Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-12 (section)

=== 12.4.4 Enabling Food System Transformation ===

<div id="h2-16-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Food system mitigation potentials in AFOLU are assessed in [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-7#7.4|Section 7.4]] , and food system mitigation potentials linked to demand-side measures are assessed in Chapter 5. Studies suggest that implementing supply- and demand-side policies in combination makes ambitious mitigation targets easier to achieve ( [[#Clark--2020|Clark et al. 2020]] ; [[#Global%20Panel%20on%20Agriculture%20and%20Food%20Systems%20for%20Nutrition--2020|Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition 2020]] ; [[#Temme--2020|Temme et al. 2020]] ; [[#Latka--2021|Latka et al. 2021]] a) ( ''high agreement'' , ''lim'' ''ited evidence'' ) ''.''

The trends in the global and national food systems towards a globalisation of food supply chains and increasing dominance of supermarkets and large corporate food processors ( [[#Dries--2004|Dries et al. 2004]] ; [[#Neven--2004|Neven and Reardon 2004]] ; [[#Baker--2016|Baker and Friel 2016]] ; [[#Andam--2018|Andam et al. 2018]] ; [[#Popkin--2018|Popkin and Reardon 2018]] ; [[#Reardon--2019|Reardon et al. 2019]] ; [[#Pereira--2020|Pereira et al. 2020]] ) have led to environmental, food insecurity and malnutrition problems. Studies therefore call for a transformation of current global and national food systems to solve these problems (Schösler and Boer 2018; [[#McBey--2019|McBey et al. 2019]] ; [[#Kugelberg--2021|Kugelberg et al. 2021]] ). This has not yet been successful, including due to insufficient coordination between relevant food system policies ( [[#Weber--2020|Weber et al. 2020]] ) ( ''medium evidence, h'' ''igh agreement'' ) ''.''

Different elements of food systems are currently governed by separate policy areas that in most countries scarcely interact or cooperate ( [[#Termeer--2018|Termeer et al. 2018]] ; [[#iPES%20Food--2019|iPES Food 2019]] ). This compartmentalisation makes the identification of synergetic and antagonistic effects difficult and faces the possibility of failure due to unintended and unanticipated negative impacts on other policy areas and consequently lack of agreement and social acceptance ( [[#Mylona--2018|Mylona et al. 2018]] ; [[#Brouwer--2020|Brouwer et al. 2020]] ; [[#Mausch--2020|Mausch et al. 2020]] ; [[#Hebinck--2021|Hebinck et al. 2021]] ) ( [[#12.4.5|Section 12.4.5]] ). This could be overcome through cooperation across several policy areas (Sections 12.6.2 and 13.7), in particular agriculture, nutrition, health, trade, climate and environment, and an inclusive and transparent governance structure ( [[#Termeer--2018|Termeer et al. 2018]] ; [[#Bhunnoo--2019|Bhunnoo 2019]] ; [[#Diercks--2019|Diercks et al. 2019]] ; [[#Herrero--2021|Herrero et al. 2021]] ; [[#iPES%20Food--2019|iPES Food 2019]] ; [[#Mausch--2020|Mausch et al. 2020]] ; [[#Kugelberg--2021|Kugelberg et al. 2021]] ), making use of potential spillover effects ( [[#Kanter--2020|Kanter et al. 2020]] ; [[#OECD--2021|OECD 2021]] ).

Transformation of food systems may come from technological, social or institutional innovations that start as niches but can potentially lead to rapid changes, including changes in social conventions ( [[#Centola--2018|Centola et al. 2018]] ; [[#Benton--2019|Benton et al. 2019]] ).

Where calories and ruminant animal-source food are consumed in excess of health guidelines, reduction of excess meat (and dairy) consumption is among the most effective measures to mitigate GHG emissions, with a high potential for environment, health, food security, biodiversity, and animal welfare co-benefits ( [[#Hedenus--2014|Hedenus et al. 2014]] ; [[#Springmann--2018a|Springmann et al. 2018a]] ; [[#Chai--2019|Chai et al. 2019]] ; [[#Chen--2019|Chen et al. 2019]] ; [[#Kim--2019|Kim et al. 2019]] ; [[#Willett--2019|Willett et al. 2019]] ; [[#Semba--2020|Semba et al. 2020]] ; [[#Theurl--2020|Theurl et al. 2020]] ; [[#Hamilton--2021|Hamilton et al. 2021]] ; [[#Stylianou--2021|Stylianou et al. 2021]] ) ( ''robust evidence,'' ''high agreement'' ) ''.'' Dietary changes are relevant for several SDGs, in addition to SDG 13 (climate action), including SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 3 (good health and well-being), SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), SDG 14 (life below water) and SDG 15 (life on land) (Bruce M et al. 2018; [[#Mbow--2019|Mbow et al. 2019]] ; [[#Vanham--2019|Vanham et al. 2019]] ; [[#Herrero--2021|Herrero et al. 2021]] ) ( [[#12.6.1|Section 12.6.1]] ). However, behavioural change towards diets of lower environmental impact and higher nutritional qualities faces barriers both from agricultural producers and consumers ( [[#Apostolidis--2016|Apostolidis and McLeay 2016]] ; Aiking and de Boer 2018; [[#de%20Boer--2018|de Boer et al. 2018]] ; [[#Milford--2019|Milford et al. 2019]] ), and requires policy packages that combine informative instruments with behavioural, administrative and/or market-based instruments, and are attentive to the needs of, and engage, all food system stakeholders including civil society networks, and change the food environment ( [[#Cornelsen--2015|Cornelsen et al. 2015]] ; [[#Kraak--2017|Kraak et al. 2017]] ; [[#Stoll-Kleemann--2017|Stoll-Kleemann and Schmidt 2017]] ; [[#El%20Bilali--2019|El Bilali 2019]] ; [[#iPES%20Food--2019|iPES Food 2019]] ; [[#Milford--2019|Milford et al. 2019]] ; [[#Temme--2020|Temme et al. 2020]] ) ( [[#12.4.1|Section 12.4.1]] ) ( ''robust evidence, h'' ''igh agreement'' ).

Table 12.9 summarises the implications of a range of policy instruments discussed in more detail in the following sub-sections and highlights the benefits of integrated policy packages. Furthermore, Table 12.9 assesses transformative potential, environmental effectiveness, feasibility, distributional effect, cost, and cost-benefits and trade-offs of individual policy instruments, as well as their potential role as part of coherent policy packages. Table 12.9 shows that information and behavioural policy instruments can have significant but small effects in changing diets ( ''robust evidence'' '', medium agreement'' ), but are mutually enforcing and might be essential to lower barriers and increase acceptance of market-based and administrative instruments ( ''medium evidence, h'' ''igh agreement'' ).

'''Table 12.9 | Assessment of food system policies targeting (post-farm gate) food chain actors''' '''and consumers.'''

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! '''Level G: global/multinational; N: national; L: local'''

! '''Transformative potential'''

! '''Environmental effectiveness'''

! '''Feasibility'''

! '''Distributional effects'''

! '''Cost'''

! '''Co-benefits''' a '''and adverse side effect'''

! '''Implications for coordination, coherence and consistency in policy package''' b

|-
| '''Integrated food policy packages'''

| '''NL'''

|
| '''can be controlled'''

| '''cost efficient'''

| '''+ balanced, addresses multiple sustainability goals'''

| Reduces cost of uncoordinated interventions; increases acceptance across stakeholders and civil society ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' )

|-
| Taxes on food products

| GN

|
| '''regressive'''

| low # 1

| '''– unintended substitution effects'''

| High enforcing effect on other food policies; higher acceptance if compensation or hypothecated taxes ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' )

|-
| rowspan="2"| GHG taxes on food

| rowspan="2"| GN

| rowspan="2"|
| rowspan="2"| '''regressive'''

| rowspan="2"| low # 2

| '''– unintended substitution effects'''

| rowspan="2"| Supportive, enabling effect on other food policies, agricultural/fishery policies; requires changes in power distribution and trade agreements ( ''medium evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' )

|-
| + high spillover effect

|-
| rowspan="2"| Trade policies

| rowspan="2"| G

| rowspan="2"|
| rowspan="2"| impacts global distribution

| rowspan="2"| complex effects

| + counters leakage effects

| rowspan="2"| Requires changes in existing trade agreements ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' )

|-
| +/– effects on market structure and jobs

|-
| Investment into research and innovation

| GN

|
| none

| medium

| + high spillover effect + converging with digital society

| Can fill targeted gaps for coordinated policy packages (e.g., monitoring methods) ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' )

|-
| Food and marketing regulations

| N

|
| low

|
| Can be supportive; might be supportive to realise innovation; voluntary standards might be less effective ( ''medium evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' )

|-
| Organisational-level procurement policies

| NL

|
| low

| + can address multiple sustainability goals

| Enabling effect on other food policies; reaches large share of population ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' )

|-
| Sustainable food-based dietary guidelines

| GNL

|
| none

| low

| + can address multiple sustainability goals

| Little attention so far on environmental aspects; can serve as benchmark for other policies (labels, food formulation standards, etc.) ( ''medium evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' )

|-
| Food labels/ information

| GNL

|
| education level relevant

| low

| + empowers citizens

+ increases awareness

+ multiple objectives

| Effective mainly as part of a policy package; incorporation of other objectives (e.g., animal welfare, fair trade); higher effect if mandatory ( ''medium evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' )

|-
| Nudges

| NL

|
| none

| low

| + possibly counteracting information deficits in population subgroups

| High enabling effect on other food policies ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' )

|}

Effect of measures:   negative   none/unclear   slightly positive   positive 

Notes: #1 Minimum level to be effective 20% price increase; #2 Minimum level to be effective USD50–80 tCO 2 -eq. a In addition, all interventions are assumed to address health and climate change mitigation. b Requires coordination between policy areas, participation of stakeholders, transparent methods and indicators to manage trade-offs and prioritisation between possibly conflicting objectives; and suitable indicators for monitoring and evaluation against objectives.

The policy instruments are assessed in relation to shifting food consumption and production towards increased sustainability and health. This includes lowering GHG emissions, although not in all cases is this the primary focus of the instrument, and in some cases lowering GHG emissions may not even be explicitly mentioned.

<div id="12.4.4.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="market-based-instruments"></span>
==== 12.4.4.1 Market-based Instruments ====

<div id="h3-12-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

'''Taxes and subsidies:''' Food-based taxes have largely been implemented to reduce non-communicable diseases and sugar intake, particularly those targeting sugar-sweetened beverages ( [[#WHO--2019|WHO 2019]] ). Many health-related organisations recommend the introduction of such taxes to improve the nutritional quality of marketed products and consumers’ diets ( [[#Wright--2017|Wright et al. 2017]] ; [[#Park--2019|Park and Yu 2019]] ; [[#WHO--2019|WHO 2019]] ), even though the impacts of food taxes are complex due to cross-price and substitution effects and supplier reactions ( [[#Cornelsen--2015|Cornelsen et al. 2015]] ; [[#Gren--2019|Gren et al. 2019]] ; [[#Blakely--2020|Blakely et al. 2020]] ) and can have a regressive effect ( [[#WHO--2019|WHO 2019]] ). Subsidies and taxes are found to be effective in changing dietary behaviour at levels above 20% price increase ( [[#Cornelsen--2015|Cornelsen et al. 2015]] ; [[#Niebylski--2015|Niebylski et al. 2015]] ; [[#Nakhimovsky--2016|Nakhimovsky et al. 2016]] ; [[#Hagenaars--2017|Hagenaars et al. 2017]] ; [[#Mozaffarian--2018|Mozaffarian et al. 2018]] ), even though longer-term effects are scarcely studied ( [[#Cornelsen--2015|Cornelsen et al. 2015]] ) and effects of sugar tax with tax rates lower than 20% have been observed for low-income groups ( [[#Temme--2020|Temme et al. 2020]] ).

Modelling results show only small consumption shifts with moderate meat price increases; and high price increases are required to reach mitigation targets, even though model predictions become highly uncertain due to lack of observational data ( [[#Mazzocchi--2017|Mazzocchi 2017]] ; [[#Bonnet--2018|Bonnet et al. 2018]] ; [[#Fellmann--2018|Fellmann et al. 2018]] ; [[#Zech--2019|Zech and Schneider 2019]] ; [[#Latka--2021|Latka et al. 2021]] b). Taxes applied at the consumer level are found to be more effective than levying the taxes on the production side ( [[#Springmann--2017|Springmann et al. 2017]] ).

Unilateral taxes on food with high GHG intensities have been shown to induce increases in net export flows, which could reduce global prices and increase global demand. Indirect effects on GHG mitigation therefore could be reduced by up to 70–90% of national results ( [[#Fellmann--2018|Fellmann et al. 2018]] ; [[#Zech--2019|Zech and Schneider 2019]] ) ( ''limited evidence, high agreement'' ). The global mitigation potential for GHG taxation of food products at USD52 kgCO 2 -eq –1 has been estimated at 1 GtCO 2 -eq yr –1 ( [[#Springmann--2017|Springmann et al. 2017]] ).

Studies have shown that taxes can improve the nutritional quality of diets and reduce GHG emissions from the food system, particularly if accompanied by other policies that increase acceptance and elasticity, and reduce regressive and distributional problems ( [[#Niebylski--2015|Niebylski et al. 2015]] ; [[#Hagenaars--2017|Hagenaars et al. 2017]] ; [[#Mazzocchi--2017|Mazzocchi 2017]] ; [[#Springmann--2017|Springmann et al. 2017]] ; [[#Wright--2017|Wright et al. 2017]] ; [[#Henderson--2018|Henderson et al. 2018]] ; [[#Säll--2018|Säll 2018]] ; [[#FAO--2020|FAO et al. 2020]] ; [[#Penne--2020|Penne and Goedemé 2020]] ) ( ''robust evidence, h'' ''igh agreement'' ) ''.''

'''Trade:''' Since the middle of the last century, global trade in agricultural products has contributed to boosting productivity and reducing commodity prices, while also incentivising national subsidies for farmers to remain competitive in the global market ( [[#Benton--2019|Benton et al. 2019]] ). Trade liberalisation has been coined as an essential element of sustainable food systems, and as one element required to achieve sustainable development, that can shift pressure to regions where the resources are less scarce ( [[#Wood--2018|Wood et al. 2018]] ; Traverso and Schiavo 2020). However, [[#Clapp--2017|Clapp (2017)]] argues that the main economic benefit of trade liberalisation flows to large transnational firms. Benton and Bailey (2019) argue that low food prices in the second half of last century contributed to both yield and food waste increases, and to a focus on staple crops to the disadvantage of nutrient-dense foods. However, global trade can also contribute to economic benefits such as jobs and income, reduce food insecurity and facilitate access to nutrients ( [[#Wood--2018|Wood et al. 2018]] ; Hoff et al. 2019; Traverso and Schiavo 2020; [[#Geyik--2021|Geyik et al. 2021]] ) and has contributed to increased food supply diversity ( [[#Kummu--2020|Kummu et al. 2020]] ). The relevance of trade for food security, and adaptation and mitigation of agricultural production, has also been discussed in [[#Mbow--2019|Mbow et al. (2019)]] .

Trade policies can be used to protect national food system measures, by requiring front-of-package labels, or to impose border taxes on unhealthy products ( [[#Thow--2019|Thow and Nisbett 2019]] ). For example, in the frame of the Pacific Obesity Prevention in Communities project, the Fijian government implemented three measures (out of seven proposed) that eliminated import duties on fruits and vegetables, and imposed 15% import duties on unhealthy oils ( [[#Latu--2018|Latu et al. 2018]] ). Trade agreements, however, have the potential to undermine national efforts to improve public health ( [[#Unar-Munguía--2019|Unar-Munguía et al. 2019]] ). GHG mitigation efforts in food supply chains can be counteracted by GHG leakage, with a general increase of environmental and social impact in developing countries exporting food products, and a decrease in the developed countries importing food products ( [[#Fellmann--2018|Fellmann et al. 2018]] ; [[#Sandström--2018|Sandström et al. 2018]] ; [[#Wiedmann--2018|Wiedmann and Lenzen 2018]] ). The demand for agricultural commodities has also been associated with tropical deforestation, though a robust estimate on the extent of embodied deforestation in food commodities is not available ( [[#Pendrill--2019|Pendrill et al. 2019]] ).

'''Investment into research and innovation:''' [[#El%20Bilali--2019|El Bilali (2019)]] assessed research gaps in the food system transition literature and found a need to develop comparative studies that enable the assessment of spatial variability and scalability of food system transitions. The author found also that the role of private industry and corporate business is scarcely researched, although they could play a major role in food system transitions.

The InterAcademy Partnership assessed how research can contribute to providing the required evidence and opportunities for food system transitions, with a focus on climate change impacts and mitigation ( [[#IAP--2018|IAP 2018]] ). The project builds on four regional assessments of opportunities and challenges on food and nutrition security in Africa ( [[#NASAC--2018|NASAC 2018]] ), the Americas ( [[#IANAS--2018|IANAS 2018]] ), Asia ( [[#AASSA--2018|AASSA 2018]] ), and Europe ( [[#EASAC--2017|EASAC 2017]] ). The Partnership concludes with a set of research questions around food systems, that need to be better understood: (i) how are sustainable food systems constituted in different contexts and at different scales? (ii) how can transition towards sustainable food systems be achieved? and (iii) how can success and failure be measured along sustainability dimensions including climate mitigation?

<div id="12.4.4.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="regulatory-and-administrative-instruments"></span>
==== 12.4.4.2 Regulatory and Administrative Instruments ====

<div id="h3-13-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

'''Marketing regulations:''' Currently, 16 countries regulate marketing of unhealthy food to children, mainly on television and in schools ( [[#Taillie--2019|Taillie et al. 2019]] ), and many other efforts are ongoing across the globe ( [[#European%20Commission--2019|European Commission 2019]] ). The aim to counter the increase in obesity in children and target products high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, free sugars and/or salt ( [[#WHO--2010|WHO 2010]] ) was endorsed by 192 countries ( [[#Kovic--2018|Kovic et al. 2018]] ). Nutrition and health claims for products are used by industry to increase sales, for example in the sport sector or for breakfast cereals. They can be informative, but can also be misleading if misused for promoting unhealthy food ( [[#Whalen--2018|Whalen et al. 2018]] ; [[#Ghosh--2019|Ghosh and Sen 2019]] ; [[#Sussman--2019|Sussman et al. 2019]] ).

Strong statutory marketing regulations can significantly reduce the exposure of children to, and sales of, unhealthy food compared with voluntary restrictions ( [[#Kovic--2018|Kovic et al. 2018]] ; [[#Temme--2020|Temme et al. 2020]] ). Data on effectiveness of marketing regulations with a broader food sustainability scope are not available. On the other hand, regulations that mobilise private investment into emerging food production technologies can be instrumental in curbing the cost and making them competitive ( [[#Bianchi--2018a|Bianchi et al. 2018a]] ).

'''Voluntary sustainability standards:''' Voluntary sustainability standards are developed either by a public entity or by private organisations to respond to consumers’ demands for social and environmental standards ( [[#Fiorini--2019|Fiorini et al. 2019]] ). For example, the Dutch Green Protein Alliance, an alliance of government, industry, NGOs and academia, formulated a goal to shift the ratio of protein consumption from 60% animal source proteins currently to 40% by 2050 ( [[#Aiking--2020|Aiking and de Boer 2020]] ), and Cool Food Pledge signatories (organisations that serve food, such as restaurants, hospitals and universities) committed to a 25% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030, compared with 2015 ( [[#Cool%20Food--2020|Cool Food 2020]] ). For firms, obtaining certification under such schemes can be costly, and costs are generally borne by the producers and/or supply chain stakeholders ( [[#Fiorini--2019|Fiorini et al. 2019]] ). The effectiveness of private voluntary sustainability standards is uncertain. [[#Cazzolla%20Gatti--2019|Cazzolla Gatti et al. (2019)]] have investigated the effectiveness of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil on halting forest loss and habitat degradation in Southeast Asia and concluded that production of certified palm oil continued to lead to deforestation.

'''Organisational procurement:''' Green public procurement is a policy that aims to create additional demand for sustainable products ( [[#Bergmann%20Madsen--2018|Bergmann Madsen 2018]] ; [[#Mazzocchi--2019|Mazzocchi and Marino 2019]] ) or decrease demand for less sustainable products (e.g., the introduction of ‘Meatless Monday’ by the Norwegian Armed Forces) ( [[#Cheng--2018|Cheng et al. 2018]] ; [[#Gava--2018|Gava et al. 2018]] ; [[#Milford--2019|Milford and Kildal 2019]] ; [[#Wilts--2019|Wilts et al. 2019]] ). To improve dietary choices, organisations can increase the price of unsustainable options while decreasing the price of sustainable ones, or employ information or choice architecture measures ( [[#Goggins--2016|Goggins and Rau 2016]] ; [[#Goggins--2018|Goggins 2018]] ). Procurement guidelines exist at global, national, organisational or local levels ( [[#Noonan--2013|Noonan et al. 2013]] ; [[#Neto--2018|Neto and Gama Caldas 2018]] ). Procurement rules in schools or public canteens increase the accessibility of healthy food and can improve dietary behaviour and decrease purchases of unhealthy food ( [[#Cheng--2018|Cheng et al. 2018]] ; [[#Temme--2020|Temme et al. 2020]] ).

'''Food regulations:''' Novel foods based on insects, microbial proteins or cellular agriculture must go through authorisation processes to ensure compliance with food safety standards before they can be sold to consumers. Several countries have ‘novel food’ regulations governing the approval of foods for human consumption. For example, the European Commission, in its update of the Novel Food Regulation in 2015, expanded its definition of novel food to include food from cell cultures, or that produced from animals by non-traditional breeding techniques ( [[#EU--2015|EU 2015]] ).

For animal product analogues, regulatory pathways and procedures ( [[#Stephens--2018|Stephens et al. 2018]] ) and terminology issues (defining equivalence questions) ( [[#Carrenõ--2018|Carrenõ and Dolle 2018]] ; [[#Pisanello--2018|Pisanello and Ferraris 2018]] ) need clarification, as does their relation to religious rules ( [[#Chriki--2020|Chriki and Hocquette 2020]] ).

Examples of legislation targeting food waste include the French ban on wasting food approaching best-before dates, requiring its donation to charity organisations ( [[#Global%20Alliance%20for%20the%20Future%20of%20Food--2020|Global Alliance for the Future of Food 2020]] ). In Japan, the Food Waste Recycling Law set targets for food waste recycling for industries in the food sector for 2020, ranging between 50% for restaurants and 95% for food manufacturers ( [[#Liu--2016|Liu et al. 2016]] ).

<div id="12.4.4.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="informative-instruments."></span>
==== 12.4.4.3 Informative Instruments. ====

<div id="h3-14-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

'''Sustainable food-based dietary guidelines:''' National food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs) provide science-based recommendations on food group consumption quantities. They are available for 94, mostly upper- and middle-income, countries globally ( [[#Wijesinha-Bettoni--2021|Wijesinha-Bettoni et al. 2021]] ), are adapted to national cultural and socio-economic context, and can be used as a benchmark for food formulation standards for public and private food procurement, or to inform citizens ( [[#Bechthold--2018|Bechthold et al. 2018]] ; [[#Temme--2020|Temme et al. 2020]] ). Most FBDGs are based on health considerations and only a few mention environmental sustainability aspects ( [[#Bechthold--2018|Bechthold et al. 2018]] ; [[#Ritchie--2018|Ritchie et al. 2018]] ; [[#Ahmed--2019|Ahmed et al. 2019]] ; [[#Springmann--2020|Springmann et al. 2020]] ). Implementation of FBDGs so far focuses largely in the education and health sectors, with few countries also using their potential for guiding food system policies in other sectors ( [[#Wijesinha-Bettoni--2021|Wijesinha-Bettoni et al. 2021]] ).

Despite the fact that 1.5 billion people follow a vegetarian diet from choice or necessity, and that the position statements of various nutrition societies point out that vegetarian diets are adequate if well planned, few FBDGs give recommendations for vegetarian diets ( [[#Costa%20Leite--2020|Costa Leite et al. 2020]] ). An increase in consumption of plant-based food is a recurring recommendation in FBDGs, though an explicit reduction or limit of animal-source proteins is not often included, with the exception of red or processed meat ( [[#Temme--2020|Temme et al. 2020]] ). To account for changing dietary trends, however, FBDGs need to incorporate sustainability aspects ( [[#Herforth--2019|Herforth et al. 2019]] ). A healthy diet respecting planetary boundaries has been proposed by [[#Willett--2019|Willett et al. (2019)]] , though some authors have questioned the validity of the nutritional ( [[#Zagmutt--2019|Zagmutt et al. 2019]] ) or environmental implications, such as water use ( [[#Vanham--2020|Vanham et al. 2020]] ). In October 2019, 14 global cities pledged to adhere to this ‘planetary health diet’ ( [[#C40%20Cities--2019|C40 Cities 2019]] ).

'''Education on food/nutrition and environment:''' Some consumers are reluctant to adopt sustainable healthy dietary patterns because of a lack of awareness of the environmental and health consequences of what they eat, but also out of suspicion towards alternatives that are perceived as not ‘natural’ and that seem to be difficult to integrate into their daily dietary habits ( [[#Hartmann--2017|Hartmann and Siegrist 2017]] ; [[#Stephens--2018|Stephens et al. 2018]] ; [[#McBey--2019|McBey et al. 2019]] ; [[#Siegrist--2020|Siegrist and Hartmann 2020]] ) or simply lack of knowledge on how to prepare or eat unfamiliar foods ( [[#El%20Bilali--2019|El Bilali 2019]] ; [[#Aiking--2020|Aiking and de Boer 2020]] ; [[#Temme--2020|Temme et al. 2020]] ). Misconceptions may contribute, for example, to the belief that packaging or ‘food miles’ dominate the climate impact of food ( [[#Macdiarmid--2016|Macdiarmid et al. 2016]] ). However, spillover effects can induce sustainable behaviour from ‘entry points’ such as concerns about food waste ( [[#El%20Bilali--2019|El Bilali 2019]] ). Early-life experiences are crucial determinants for adopting healthy and sustainable lifestyles ( [[#Bascopé--2019|Bascopé et al. 2019]] ; [[#McBey--2019|McBey et al. 2019]] ), so improved understanding of sustainability aspects in the education of public health practitioners and in university education is proposed ( [[#Wegener--2018|Wegener et al. 2018]] ). Investment in education, particularly of women ( [[#Vermeulen--2020|Vermeulen et al. 2020]] ), might lower the barrier for stronger policies to be accepted and effective ( [[#McBey--2019|McBey et al. 2019]] ; [[#Temme--2020|Temme et al. 2020]] ) ( ''medium evidence, h'' ''igh agreement'' ) ''.''

'''Food labels:''' Instruments to improve transparency and information on food sustainability aspects are based on the assumption of the ‘rational’ consumer. Information gives the necessary freedom of choice, but also the responsibility to make the ‘right choice’ ( [[#Kersh--2015|Kersh 2015]] ; [[#Bucher--2016|Bucher et al. 2016]] ). Studies find a lack of consumer awareness about the link between own food choices and environmental effect ( [[#Grebitus--2016|Grebitus et al. 2016]] ; [[#Leach--2016|Leach et al. 2016]] ; [[#Hartmann--2017|Hartmann and Siegrist 2017]] ; [[#de%20Boer--2018|de Boer et al. 2018]] ) and so effective messaging is required to raise awareness and acceptance of potentially stricter food system policies.

Back-of-package labels usually provide detailed nutritional information ( [[#Temple--2019|Temple 2019]] ). Front-of-package labels simplify and interpret the information: for example, the traffic light system or the Nutri-Score label used in France ( [[#Kanter--2018b|Kanter et al. 2018b]] ) and the health star rating used in Australia and New Zealand ( [[#Shahid--2020|Shahid et al. 2020]] ) provide an aggregate rating based on product attributes such as energy, sugar, saturated fat and fibre content; other labels warn against frequent consumption (e.g., in the 1990s Finland introduced a mandatory warning for products high in salt; the keyhole label was introduced in Sweden in 1989 ( [[#Storcksdieck%20genannt%20Bonsmann--2020|Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann et al. 2020]] ); and ‘high in’ (energy/saturated fat/sugar) labels were introduced in Chile in 2016 to reduce obesity ( [[#Corvalán--2019|Corvalán et al. 2019]] )). Front-of-package labels serve also as an incentive to industry to produce healthier or more sustainable products, or can serve as a marketing strategy ( [[#Van%20Loo--2014|Van Loo et al. 2014]] ; [[#Apostolidis--2016|Apostolidis and McLeay 2016]] ; [[#Kanter--2018b|Kanter et al. 2018b]] ). Carbon footprint labels can be difficult for consumers to understand ( [[#Hyland--2017|Hyland et al. 2017]] ), and simple, interpretative summary indicators used on front-of-package labels (e.g., traffic lights) are more effective than more complex ones ( [[#Bauer--2019|Bauer and Reisch 2019]] ; [[#Ikonen--2019|Ikonen et al. 2019]] ; [[#Temple--2019|Temple 2019]] ; [[#Tørris--2019|Tørris and Mobekk 2019]] ) ( ''robust evidence, high agreement'' ) ''.'' Reviews find mixed results but overall a positive effect of food labels in improving direct purchasing decisions ( [[#Hieke--2016|Hieke and Harris 2016]] ; [[#Sarink--2016|Sarink et al. 2016]] ; [[#Anastasiou--2019|Anastasiou et al. 2019]] ; [[#Shangguan--2019|Shangguan et al. 2019]] ; [[#Temple--2019|Temple 2019]] ), and in raising levels of awareness, thus possibly increasing success of other policy instruments ( [[#Apostolidis--2016|Apostolidis and McLeay 2016]] ; [[#Samant--2016|Samant and Seo 2016]] ; [[#Al-Khudairy--2019|Al-Khudairy et al. 2019]] ; [[#Miller--2019|Miller et al. 2019]] ; [[#Temple--2019|Temple 2019]] ) ( ''medium evidence'' , ''h'' ''igh agreement'' ).

<div id="12.4.4.4" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="behavioural-instruments"></span>
==== 12.4.4.4 Behavioural Instruments ====

<div id="h3-15-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Choice architecture: Information is more effective if accompanied by reinforcement through structural changes or by changing the food environment, such as through product placement in supermarkets, to overcome the intention–behaviour gap ( [[#Bucher--2016|Bucher et al. 2016]] ; [[#Broers--2017|Broers et al. 2017]] ; [[#Tørris--2019|Tørris and Mobekk 2019]] ). Behavioural change strategies have also been shown to improve efficiencies of school food programmes ( [[#Marcano-Olivier--2020|Marcano-Olivier et al. 2020]] ).

Environmental considerations rank behind financial, health, or sensory factors for determining citizens’ food choices ( [[#Leach--2016|Leach et al. 2016]] ; [[#Hartmann--2017|Hartmann and Siegrist 2017]] ; [[#Neff--2018|Neff et al. 2018]] ; [[#Rose--2018|Rose 2018]] ; [[#Gustafson--2019|Gustafson et al. 2019]] ). There is evidence that choice architecture (‘nudging’) can be effective in influencing purchase decisions, but regulators do not normally explore this option ( [[#Broers--2017|Broers et al. 2017]] ). Examples of green nudging include making the sustainable option the default option, enhancing visibility, accessibility of, or exposure to, sustainable products and reducing visibility and accessibility of unsustainable products, or increasing the salience of healthy sustainable choices through social norms or food labels ( [[#Bucher--2016|Bucher et al. 2016]] ; [[#Wilson--2016|Wilson et al. 2016]] ; [[#Broers--2017|Broers et al. 2017]] ; [[#Al-Khudairy--2019|Al-Khudairy et al. 2019]] ; [[#Bauer--2019|Bauer and Reisch 2019]] ; [[#Ferrari--2019|Ferrari et al. 2019]] ; [[#Weinrich--2019|Weinrich and Elshiewy 2019]] ; [[#Cialdini--2021|Cialdini and Jacobson 2021]] ). Available evidence suggests that choice architecture measures are relatively inexpensive and easy to implement ( [[#Ferrari--2019|Ferrari et al. 2019]] ; [[#Tørris--2019|Tørris and Mobekk 2019]] ), they are a preferred solution if a restriction of choices is to be avoided ( [[#Wilson--2016|Wilson et al. 2016]] ; [[#Kraak--2017|Kraak et al. 2017]] ; [[#Vecchio--2019|Vecchio and Cavallo 2019]] ), and can be effective ( [[#Arno--2016|Arno and Thomas 2016]] ; [[#Bucher--2016|Bucher et al. 2016]] ; [[#Bianchi--2018b|Bianchi et al. 2018b]] ; [[#Cadario--2018|Cadario and Chandon 2018]] ) if embedded in policy packages ( [[#Wilson--2016|Wilson et al. 2016]] ; [[#Tørris--2019|Tørris and Mobekk 2019]] ) ( ''medium evidence, h'' ''igh agreement'' ).

Choice architecture measures are also facilitated by growing market shares of animal-free protein sources taken up by discount chains and fast food companies, that enhance visibility of new products and ease integration into daily life for consumers, particularly if sustainable products are similar to the products they substitute (Slade 2018). This effect can be further increased by media and role models ( [[#Elgaaied-Gambier--2018|Elgaaied-Gambier et al. 2018]] ).

<div id="12.4.5" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="food-systems-governance"></span>