Which government policies to create sustainable food systems have the potential to simultaneously address undernutrition, obesity and environmental sustainability?

INTRODUCTION: A transformation of food systems is urgently needed, given their contribution to three ongoing and interlinked global health pandemics: (1) undernutrition and food insecurity, (2) obesity and non-communicable diseases (NCDs), and (3) climate change and biodiversity loss. As policymakers make decisions that shape food systems, this study aimed to identify and prioritise policies with double- or triple-duty potential to achieve healthier and more environmentally sustainable food systems.

METHODS: This study undertook a 4-step methodological approach, including (i) a compilation of international policy recommendations, (ii) an online survey, (iii) four regional workshops with international experts and (iv) a ranking for prioritisation. Policies were identified and prioritised based on their double- or triple-duty potential, synergies and trade-offs. Using participatory and transdisciplinary approaches, policies were identified to have double- or triple-duty potential if they were deemed effective in tackling two or three of the primary outcomes of interest: (1) undernutrition, (2) obesity/NCDs and (3) environmental degradation.

RESULTS: The desk review identified 291 recommendations for governments, which were merged and classified into 46 initially proposed policies. Based on the results from the online survey, 61% of those policies were perceived to have double- or triple-duty potential. During the workshops, 4 potential synergies and 31 trade-offs of these policies were identified. The final list of 44 proposed policies for healthier and more environmentally sustainable food systems created was divided into two main policy domains: 'food supply chains' and 'food environments'. The outcome with the most trade-offs identified was 'undernutrition', followed by 'environmental sustainability', and 'obesity/NCDs'. Of the top five expert-ranked food supply chain policies, two were perceived to have triple-duty potential: (a) incentives for crop diversification; (b) support for start-ups, and small- and medium-sized enterprises. For food environments, three of the top five ranked policies had perceived triple-duty potential: (a) affordability of healthier and more sustainable diets; (b) subsidies for healthier and more sustainable foods; (c) restrictions on children's exposure to marketing through all media.

CONCLUSION: This study identified and prioritised a comprehensive list of double- and triple-duty government policies for creating healthier and more environmentally sustainable food systems. As some proposed policies may have trade-offs across outcomes, they should be carefully contextualised, designed, implemented and monitored.