The role of soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration as a ‘win‐win’ solution to both climate change and food insecurity receives an increasing promotion. The opportunity may be too good to be missed! Yet the tremendous complexity of the two issues at stake calls for a detailed and nuanced examination of any potential solution, no matter how appealing. Here, we critically re‐examine the benefits of global SOC sequestration strategies on both climate change mitigation and food production. While estimated contributions of SOC sequestration to climate change vary, almost none take SOC saturation into account. Here, we show that including saturation in estimations decreases any potential contribution of SOC sequestration to climate change mitigation by 53%–81% towards 2100. In addition, reviewing more than 21 meta‐analyses, we found that observed yield effects of increasing SOC are inconsistent, ranging from negative to neutral to positive. We find that the promise of a win‐win outcome is confirmed only when specific land management practices are applied under specific conditions. Therefore, we argue that the existing knowledge base does not justify the current trend to set global agendas focusing first and foremost on SOC sequestration. Away from climate‐smart soils, we need a shift towards soil‐smart agriculture, adaptative and adapted to each local context, and where multiple soil functions are quantified concurrently. Only such comprehensive assessments will allow synergies for land sustainability to be maximised and agronomic requirements for food security to be fulfilled. This implies moving away from global targets for SOC in agricultural soils. SOC sequestration may occur along this pathway and contribute to climate change mitigation and should be regarded as a co‐benefit.

Background and aims Organic inputs have a positive effect on the soil organic matter balance. They are therefore an important asset for soil fertility and crop growth. This study quantifies the additional yield effect due to organic inputs for arable crops in Europe when macro-nutrients are not a limiting factor. Methods A meta-analysis was performed using data from 20 long-term experiments in Europe. Maxima of yield response curves to nitrogen were compared, with and without organic inputs, under abundant P and K supply. Results We were surprised to find that, across all experiments, the mean additional yield effect of organic inputs was not significant (+ 1.4 % ± 1.6 (95 % confidence interval)). In specific cases however, especially for root and tuber crops, spring sown cereals, or for very sandy soils or wet climates, organic inputs did increase attainable yields. A significant correlation was found between increase in attainable yields and increase in soil organic matter content. Conclusions Aggregating data from 20 long-term experiments in Europe, this study shows that organic inputs and/or soil organic matter do not necessarily increase yields, given sufficient nutrients are supplied by mineral fertilisers. Results show the relevance of some environmental factors for additional yield effect of organic inputs, but no simple relation between organic inputs and crop growth.

It is not known whether dietary guidelines proposing a limited intake of animal protein are compatible with the adoption of circular food systems. Using a resource-allocation model, we compared the effects of circularity on the supply of animal-source nutrients in Europe with the nutritional requirements of the EAT-Lancet reference diet. We found the two to be compatible in terms of total animal-source proteins but not specific animal-source foods; in particular, the EAT-Lancet guidelines recommend larger quantities of poultry meat over beef and pork, while a circular food system produces mainly milk, dairy-beef and pork. Compared with the EAT-Lancet reference diet, greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by up to 31% and arable land use reduced by up to 42%. Careful consideration of the feasible substitutability between animal-source foods is needed to define potential roles of animal products in circular human diets.

Protein transition and circular food system transition are two proposed strategies for supporting food system sustainability. Here we model animal-sourced protein to plant-sourced protein ratios within a European circular food system, finding that maintaining the current animal–plant protein share while redesigning the system with circular principles resulted in the largest relative reduction of 44% in land use and 70% in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared with the current food system. Shifting from a 60:40 to a 40:60 ratio of animal-sourced proteins to plant-sourced proteins yielded a 60% reduction in land use and an 81% GHG emission reduction, while supporting nutritionally adequate diets. Differences between current and recommended total protein intake did not substantially impact minimal land use and GHG emissions. Micronutrient inadequacies occurred with less than 18 g animal protein per capita per day. Redesigning the food system varied depending on whether land use or GHG emissions were reduced—highlighting the need for a food system approach when designing policies to enhance human and planetary health.

Nitrogen (N) supply from organic amendments [such as farmyard manure (FYM), slurries or crop residues] to crops is commonly expressed in the amendment’s Nitrogen Fertiliser Replacement Value (NFRV). Values for NFRV can be determined by comparison of crop yield or N uptake in amended plots against mineral fertiliser-only plots. NFRV is then defined as the amount of mineral fertiliser N saved when using organic amendment-N (kg/kg), while attaining the same crop yield. Factors known to affect NFRV are crop type cultivated, soil type, manuring history and method or time of application. We investigated whether long-term NFRV depends on N application rates. Using data from eight long term experiments in Europe, values of NFRV at low total N supply were compared with values of NFRV at high total N supply. Our findings show that FYM has a significant higher NFRV value at high total N supply than at low total N supply (1.12 vs. 0.53, p = 0.04). For the other amendment types investigated, NFRV was also higher at high total N supply than at low total N supply, but sample sizes were too small or variations too large to detect significant differences. Farmers in Europe usually operate at high rates of total N applied. If fertiliser supplements are based on NFRV of the manure estimated at low total N supply, N fertiliser requirements might be overestimated. This might lead to overuse of N, lower N use efficiency and larger losses of N to the environment.