This briefing note by think tank ECDPM sets out a five-step methodology, developed by ECDPM and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), for stimulating investments in sustainable food systems by strengthening collaboration between public and private actors. It also outlines lessons learned from the application of the methodology in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kenya and Niger.

This report by the animal welfare campaign group Compassion in World Farming outlines and makes counterarguments to four narratives that it argues are being used to justify factory farming, i.e. intensive livestock farming based on high levels of edible crops as feed inputs. The four narratives are: that factory farming is necessary to feed a growing global population; that it is efficient; that it is a source of cheap food; and that it is compatible with climate mitigation targets. The report also examines the influence of large animal feed production companies on the food system.

This report by the Dutch think tank Questionmark examines how Swedish supermarkets encourage the consumption of meat, notably by multi-buy discounts where customers only receive a discount if they buy multiple items. Furthermore, the types of meat that are promoted by the four biggest supermarkets are very rarely (in only 3% of meat promotions) rated “green” (i.e. most sustainable) by the Swedish WWF meat guide (see also the TABLE blog The Swedish Meat Guide – multidisciplinary research that reached society).

This report by the UK’s Food Foundation examines the challenges faced by families in the UK who are unable to access certain public services as a result of the “No Recourse to Public Funds” (NRPF) conditions attached to their immigration status, for example while seeking asylum. Based on interviews with affected families, the study finds that the hostile environment towards immigrants created by UK government policy contributes to a “state of perpetual instability” in relation to people’s ability to access adequate shelter and income - and hence contributing to food insecurity and dietary inequalities.

This article offers a global review of how different countries account for environmental sustainability within their food-based dietary guidelines (FBDGs). It finds that of the 83 countries assessed, 37 mention environmental sustainability but few give detailed advice on how to adopt a sustainable diet. The paper counts how many countries mention each of 16 different guiding principles for sustainable healthy diets - for example, 23 countries mention reducing the consumption of animal-based foods. The paper mentions Denmark and Belgium as demonstrating “exemplary” discussion of sustainability in their FBDGs.

The Food Compass scoring system is an algorithm developed by researchers at Tufts University to assess the healthfulness of different food types. It has attracted some controversy on social media because of its counterintuitive rankings of some foods. This paper finds that following a diet that scores higher on the Food Compass system is linked to better outcomes on several aspects of health as well as all-cause mortality.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) of food often uses mass of food as a functional unit, i.e. environmental impacts are reported per kg of food. Another common functional unit is weight of protein contained in the food, which is important for comparing different sources of protein, notably meat and its alternatives. This paper goes one step further and examines how protein quality, as opposed to protein quantity, can be accounted for in food LCAs, by using a scoring system to reflect the availability and digestibility of indispensable (i.e. essential) amino acids.

In this piece, the Good Food Institute describes government regulation of alternative proteins (including plant-based, cultivated and fermentation-derived foods) in several countries around the world (including China, Singapore, Australia, Japan, Korea, India, Saudi Arabia, Canada, the United States and the European Union).

This blog post from the Sustainable Food Trust explores the history of the term “regenerative” agriculture, including the Rodale Institute’s use of the term in the 1970s, the longer indigenous histories of many of the practices that fall under the umbrella, and the resurgence of the term regenerative since around 2015.