This study diagnoses Circular Economy practices in Brazil’s food-away-from-home sector using survey data (n=1,002) interpreted through the Design for Sustainability framework. Results show fragmented, technocentric actions and weak collaboration, with minimal regenerative practices. Mapping gaps across DfS levels reveals leverage points for redesign in governance, services, value-chain relations, and ecological loops, highlighting the need for systemic, design-led transitions.

The aim of this paper is to review the latest evidence on food reformulation as a public health policy to improve our understanding of how different policy designs can drive reformulation and influence food system change. The focus is on three key nutrients of concern – trans fatty acids, salt and sugar. In recent times, food reformulation has been categorised as either mandatory or voluntary, a distinction that can help assess policy effectiveness. However, this binary classification oversimplifies a far more complex policy landscape. Some policies, whether mandated by government or voluntarily suggested to industry, are explicitly intended to trigger reformulation. In contrast, others, may have never been designed with the intention to encourage reformulation but have nonetheless prompted significant changes in product composition, intake and potential health outcomes. Within what is commonly described as mandatory reformulation, for example, we find a broad mix of policy tools that operate very differently. Some, such as the UK’s Soft Drinks Industry Levy, were deliberately created to incentivise reformulation by applying financial pressure. Others, including front of pack nutrition labelling systems (particularly warning labels) and school food standards have encouraged reformulation only as a positive unintended consequence. These indirect drivers are not always evaluated for their impact on reformulation, which may lead to an incomplete understanding of their contribution to reducing intake of nutrients of concern and improving health outcomes. Nevertheless, emerging evidence suggests no single policy encourages reformulation alone, instead a combination of approaches are likely to drive it and contribute to meaningful and sustained food system change.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly being used in the agrifood sector to improve efficiency, safety and sustainability. The application of the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act’s (AI Act) to the broad spectrum of agrifood AI systems has not been thoroughly analyzed. Therefore, this research article explores the AI Act’s application to the agrifood sector by providing an overview of AI systems in the sector and applying the AI Act’s risk-categorisation system to them. Section II provides an outline of the AI Act and its risk categorisation system. Section III gives an overview of agrifood AI systems and explains how the AI Act applies to them. The AI Act is most significantly applicable to AI safety components that are used in agricultural or agroforestry vehicles and other machinery. Although not many, there are also some types of agrifood AI systems that will be prohibited and that will have special transparency requirements under the AI Act. The paper also identifies potential sector-specific challenges such as a risk to food security, an open question regarding the extensiveness of the meaning of ‘AI safety component’ and the inattention of the AI Act to non-human centred values such as the environment, biodiversity and animal welfare.

This work has the aim of dissecting the legal and policy dress designed for the new “Green” Common Agricultural Policy (CAP 2023–27) across the proposed CAP Strategic plans (CSPs) of the EU member states. The analysis is carried out through the lens of a special inquiry: the consistency and coherence between the CAP and the perspective of the Green Deal and its satellite strategies, among all the Farm to Fork Strategy (F2F) and Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, for transition to a resilient and Sustainable food system. The F2F proposes a roadmap of interventions and sets specific goals to reach such a transition. Within these interventions, a renewed CAP is the first stage through which the direction undertaken by the EU can be measured. Following the new CAP delivery model, this work will investigate the national CSPs and address the consistency of the CAP financial instruments utilised to fulfill the social, economic and environmental objectives of the CAP according to the ambition of the F2F and other key strategies.

By 2050 the number of adults living with obesity in the UK will rise with approximately one in four in the adult population. This rising trend is not equitable, with higher prevalence in socially disadvantaged groups. There is an apparent paradox of not being able to provide food for the family to eat, a feature of food insecurity and living with obesity. With the current cost-of-living crisis, there is a challenge to afford both food and fuel bills. Environmentally sustainable and healthy diets are proposed to improve public health and reduce the impact of the food system on the environment, while also improving diet quality. However, healthier foods tend to be nearly three times more expensive than unhealthy foods, and this provides a challenge for citizens on low incomes. In this review, we explore some of the evidence for solutions in the retail food environment to support the UK food system to be safe, nutritious, environmentally friendly and fair for all. We highlight the value of co-production in research, to give value and power to the lived experience to address these inequalities. Our multidisciplinary research approach within the FIO Food research grant will generate new insights into modifiable and potentially impactful changes to the UK food system, specifically for the retail food sector. We believe that the co-creation, design and delivery of research with those living with obesity and food insecurity will help to transform the UK food system for health and the environment in this vulnerable group.

This paper undertakes a comparative study of two rural mountainous areas participating in global agricultural markets while using, as an interpretative grid, the development of the quality of the products and spaces. We draw on contemporary analysis at the interface of food and agriculture systems through the example of coffee cultivation and consumption in two neighbouring countries: China and Vietnam. The purpose is to understand why these two provinces with similar historical dynamics have two radically different productions of coffee. While China produces Arabica coffee in limited volumes, Vietnam has over the past few decades become the world's second largest producer of Robusta coffee in response to the growing appetite for coffee in Asia. This paper adopts a multidimensional analysis of the quality of coffee based on the cultivation of the plant, the collective construction of quality, and the consumption of the beverage.

A high intake of fruit and vegetables (FV) has consistently been associated with a reduced risk of a number of non-communicable diseases. This evidence base is largely from prospective cohort studies, with meta-analyses demonstrating an association between increased FV intake and reduced risk of both CHD and stroke, although the evidence is less certain for cancer and diabetes. Controlled intervention trials examining either clinical or intermediate risk factor endpoints are more scarce. Therefore, evidence that FV consumption reduces the risk of disease is so far largely confined to observational epidemiology, which is hampered by some methodological uncertainties. Although increased FV intake is promoted across all dietary guidelines, national surveys confirm that dietary intakes are suboptimal and are not increasing over time. A range of barriers to increasing FV intake exist, including economic, physical and behavioural barriers that must be considered when exploring potential opportunities to change this, considering the feasibility of different approaches to encourage increased FV consumption. Such interventions must include consideration of context, for example, challenges and uncertainties which exist with the whole food system.

Implications of the ‘changing world’ for nutrition and nutritionists are considered, using the UK within a global context as an illustration. The first section summarises the slow recognition by policy makers of the significance of the changing world of food and nutrition. The second section ‘Food system stress is now at a critical level’ considers the present scale of global food system stress and the failure so far sufficiently to narrow the gap between evidence and policy change. The year 2021 was earmarked when three major UN conferences had the opportunity to chart food changes ahead. The third section ‘Multi-criteria analysis helps frame 21st century nutrition science’ proposes that multi-criteria analysis is an essential methodology for nutrition within this more complex policy world; nutrition studies can no long exclude social and environmental criteria. The penultimate section ‘Nutrition science can reconnect its life science, social and environmental nutrition traditions to contribute to new paradigm formation’ suggests that nutrition science can now recombine three traditions within its own history to address this complexity: social nutrition, environmental nutrition and life sciences. The final section ‘Priorities ahead’ concludes that this multi-criteria approach to nutrition offers new routes for science and policy influence. Five priorities are identified: (1) clarification of the features of a good food system; (2) new sustainable dietary guidelines which integrate different determinants of sustainability; (3) helping consumer engagement with change; (4) developing improved policy frameworks and (5) contributing to professional channels in these processes. In the UK, while the challenge of narrowing the gap between evidence, policy and change remains daunting, the risks of not attempting to improve the transition to an ecologically sound public health nutrition are even greater.

Due to correlations between purchasing patterns and diet disparities, differences in food shopping patterns and strategies across income levels and other socio-economic characteristics is a widely-studied research area. Most extant literature uses either primary or secondary data, which are often characterized by, respectively, limited geographical scope and considerable level of detail, or wide geographical reach but low detail. That literature also reveals contrasting results based on methods, data sources and geographic location. In this paper, we use three different datasets to characterize the differences in purchasing patterns across income levels, rural–urban status and other variables of food shoppers in the Northeastern USA and compare these trends with existing research. While many of the findings corroborate previous studies, new findings include less reliance on superstores overall, except for rural respondents, and a greater reliance on limited assortment supermarkets for SNAP and low-income households. Food purchasing differences are described by race and ethnicity, income and education, and children in the household. The analysis presented here includes a portion of the work performed by an interdisciplinary team of researchers engaged in the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture's Agriculture and Food Research Initiative project Enhancing Food Security in the Northeast (EFSNE). By using primary data from shoppers' intercept surveys, and secondary data from two large datasets, one of household food purchases and the other of food expenditures, we identify purchasing decisions holding at both the case-study (limited geography) and broader geographic (entire Northeast) levels, which both support previous findings and reveal the need for additional research in this area.

Livestock is a major driver in most rural landscapes and economics, but it also polarises debate over its environmental impacts, animal welfare and human health. Conversely, the various services that livestock farming systems provide to society are often overlooked and have rarely been quantified. The aim of analysing bundles of services is to chart the coexistence and interactions between the various services and impacts provided by livestock farming, and to identify sets of ecosystem services (ES) that appear together repeatedly across sites and through time. We review three types of approaches that analyse associations among impacts and services from local to global scales: (i) detecting ES associations at system or landscape scale, (ii) identifying and mapping bundles of ES and impacts and (iii) exploring potential drivers using prospective scenarios. At a local scale, farming practices interact with landscape heterogeneity in a multi-scale process to shape grassland biodiversity and ES. Production and various ES provided by grasslands to farmers, such as soil fertility, biological regulations and erosion control, benefit to some extent from the functional diversity of grassland species, and length of pasture phase in the crop rotation. Mapping ES from the landscape up to the EU-wide scale reveals a frequent trade-off between livestock production on one side and regulating and cultural services on the other. Maps allow the identification of target areas with higher ecological value or greater sensitivity to risks. Using two key factors (livestock density and the proportion of permanent grassland within utilised agricultural area), we identified six types of European livestock production areas characterised by contrasted bundles of services and impacts. Livestock management also appeared to be a key driver of bundles of services in prospective scenarios. These scenarios simulate a breakaway from current production, legislation (e.g. the use of food waste to fatten pigs) and consumption trends (e.g. halving animal protein consumption across Europe). Overall, strategies that combine a reduction of inputs, of the use of crops from arable land to feed livestock, of food waste and of meat consumption deliver a more sustainable food future. Livestock as part of this sustainable future requires further enhancement, quantification and communication of the services provided by livestock farming to society, which calls for the following: (i) a better targeting of public support, (ii) more precise quantification of bundles of services and (iii) better information to consumers and assessment of their willingness to pay for these services.