Systematic review examines food sustainability policies at UK universities, indicating gaps in research commitments.
Objective: The food system is a major contributor to the global burden of disease, ecosystem destruction and climate change, posing considerable threats to human and planetary health and economic stability. Evidence based food policy is fundamental to food system transformation globally, nationally and at a local or institutional level. The study aimed to critically review the content of universities’ food sustainability (FS) policy documents. Design: A systematic search of higher education institutions policies, using targeted websites and internet searches to identify FS policy documents, was conducted between May and August 2023. A quantitative content analysis of the identified documents was conducted independently, by multiple researchers using a coding template. Inconsistencies in coding were subsequently checked and amended through researcher consensus. Setting: 163 United Kingdom higher education institutes. Participants n/a Results: Approximately 50% of universities had a publicly available FS policy. The most common FS commitments therein, were Communication and Engagement (95.2%), Food Waste (94.0%) and Quality Standards and Certification (91.7%). The scope of policy commitments varied between institutions however, comprehensive documents included multifaceted commitments tackling more than one dimension of sustainability e.g. waste mitigation strategies that tackled food insecurity through food redistribution. Few (17.9%) policies included a commitment towards Research and Innovation, suggesting university operations are considered in isolation from academic and educational activities. Conclusion: Multifaceted policy commitments are capable of uniting numerous food-related actions and institutional activities. As such, they are likely to support food system transformation, with broader positive outcomes for the university, students and the wider community.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Blennerhassett et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: