearly defining all abbreviations so that non-specialists can follow.”

Response:
Long sentences have been shortened or divided throughout pages 8–11 to improve readability. No undefined abbreviations were identified in this section.

Comment 5:

“Impacts on Planetary Boundaries: The section effectively shows how various coffee systems impact biodiversity, soil health, and climate. The information is comprehensive and well-organized. Each subsection would read more smoothly if it began with a summary comparing shaded and unshaded systems and ended with a brief linking sentence to the next topic.”

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion, and the section has been revised accordingly. Brief comparative summaries between shaded and unshaded systems have been added at the beginning of each subsection, and short linking sentences were included to improve flow and coherence.

Comment 6:

“Human Health and Exposure: This part offers valuable insights into how environmental changes relate to human well-being. It presents strong evidence on pesticide exposure, food security, and mental health. A summary table outlining primary health risks and benefits across different systems would enhance clarity and usability.”

Response:
We appreciate this suggestion. The section has been revised to improve readability and organization. Figure 8 summarizes the main health risks and benefits associated with different coffee production systems, as proposed.

Comment 7:

“The discussion synthesizes the results and explains their broader significance. It effectively ties together environmental and social findings. However, it could be slightly shorter by removing repetitive explanations and separating factual results from interpretations for better clarity.”

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this valuable feedback. The discussion section (pages 29–33) has been edited to enhance clarity and conciseness. Redundant or tendentious sentences were removed, and factual findings have been more clearly distinguished from interpretative commentary. Minor adjustments were also made to the limitations section to highlight where inferences rely on limited evidence.

Comment 8:

“The conclusion is concise and policy oriented. It effectively emphasizes the need for fairer and more sustainable coffee systems. The authors might consider ending with a clearer statement on how their framework provides a new way to link coffee production with planetary health goals.”

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. The conclusion has been expanded to include a clearer statement highlighting how the integration of the Planetary Boundaries and DPSEEA frameworks provides a novel approach to linking coffee production with planetary health goals.

We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested by the reviewer in evaluating our manuscript. We believe that the revisions made in response to these comments have significantly improved the quality and readability of the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I still believe it is necessary to make an effort and to reduce the length of the text.

Author Response

Thank you for this reminder. In this revision we reduced the main text by 3,753 words, to ~8,927 words (excluding tables, figures, and references). We tightened prose, removed repetition (especially across Sections 3–5), condensed Methods with details moved to the Supplementary Material, merged overlapping paragraphs, and standardized terminology/units. These changes improve readability and foreground the key messages, and we hope you find the revised manuscript clearer and concise. We are happy to make further changes if needed.