The authors have put together a commanding review of the impacts of agriculture on the atmosphere. As such it will be a useful contribution to literature, but I recommend that the following comments be taken into consideration to further strengthen the work:

1. The causal linkages from the source and activity emitting pollutants to the fundamental governing chemistry and impacts can be strongly and sequentially highlighted. The manuscript, as it stands, focuses on the magnitude of contributions, but the basic processes influencing emissions and the chemistry pathways need to be explicitly mentioned. This is also true for the discussion of impacts - while there is extensive discussion of the magnitude of impacts, the biochemical pathways that enable such impacts are minimally discussed. This is important for a non-expert to readily understand the complexity and non-linearities in atmospheric chemistry

2.  Comparisons to typical sectors (power generation/industry/transportation) should be provided. Agriculture and food systems are typically unregulated but often have comparable if not outsized impacts on air pollution. 

3. The manuscript has briefly mentioned the need for life-cycle lens (para 75) to characterize the challenges with food systems. The recent literature and many conflicting evidence (as in the case of food miles) should be summarized and better highlighted. 

4. Sections 2.3.1-2.3.4: There is a lot of useful information here, but it may help with readability if the contents were structured in a similar blocks of information. Section 2.3.4, for example, has a lot of discussion of how to model the impacts but the content does not follow the thought indicated in the title.

 5. A lot of the challenges in food systems are dietary choices (either personal choices or as shaped by larger environmental, economic, social structures). The discussion of these choices and impacts must be better highlighted. There is some discussion in Section 3.3. but it must include choices driven by diets (plant v/s animal rich), nutrition (triple burden of malnutrition), access - and of course food loss and waste as nicely discussed by the authors. 

Overall, the authors should consider being succinct as there is overlap in messaging across the manuscript. 

The authors have made a good effort to collect information about sources and effects of nitrogen related to the agriculture and food system. Although there is wide variety of issues that has been dealt with, the overall causal link between are mostly lacking. Especially for new readers in the field, these causal links could be better explained for a better understanding of the issues.

The authors mention knowledge gaps in their introduction. I suppose that most of these knowledge gaps are listed in the closing section. However, if these are indeed the knowledge gaps, they are rather general without sometimes a clear link to the earlier sections. Furthermore, it needs to be clear that these knowledge gaps are most likely not general (global), but rather regional. This because most of the knowledge gaps are already addressed in different regions of the world. In that case these are rather information gaps that knowledge gaps (for which additional research is needed). I would suggest to make clear what is already done and where, so others can take notice and learn from it.

What furthermore is missing (I think), is the notice that the linkage between the agriculture/food systems and the SDG's is not only through the atmospheric pathway, but also (and sometimes maybe even more) through the aquatic pathway. I would suggest to, at least, mention this and, when possible, to give an indication of the relative contributions from these two pathways. This to provide some more context to the reader.