International Journal of

Environmental Research
and Public Health

Review
Interventions to Strengthen Environmental Sustainability of
School Food Systems: Narrative Scoping Review
Grace Gardner 1 , Wendy Burton 2, * , Maddie Sinclair 3 and Maria Bryant 2,4

1 Public Health Department, Newcastle City Council, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8QH, UK;
[email protected]
2 Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK; [email protected]
3 School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK;
[email protected]
4 Hull York Medical School, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: School food systems play a role in the wider food system, but there is a scarcity of literature
exploring interventions that aim to improve the environmental sustainability of school food systems.
The present review aimed to understand and describe the types of interventions that have previously
been explored to strengthen the sustainability of school food systems along with their impact. We
applied a scoping review methodology guided by Arksey and O’Malley, which included a review
of the online database Scopus and the grey literature. Information relating to intervention design,
study population, evaluation method and impact were extracted. In total, 6016 records were screened
for eligibility, 24 of which were eligible for inclusion. The most common types of interventions
were school lunch menus designed to be more sustainable; school food waste reduction; sustainable
food system education using school gardens; and dietary interventions with added environmental
components. This review highlights a range of interventions which could positively influence the
environmental sustainability of school food systems. Further research is needed to explore the
effectiveness of such interventions.
Citation: Gardner, G.; Burton, W.;
Keywords: school food system; sustainability; planetary health; population health
Sinclair, M.; Bryant, M. Interventions
to Strengthen Environmental
Sustainability of School Food
Systems: Narrative Scoping Review.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 1. Introduction
20, 5916. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Globally, our food system contributes to at least 30% of all human-made greenhouse
ijerph20115916 gas emissions and negatively impacts both planetary and population health [1]. Unsus-
Academic Editor: Martin David
tainable food sources are a key contributing factor to this, including the mass production
Rose of animal-based products, food waste and food miles. In 2015, in an attempt to achieve
a more sustainable future worldwide, 193 Member States of the United Nations adopted
Received: 7 March 2023 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Revised: 16 May 2023
Development [2]. These goals aim to combat issues of sustainability and are universal and
Accepted: 18 May 2023
ambitious in their plans. Examples of SDGs involving sustainability of the food system
Published: 23 May 2023
include the goal to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote
sustainable agriculture; the goal to ensure inclusive and quality education for all and
promote lifelong learning; and the goal to ensure sustainable consumption and production
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
patterns [3].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. School food systems play an important role in the overall food system. The school
This article is an open access article food environment contributes to the development of children’s dietary preferences and
distributed under the terms and eating behaviours and therefore has the potential to play a meaningful role in the shift
conditions of the Creative Commons toward a more sustainable wider food system. Children spend a large proportion of their
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// time at school, and an average of 30% of children’s daily energy intake is suggested to come
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ from the school food [4]. Existing school food intervention studies have tended to focus on
4.0/). increasing children’s fruit and vegetable intake, improving the nutritional quality of food

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5916. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20115916 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5916 2 of 17

on offer or the food environment [5,6], with the aim of reducing health inequalities and
incidence of diet-related disease [7]. However, few studies have explored interventions
aiming to strengthen the environmental sustainability of school food systems and the wider
impacts of this on the wider food system.
It is recognised that the production of food of animal origin has a great impact on
the environment. The livestock sector contributes 14.5% of global greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions [8], with plant-based foods exhibiting lower environmental impacts than meat-
based [9–11]. Red meat-based school meals have been shown to be major contributors to
GHG and water consumption compared to other school meals [12,13]. In England, the
carbon footprint from primary school meals produced over one year was estimated to
be approximately 319 million kgCO2 equivalent, of which meat dishes were responsible
for 52% [14]. Food waste generated by school food systems also contributes to the wider
issue of food waste. Globally, our overall food waste is estimated to be one-third of all
food produced [15]. This is echoed within school food systems, with one study estimating
that 28.59% of the food prepared in Italian primary schools was not consumed by the
diners [16], and another reporting that 23% of the food served in schools across Sweden
was wasted [17]. Many factors have been identified as influencing food waste in schools,
including the amount of food prepared by catering teams, serving size, eating environment
and menu composition [18,19]. Therefore, a range of approaches aimed at varying stake-
holders within the school food system (e.g., teachers, parents, caterers and the children
themselves) may be required to address the problem, particularly as many schools engaged
in environmental sustainability efforts may not be aware of how much food is wasted in
their school [20]. While tackling the issue of food miles can be complex, due to the food
mile concept often being oversimplified [21], other initiatives that may promote the envi-
ronmental sustainability of school food systems include school gardens and food education
programmes. School gardens provide an opportunity to teach children where their food
comes from and how they could produce food themselves, thus potentially changing the
behaviours of future generations, along with offering a potential local food source [22,23].
Schools are also being increasingly encouraged to purchase food from local and organic
suppliers, such as farm-to-school programmes [24].
While anecdotal evidence suggests that some schools and communities are utilising
these types of local initiatives to strengthen the sustainability and environmental impact
of school food, there is still a need for more research in this area to understand their
design, feasibility and potential impact. This scoping review was therefore conducted for
the purpose of mapping and identifying the available evidence from research describing
sustainable food system initiatives within the school context.

2. Materials and Methods

A scoping review methodology was applied to enable the existing literature to be
explored broadly, to identify gaps in the research on sustainable school food systems and to
allow exploration into how research has been conducted. Taking influence from Arksey and
O’Malley [25], the methodology of this scoping review was conducted over four key stages:
(1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection
and (4) charting the data.

2.1. Identifying the Research Question

The research question was ‘Which types of interventions have been explored to
strengthen the environmental sustainability of school food systems, and what was their
impact?’. This was intended to help inform future research in the area of school food
systems and facilitate a positive shift toward a more sustainable wider food system across
the globe.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5916 3 of 17

2.2. Identifying Relevant Studies

Our search strategy aimed to identify papers consistent with the concept of food and
sustainability, which were undertaken in a school setting. We did not limit the search
to a specific population in the school setting as we were interested in a broad range of
stakeholders (e.g., children, caterers and teachers). The electronic database ‘Scopus’ was the
chosen database to search for interventions on sustainable school food systems, as this has
broad coverage across a vast number of disciplines. Other databases were searched during
the development of our search strategy; however, they did not yield any extra papers of
relevance. The grey literature was also searched using the same search terms, with the
first ten Google Search pages being screened for eligible literature. Relevant papers that
were identified using citations within included papers were also included in the review
if they met eligibility criteria (as agreed between two members of the team: WB and GG),
to ensure the inclusion of relevant studies that were not picked up within the original
scoping strategy.
The identification of articles was carried out by searching the Scopus database using
the following key search terms: (TITLE) (sustainab* OR “greenhouse gas” OR “climate
change” OR “climate friendly” OR eco-school* OR food OR diet OR nutrition OR agri-food
OR “food waste”) AND (TITLE) (school). The source type was limited to (Journal).
For the grey literature search, an advanced Google search with the exact same Scopus
search criteria: (sustainability OR “greenhouse gas” OR “climate change” OR eco-school* OR
food OR diet OR nutrition OR agri-food OR “food waste”) AND (school) was completed.
In addition, we used (sustainability OR “greenhouse gas” OR “climate change” OR eco-
school* OR food OR diet OR nutrition OR agri-food OR “food waste”) AND (school lunch).
Scopus was searched twice, once in July 2021 and again in December 2022. The grey
literature search was also conducted twice, once in May 2022 and once in December 2022.
The most recent search in December 2022 was undertaken to ensure the scoping review
was up to date, given the growing number of papers being published in recent years.

2.3. Study Selection

Our search strategy returned a large number of studies that fell beyond the scope of
interventions to strengthen the sustainability of school food systems. This was due to broad
search terms being included in the strategy (e.g., climate change, school, food). During the
development of the search strategy, we identified that these broad terms were important for
picking up records that represented a range of school food system interventions. However,
in order for record screening to be manageable (as recommended by Arksey & Malley [25])
we developed eligibility criteria to help us eliminate studies that did not address our
research question. Operationally, these criteria allowed us to identify records that were
consistent with the following study concept, setting and evidence source.
Concept: Studies were included if they described an intervention with the purpose
of strengthening the environmental sustainability of a school food system. As our re-
search objective was to also explore the design, delivery and impact of such interventions,
the intervention design, delivery method and evaluation needed to be reported in all
included papers.
Setting: As our research question aimed to explore interventions aimed at strengthen-
ing the environmental sustainability of school food systems, the study setting needed to be
in a school context. Therefore, studies were included if the intervention was delivered in
an early year, primary school or secondary school setting. Interventions could be aimed
at any school stakeholder within the school food setting (e.g., pupils, teachers, catering
staff) that were undertaken in the UK or a country that was comparable to the UK, so that
potential for transferability could be considered (defined according to the World Bank List
2020/2021 https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-
bank-countryand-lending-groups: accessed 22 July 2022).
Evidence source: Eligible sources were from peer-reviewed journals, as well as pre-
specified grey literature sources. Google was used to identify papers, from which we
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5916 4 of 17

accepted peer-reviewed publications as well as any article or report that described the
evaluation of a sustainable school food system intervention. Included studies were those
that were published in the English language or available as translated English versions.
In order to be included, studies had to be (1) qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods
evaluation studies; (2) systematic reviews or other reports/reviews that collate primary
research; (3) case studies and/or (4) modelling studies. Studies were excluded if they
did not describe the design, delivery method or evaluation of an intervention aimed at
strengthening the sustainability of a school food system. Studies were also excluded if
they were undertaken outside a early year, primary school or secondary school setting or
described an intervention that was not based in the UK or a comparable country according
to the World Bank List 2020/2021. Evidence sources were excluded if they were conference
abstracts, theses/dissertations, discussion papers or book chapters, as these were judged
to be difficult to read/manage within the timeframe and/or did not adequately describe
primary research studies.
Studies were screened initially by title and abstract against the inclusion and exclusion
criteria and were subsequently removed if they were not eligible. Initial screening was
undertaken by three authors of this article (GG, WB and MS). All records were divided
equally between reviewers to assess eligibility. To ensure consistency in the reviewer’s
understanding and interpretation of the criteria, just 20% of each reviewer’s records were
assessed for eligibility in the first instance. The same records were then assessed for eligi-
bility by a second reviewer within the team. Following the second reviewer’s assessment
of eligibility, the team met to discuss uncertainties and disagreements. Once all reviewers
reached an agreement on eligibility, the remaining records were assessed. The review team
continued to meet regularly throughout the review process to discuss and agree on the
eligibility of any remaining records if not initially clear.

2.4. Charting the Data

We used a ‘narrative review’ charting approach to analyse the data as recommended
by Arksey and O’Malley [25]. This approach involved extracting and collating standard
information from each identified study to provide a comprehensive summary of the evi-
dence, which allowed the research questions to be answered. Data relevant to answering
the research questions were extracted and collated by the research team using an MS
Excel spreadsheet including (1) publication date; (2) country where the intervention was
delivered; (3) study population; (4) intervention components; (5) intervention duration;
(6) study design(s); (7) comparator group(s); (8) outcome measure(s) related to sustainable
school food systems and (9) impact/ results. These characteristics were summarised to
describe the breadth of the data and then were categorised according to intervention type.
Extracted data describing the study design, intervention and results of the evaluations
within each category were summarised and mapped to provide an overview of the types of
interventions that have been designed and evaluated with the aim of positively influencing
a school food system and their reported impact.

3. Results
A total of 6016 records were screened for eligibility. Of these, 5845 were removed
after the primary screening, and 171 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Four additional
records were identified from the citations, resulting in 24 studies/reports being included in
the review (Figure 1). The dates of publication ranged from 2011 to 2022. The majority of
interventions were undertaken in Europe: Spain [26–31], Sweden [32–35], France [36,37],
England [38,39], Finland [40] and Denmark [41]. Four were undertaken in the USA [42–46],
one in Mexico [47] and one in Australia [48]. Seventeen of the studies used quantitative
methods only to evaluate their intervention to promote the sustainability of the food
system [26–29,32,34–41,43–46,49], four used qualitative methods only [33,42,47,50] and two
used a mixed methods approach [30,48].
 ing an action research approach [47] and another using interviews, focus groups and ob-
servation with a case study design [42].
The types of interventions fell broadly into four categories: (1) school menus de-
signed to be more sustainable, (2) food waste reduction, (3) sustainable food system edu-
cation using school gardens and (4) dietary interventions with added environmental com-
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023,ponents.
20, 5916 The characteristics of the studies are described in Tables 1–4 with records
5 ofar-
17
ranged in descending order.

Figure 1. Scoping review search results.

Of the studies which used quantitative or mixed methods (n = 20), a range of study
designs was identified, the most common being a pre–post design without a control group
comparator [34,35,38,44–46,48,49]. Five were modelling studies [26–29,36], three used a
pre–post design with a comparator [30,32,40], two used a cross-over design [37,41], one
used a historical control [39] and one used a cluster randomised trial design [43]. The
studies that used qualitative methods only differed in their approach, with one undertaking
focus groups only [33], one conducting semi-structured interviews only [50], one using an
action research approach [47] and another using interviews, focus groups and observation
with a case study design [42].
The types of interventions fell broadly into four categories: (1) school menus designed
to be more sustainable, (2) food waste reduction, (3) sustainable food system education
using school gardens and (4) dietary interventions with added environmental components.
The characteristics of the studies are described in Tables 1–4 with records arranged in
descending order.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5916 6 of 17

Table 1. Characteristics of interventions included in this review, where school lunch menus were designed to be more sustainable.
Author, Year Intervention Comparison or Outcome(s) Related to Sustainable
Intervention Category Sample Characteristics/Data Source Intervention Evaluation Design Intervention Group Main Findings
and Location Duration Control Group School Food Systems

School lunch menu optimised by

considering four ‘trade-offs’:
Primary school lunch menus from
(1) Reducing the number of
schools in France where school meals
1. Poinsot et al., School lunch menu meal components;
are required to be made up of four or Pre–post Optimised menu (four Greenhouse gas emissions (% Best pre–post reduction from more vegetarian meals
2022 [36] designed to be (2) Compliance with national school N/A Standard menu
five components (i.e., a starter (Modelling study) trade-offs compared) reduction in kg CO2 eq per meal) (25% reduction).
France more sustainable nutrition guidelines;
and/or dessert, a protein dish, a side
(3) Increasing the number of
dish and a dairy product).
vegetarian meals;
(4) Avoiding ruminant meat.

Experiences with the menu:

-Variations in how it was received;
-A challenging experience to work with the new menu.
The meaning of sustainability:
-A broad and varied understanding of diet
and sustainability;
Primary school kitchen staff and
-Diet sustainability important but hard to realise.
pupils (aged 10–15) from schools in
Plant-based acceptance:
2. Colombo School lunch menu Sweden where the same lunch menu Implementation of menu optimised 29 primary school
Qualitative study: Focus Barriers and levers to successful -Decisive role of taste, appearance, smell
et al., 2021 [33] designed to be is provided to all schools, but each to be 40% lower in greenhouse 4 weeks children and N/A
groups (n = 9) implementation of sustainable men and recognition;
Sweden more sustainable school chef has some degree of gas emissions. 13 kitchen staff
-Habits, peer pressure and fears challenging acceptance.
freedom to adapt menus to match
Opportunities to increase plant-based eating:
preferences of their pupils.
-Focusing on familiar foods;
-Increasing exposure, normalisation and motivation.
-Gradual and realistic changes:
Need for supportive environment:
-More knowledge, resources and inspiration;
-Increased stakeholder involvement.

School lunch menu optimised to

simulate compliance with new
School lunch menu data from
agro-ecological policies on:
pre-schools and primary schools in
3. Perez-Neira School lunch menu (1) How products are produced; Pre: 1.36 kg of CO2 -eq per meal.
Spain. Lunch menus developed by Pre–post Total GHG emission (% reduction
et al., 2021 [27] designed to be (2) Where products are produced N/A Optimised menus Baseline menus Post: 13.4% reduction if current trajectory followed but
the local government school canteen (Modelling study) in kg of CO2 -eq per meal)
Spain more sustainable and consumed; could rise to 40.6% if transformation advanced.
network, with catering service
(3) When and how the products
provided by local kitchens.
are consumed;
(4) What products are consumed.

School lunch menus optimised to

simulate transition to low carbon
meals using Nexus
High school lunch menus from approach—considering
4. Batlle-Bayer School lunch menu % reduction in environmental
schools in Spain, where meals following measures: Pre–post Optimised menu had the following reductions:
et al., 2021 [29] designed to be N/A Optimised menu Standard menu impact (based on Nexus
consisted of two courses, dessert (1) Blue water footprint (BWF); (Modelling study) 60% BWP, 46% PED, 48% LU and 53% GWP.
Spain more sustainable approach measures)
and bread. (2) Primary energy demand (PED);
(3) Land use (LU);
(4) Global warming
potential (GWP).

(1) No pre–post difference in any of the

(1) Food waste (g/pupil); participating schools;
5. Colombo School lunch menu Primary schools in Sweden, where Implementation of menu optimised
3 schools (2) Consumption (g/pupil); (2) No pre–post difference in any of the
et al., 2020 [34] designed to be children had two daily meals to to be 40% lower in greenhouse 4 weeks Pre–post No comparison group
(n = 1635 pupils) (3) School meal satisfaction participating schools;
Sweden more sustainable choose from. gas emissions.
(pre-post questionnaire). (3) No pre–post difference in any of the
participating schools.

(1) Significant reduction for pre–post meals offered on

(1) GHG emissions kg CO2 -eq (per
6. Blondin et al., School lunch menu Schools from large urban school a Monday
One menu cycle entree offered on a Monday and per
2022 [45] designed to be district in the USA, where one entrée Meatless Mondays Pre–post One school district No comparison group (0.95 vs. 0.25 kg CO2 -eq), but
(2–4 weeks) entree averaged over week);
USA more sustainable was offered per day. no pre–post difference for meals averaged over week;
(2) Water resources (litres).
(2) No significant differences.

Primary school pupils from schools (1) No significant changes;

7. Elinder et al., School lunch menu Implementation of a menu 4 primary schools
in Sweden serving a four-week menu (1) Food consumption (g/pupil); (2) Plate waste significantly increased in one school (16
2020 [35] designed to be more optimised to be 28% lower in 4 weeks Pre–post (each with No comparator group
plan (including 2–3 dishes/day over (2) Food waste (g/pupil). g/pupil to 21 g/pupil), but no significant
Sweden sustainable greenhouse gas emissions. 360–660 pupils)
a period of 20 weekdays). changes overall.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5916 7 of 17

Table 1. Cont.
Author, Year Intervention Comparison or Outcome(s) Related to Sustainable
Intervention Category Sample Characteristics/Data Source Intervention Evaluation Design Intervention Group Main Findings
and Location Duration Control Group School Food Systems

School lunch menus optimised to

reduce their carbon footprint
considering food production,
transportation and cooking. Six
scenarios were considered:
(1) Without dairy and legumes;
(2) Without meat; Pre: 24.39 kg CO2 eq.person/monthly.
8. Martinez School lunch menu Primary school lunch menus from
(3) Without fish; Pre–post Carbon footprint (kg CO2 Post: Greatest reductions from astringent menu
et al., 2020 [28] designed to be schools in Spain designed following N/A Optimised menu Standard menu
(4) Without eggs; (Modelling study) eq.person/monthly). (14.77 kg CO2 eq.person/monthly) and menu without
Spain more sustainable Spanish schools’ dietary guidelines.
(5) Hypocaloric menu; meat (17.11 kg CO2 eq.person/monthly).
(6) Astringent menu (menu
designed to avoid causing stomach
upsets using cooking techniques
such as boiling and baking (e.g.,
boiled vegetables and
chicken breast)).

(1) Reduction in meat/dairy

Climate-conscious menus (1) Pre: 0.14 lb; post: 0.10 lb per meal/30% reduction);
(lb per meal/%);
9. Hamerschlag implemented over one school (2) Pre: 0.70 kg CO2 -eq per meal served; post: 0.61 kg
School lunch menu (2) Greenhouse gas emissions
& Kraus-Polk Primary, middle and high schools in district. The series of initiatives 85 schools CO2 -eq per meal served;
designed to be One season Pre–post No comparator group (kg CO2 -eq per meal served);
2017 [44] the USA. included: Meatless Monday, Lean (n = 37,000 pupils) (3) Pre: 113 gallon; post: 106 gallon per meal served
more sustainable (3) Water footprint
USA and Green Wednesday and (4) USD 42,000 less spent per meal (1% per meal less).
(gallons per meal);
‘California Thursdays’.
(4) Cost saving ($/%).

A 23–24% reduction in the carbon footprint, but when

School lunch menu data from one
Optimisation of a menu that balanced with the average budget, the reduction was
10. Ribal et al., School lunch menu school catering company in Spain
minimised cost and carbon Pre–post Carbon footprint 15–16%.
2016 [26] designed to be offering a large variety of meal N/A Optimised menu Standard menu
footprint levels and (Modelling study) (kg CO2 equivalent) Optimised menu had lower calcium content (below the
Spain more sustainable combinations served with bread
promoted micronutrients. set threshold), but the micronutrient energy share was
and water.
more balanced.

Third and fourth grade primary (1) Traditional Nordic diet:

11. Thorsen School lunch menu Traditional Nordic diet Cluster randomised
school children from schools in Pupils from 9 schools Traditional Nordic diet (1) Food intake (g); 230 g vs. packed lunch: 208 g;
et al., 2015 [41] designed to be (environmentally friendly and 3 months controlled unblinded
Denmark with a previously packed (n = 187) vs. packed lunches (2) Edible waste (g/%). (2) Traditional Nordic diet: 88 g/29% vs. packed lunch:
Denmark more sustainable sourced from the Nordic region). cross over study
lunch option only. 43 g/16%.

(1) Intervention: pre 83%; post 77%.

Control: pre 78%; post 89%.
No significant difference between groups;
Weekly vegetarian day where no (2) Intervention: pre 288 g; post 35 g.
12. Lombardini School lunch menu Primary and secondary school pupils (1) Participation in school lunch (%);
meat or fish products are offered Pre–post Control: pre 333 g; post 316 g.
et al., 2013 [40] designed to be from schools in Finland 11 months 33 schools 10 schools (2) Food taken (g);
(forced restriction) on the school with comparator no s.d. between groups;
Finland more sustainable implementing a vegetarian day. (3) Food waste (g).
lunch menu for one day each week. (3) Intervention: 35 g pre; 56 g post (significant
pre–post reduction).
Control group: pre 30 g; post 32 g.
No significant difference between groups.

Food for Life Partnership scheme

(FFLP) including the following
menu objectives:
(1) Use of seasonal menus and
13. Orme et al., School lunch menu Primary, secondary and special in-season produce;
Number of schools using local
2010 [38] designed to be schools in England engaged in the (2) Display information about the 18 months Pre–post 38 schools No comparator Increase of 73% of schools using local suppliers.
suppliers (%)
England more sustainable Food for Life Partnership scheme. origins of all fresh produce used;
(3) Have at least 30% of ingredients
from organic sources;
(4) Have at least 50% of ingredients
from local suppliers.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5916 8 of 17

Table 2. Characteristics of school food waste reduction interventions included in this review.
Author, Year Intervention Comparison or Outcome(s) Related to Sustainable
Intervention Category Sample Characteristics/Data Source Intervention Evaluation Design Intervention Group Main Findings
and Location Duration Control Group School Food Systems

(1) Pre: 218 avoidable items;

Educational intervention for
Post: 141 avoidable items post;
children and parents encouraged to (1) Food waste (overall number of
Self-report eating of all food at school.
involve children in packed lunch avoidable food waste items in
Primary school children aged 5–12 (2) Pre: 57.3% eating ‘all’ food;
1. Boulet et al., preparation to avoid waste. Pupils (n = 775) and packed lunch);
and their parents from Australia in Post: 63% eating ‘all’ food;
2022 [48] Food waste reduction The intervention comprised: 6 weeks Pre–post their parents from five No control group (2) Self report eating of ‘all’ food at
schools where students typically (not significant).
Australia lessons for students, parent schools (n = 4) school (%);
bring food from home. (3) Greater interest and involvement of children in
information and lunchbox ideas, (3) Parental attitudes
choosing and making food to take to schools—parents
hands-on workshop and ‘make (qualitative methods).
paid more attention to what they were providing to
your own lunch’ day.
their children.

Three nudging strategies were

Pupils aged 3–18 from schools in
designed and implemented:
Spain where students are in charge of
(1) letting students know the menu
setting the table and tidying it when
on the day before lunchtime (for
2. Vidal-Mones they finished eating. All schools Pre: 20.58 kg across all schools
cases 1 and 2); (2) making students
et al., 2022 [31] Food waste reduction served three courses: first course 10 days Pre–post 5 schools No control group Total food waste (kg) Post: 13.27 kg across all schools
reflect on their hunger level (for
Spain (vegetables, pasta rice or legumes), (significant reduction of 41%)
cases 1, 3 and 4) and (3) teaching
second course (protein + salad,
students how to properly cut and
vegetable sauces or potatoes) and
eat fruits (for cases 1 and 2).
dessert (fruit or dairy product).

Awareness campaign: pre: 37 g; post: 24 g (significant

Four food waste strategies selected
reduction of 35%).
by public catering managers
Tasting spoons: pre: 27 g; post: 21 g (significant
were tested:
reduction of 22%).
(1) Information campaign directed
Plate waste tracker: pre: 19 g baseline; post: 12 g
3. Malefors Pupils aged 6–19 from schools in at school children;
Pre–post with Reference group Food waste for each strategy (37% reduction but not significant).
et al., 2022 [32] Food waste reduction Sweden where food is served by a (2) Tasting spoons in canteens; 7 weeks 8 schools
comparator (n = 7 schools) tested (g) Forecasting: pre: 69 g; post: 35 g (significant reduction
Sweden public catering organisation. (3) Plate waste tracker providing
of 49%).
live feedback on how much food
Reference group: pre: 58 g; post: 41 g (significant
has been wasted;
reduction of 38%).
(4) Forecasting for canteens to help
Only the awareness campaign and forecasting achieved
gauge attendance.
greater plate waste reduction than the reference group.

Different number of starters (first

Pupils aged 15–19 from schools in
course of the meal or “entree”) Cross-over trial with
4. Rigal et al., France with on-site cooking facilities, School lunches Pupils from six senior Three starters: 47.58 g ± 7.35.
offered at school lunch (three vs. repeated measures: 3 vs. 6 options
2022 [37] Food waste reduction offering three or six starters in a offered at two high schools Food waste (g) Six starters 75.68 g ± 9.52.
six) at two time points (T1 and T2) T1 (baseline), of starter
France self-service format, in which students time points (n = 247 pupils) Increase of 28.10 g.
to see which resulted in the most T2 (T1 + 21 days)
serve themselves freely.
food waste.

(1) Intervention group: pre; 177 g/47.83% post;

101 g/32.95%
post (reduction of 14.88%).
Forty-five-minute teaching sessions
Primary school children from one Nursery (n = 48 (1) Food waste (g/%); Nursery group: pre; 87 g/23.30% post; 81/26.48%
5. Anton-Peset including fifteen activities carried Pupils from one
school in Spain with a mid-morning Pre–post children) and the rest (2) Knowledge and attitudes: (reduction of 3.18%).
et al., 2021 [30] Food waste reduction out to train pupils on the food 3 weeks primary school class
snack brought from home and lunch with comparator of the school pre–post survey and Rest of school: Pre; 164 g/43.76% post; 130 g/42.85 post
Spain waste concept and inform them (n = 15)
managed by a catering company. (n = 100 children) qualitative methods. (reduction of 0.91%).
about its impact.
(2) Knowledge and attitudes: subtle pre–post changes
including an increase in identification of food
waste concepts.

Lunch time staff trained on how to

reduce food waste in schools.
Lunch time staff then selected (1) Number of strategies:
strategies to be tested in their Mean: 7.40 ± 6.97 SD;
(1) Number of strategies
6. Elnakib et al., Primary and middle school children respective schools. Range:
implemented in each school (Mean
2021 [46] Food waste reduction in the USA where meals are provided Strategies included: offering both 4 weeks Pre–post Pupils from 15 schools No control group 0 to 28 delivered consistently in each school;
and range);
USA on-site. hot and cold vegetables, offering (2) Food waste:
(2) Food waste (%).
dips with cut raw vegetables, Significant pre–post reduction of 7.01% (β = −7.061,
offering sliced or cut fruit and p < 0.001).
improving the
lunchroom atmosphere.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5916 9 of 17

Table 3. Characteristics of interventions included in this review, where sustainable food system education is provided using school gardens.
Author, Year Intervention Comparison or Outcome(s) Related to Sustainable
Intervention Category Sample Characteristics/Data Source Intervention Evaluation Design Intervention Group Main Findings
and Location Duration Control Group School Food Systems

Virtual school garden Perceived increase in pupil awareness around food

exchanges—primary and secondary production, climate, seasons, weather and eating
Primary and secondary school pupils 24 educators from 9 different
school students from different parts of habits and an increase in horticultural competencies
1. Lochner et al., engaged in 16 Virtual school garden countries (England, Germany,
the world who work in school gardens Perceived learning outcomes such as gardening in greenhouses, keeping chickens,
2021 [50] School gardens exchanges originating in England, Ongoing Semi structured interviews Greece, Kenya, Uganda, N/A
engage in Virtual Exchanges (VEs) of VGCE. diversification and intercropping, dealing with
Germany Germany, India, Uganda, Mexico, Argentina, Mexico, USA and
about their gardens and related topics. pests, irrigation and composting.
Kenya, USA, Greece and Argentina. India) spanning 5 continents
They use media such as photos, films Data also revealed perceived stereotypes, norms
and videoconferences and othering between pupils.

In total, 120 h of teacher training to

promote an understanding of Teachers reported greater understanding of key
agro-ecology. principles and essence of agro-ecology.
Modules include scientific process and Qualitative active research Understanding of concepts Just over half identified one or more principles
2. Ferguson
Teachers from pre-, primary and thinking; health and nutrition; (survey, self-evaluation, described in the training and when asked to explain what they had learnt,
et al., 2019 [47] School gardens 2 weeks 38 educators N/A
secondary schools in Mexico. embracing local agro-ecological reflection, journals whether they influenced whereas others did not identify a key principle but
Mexico
knowledge and foodways; strategies and interviews). teaching practice. appeared to understand the essence of agro-ecology.
for garden program sustainability and In addition, only half of the participants attempted
design and application of to use the learning in their teaching.
garden-based lessons.

Participants described, “moments of reconnection”

happening constantly between students as both
producers and consumers in the modern food
system while students participated in planting
Rural garden-based learning
3. Cramer et al., Qualitative case study Perceived efficacy of school garden seeds, tending crops and harvesting and sampling
School children from schools in the programme delivered from one-acre Educators and founders of
2019 [42] School garden Ongoing (interviews, focus groups N/A programme for food the fruits of their efforts. Garden educators also
USA offering garden lessons. garden space (at least six lessons the programme (n = 8)
USA and observations) system ‘reskilling’. described feeling, “called to make the food system
per year).
better”. However, barriers were expressed in terms
of a contrast between the outdoor,
experiential-based learning and the rigid structure
of the standard school curriculum.

Table 4. Characteristics of interventions included this review, where sustainable environmental components were added to dietary interventions.
Author, Year Comparison or Outcome(s) Related to Sustainable
Intervention Category Sample Characteristics/Data Source Intervention Intervention Duration Evaluation Design Intervention Group Main Findings
and Location Control Group School Food Systems

Great taste less waste (GTLW): Standard nutrition

Standard nutrition GTLW: 57.4%;
education delivered in 30 min classroom lessons with
Third and fourth grade pupils from intervention (2 schools; Standard nutrition
1. Goldberg added environmental components including: campaign
Dietary intervention with schools in the USA who brought food 5 schools n = 78 children) and Mean prevalence of single use intervention: 61.7%;
et al., 2015 [43] kits with reusable food containers and a packaging guide 22 lessons Cluster RCT
environmental components from home at least three times (n = 327 children) control group packaging (%). Control: 60.4%;
USA with information about purchasing and packing healthy
per week. (5 schools; No significant difference
lunches. Monthly parent newsletter sent home with
n = 177 children) between groups.
nutrition advice and seasonal recipes.

Additional components added to the existing whole school

approach initiative (Food for Life Programme) to
2. Jones et al., Primary school pupils from schools in incorporate sustainable food issues including food quality Stage 1 (point of Stage 2 (18–24 months
Dietary intervention with Positive attitude towards Stage 1: 10.7%;
2012 [39] England engaged in the Food for Life and procurement, food education and parental and 18–24 months Historical control enrolment with FFLP): after enrolment):
environmental components sustainable food (%). Stage 2: 21.8%.
England Partnership scheme. community involvement, with the aim of promoting fruit 1435 pupils 1463 pupils
and vegetable intake. Schools selected their own strategies
for implementation
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5916 10 of 17

3.1. School Lunch Menus Designed to Be More Sustainable

Of the 24 studies identified in the review, 13 tested an intervention that aimed to
promote the sustainability of school lunch menus. Of these, six explored the implemen-
tation of a sustainable lunch menu in schools [34,35,40,41,44,45], five used mathematical
modelling techniques to simulate the environmental impact of menus optimised for sus-
tainability [26–29,36], one used a qualitative study design to explore barriers and levers
to implementing a more sustainable school menu [33] and one evaluated the impact of an
intervention (Food for Life Partnership) on use of local suppliers [38].
The five modelling studies differed in their approach for optimising menus to promote
their environmental sustainability. One optimised menu was underpinned with the ‘WEF-
nexus’ approach, a concept that analyses the interactions between three environmental
resources (water, primary energy and food systems) and identifies synergies and trade-offs
between them [29]. Another was underpinned with a set of new agro-ecological policies
that were planned to be shortly implemented [27], including a shift toward seasonal con-
sumption, packaging reduction and green electricity. Two reduced the amount of meat on
the menu amongst other scenarios (e.g., astringent menu, without fish, without eggs, fewer
meal components) [28,36], and one balanced the carbon footprint of each item with nutrient
value and cost [26]. All studies compared optimised menus with baseline menus. Three
studies reported a >40% reduction in greenhouse emissions following menu optimisa-
tion [27,29,36] and two reported a >23% reduced carbon footprint [26,28]. Two studies also
compared different types of optimised menu scenarios [28,36], identifying an astringent
menu (menu designed to avoid causing stomach upsets using cooking techniques such
as boiling and baking) [28], a menu without meat [28] and a menu with more vegetarian
options [36] as having the lowest carbon footprint.
Of the six studies that measured the impact of implementing a menu designed to be
more environmentally sustainable in schools, two tested menus optimised to reduce their
carbon footprint [34,35], three tested a meat-free day [40,44,45], and one tested a traditional
Nordic diet (comprising environmentally friendly and locally sourced hot foods). Elinder
et al. [35,41] and Colombo et al. [34] used the same modelling approach to optimise their
school lunch menus to be lower in greenhouse emissions. They assessed food consumption
and food waste levels during a three-week delivery period in primary schools to assess
how pupils responded to the menus. Both studies found no significant pre–post differences
in food consumption or food waste overall, but Elinder et al. [35] did report that one school
out of four had a significant pre–post increase in food waste. A follow up qualitative study
undertaken by Colombo et al. [33] explored barriers and levers to implementation of their
optimised menu. They held focus group discussions with kitchen staff and pupils, which
revealed variations in how the menu was received, with some pupils not noticing a change
whilst others noticed more vegetarian food. Some pupils expressed that food tasted better
during the implementation period, although kitchen staff perceived there to be hesitance
toward trying plant-based foods. Kitchen staff described challenges in working with the
new menu, including time, budget, palatability and management of leftovers, but it was
also considered it to be fun to try new recipes.
In the three studies testing meat-free days [40,44,45], the initiatives were already
being implemented prior to commencement of the studies. The findings in these studies
were mixed. Blondin et al. [45] and Hamerschlag et al. [44] measured the sustainability
impact (including carbon footprint, water footprint, purchase of animal products and cost)
of more sustainable menus compared with pre-intervention menus. Blondin et al. [45]
reported no differences when considering the menu in its entirety (i.e., when including days
where meat was consumed), though they did find a significant reduction in greenhouse
emissions of 73.7% and a 50% reduction in water resources when comparing meat-free
days with a pre-intervention, standard menu day. Hamerschlag et al. [44] reported a
greenhouse gas emission reduction of 14%, reduced water footprint of 6% and a cost saving
of USD 42,000 (nearly 1% less spent per meal) following a 30% reduction in the purchase of
animal products. Lombardi et al. [40] measured participation in school lunch, food taken
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5916 11 of 17

and food waste in a sample of schools where a meat-free day was being implemented
using a pre–post design with a comparator group (intervention: n = 33 schools, control:
n = 10 schools). They found no difference between groups fin any of the outcomes but
did report a significant pre–post increase in food waste in intervention schools at the
11-week follow-up (35 g per participant vs. 56 g per participant) compared to control
schools (30 g vs. 32 g). However, the authors reported that this levelled out by the 23-week
follow-up. A traditional Nordic diet (comprising environmentally friendly and locally
sourced hot foods) was tested in nine schools (n = 197 pupils) that previously only had a
packed lunch option using a cluster-randomised controlled, unblinded cross-over design,
which also found mixed results [41]. Food taken and food waste was compared between
the traditional diet period and a packed lunch-only period. The results showed a higher
amount of food taken during the traditional diet period compared to the packed lunch-only
period, but there was more food waste.

3.2. Food Waste Reduction

Six of the studies identified in this review aimed to reduce the amount of food wasted
from school lunches [30,32,37,46,48,49]. Two main types of interventions were explored:
changes implemented within the dining environment (including changes in the way foods
were served and environmental prompts) [31,32,37,46] and educational interventions deliv-
ered to children [30,48]. Of the four studies exploring changes in the dining environment,
two used a pre–post design [32,46], one used a pre–post design with a comparator [32]
and one used a cross-over trial design with six schools (n = 247 participants) [37]. The
tested strategies included: offering both hot and cold vegetables [46], offering dips with cut
raw vegetables, offering sliced or cut fruit [41], improving the lunchroom atmosphere [46],
provision of tasting spoons [32], awareness campaign [32,49], plate waste tracker [32],
attendance forecasting [32], a hunger traffic light prompt [40] and increasing the num-
ber of starters offered at lunch (i.e., entrée or first course) [37]. The two studies using
a pre–post design reported a significant decrease in total waste (7.01% [46]; 41% [49]).
Malefors et al. [32] used a pre–post design with a control group comparator (intervention:
n = 7 schools; control: n = 7 school) and reported that only the awareness campaign and
attendance forecasting achieved a greater reduction in food waste than the control group,
which had a 38% pre–post reduction in food waste. The cross-over trial by Rigal et al. [37]
reported an increase in waste when offering more starters at lunch in six high schools in
their cross-over trial with repeated measures.
Both studies testing an educational intervention to reduce food waste reported pos-
itive results. The two interventions differed slightly in length and focus. One was a
classroom-based intervention delivered over three weeks, which focused on the social and
environmental consequences of food waste [30]. The other was a classroom intervention
delivered over six weeks, which focused on reducing waste associated with packed lunches,
and included a parent component, encouraging them to involve children in the preparation
of packed lunches to reduce waste [48]. Both studies reported a pre–post reduction in food
waste. Anton-Peset et al. [30] also used two comparator groups (intervention group (one
primary school class), n = 15 pupils; nursery, n = 48 pupils; rest of school, n = 100 pupils) to
test their intervention focusing on social and environmental consequences. Their results
showed that the intervention group had the greatest reduction in food waste (14.88%)
compared with a 0.91% reduction in the nursery group and a 3.18% reduction in the rest of
the school group. Boulet et al. [48] used a pre–post design with no comparator group to
test their intervention with a focus on packed lunches, reporting a 35% waste reduction.

3.3. Food System Education using School Gardens

Three articles identified in this review described using qualitative methods to explore
the experiences of teachers and volunteers who were involved in the delivery of school
garden initiatives aimed at promoting sustainable school food systems [42,47,50]. All of the
school garden initiatives differed in their approach; one involved primary and secondary
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5916 12 of 17

school pupils from different parts of the world engaging in virtual exchanges about their
school gardens [50], another involved garden lessons being delivered to pupils from a
one-acre garden space [42] and the third involved teachers being trained on agroecological
practices and biocultural heritage, aiming to influence their teaching practice [47]. All
participants perceived the garden initiatives to be positive for promoting the environmen-
tal sustainability of the school food system, for example, a perceived increase in pupil
awareness around food production and horticultural competencies [50] and described
moments of reconnection happening constantly between pupils as both a producer and
consumer of food [42]. Teachers themselves reported a greater understanding of sustain-
ability concepts [47], but some challenges were described, including perceived stereotypes,
norms and othering between different learning groups [50], a contrast between the outdoor,
experiential-based learning of school gardens and the rigid structure of the standard school
curriculum [42] and teachers failing to implement key concepts taught in the programme
in their teaching practice [47].

3.4. Adding Environmental Messaging to Existing Dietary Interventions

Two studies built upon existing dietary interventions by adding on environmental
concepts to promote engagement [39,43], and these studies reported mixed results. The
primary outcome for both studies was fruit and vegetable intake, but both included a
secondary outcome relating to sustainable food systems: attitudes towards sustainable
food [39] and use of single-use packaging in packed lunches [43]. Jones et al. [39] added
optional environmental components to a programme aiming to promote a whole-school
approach to food, whereby schools are given a selection of resources and awarded for
meeting food related objectives (Food for Life Partnership). Primary schools were given the
choice of which additional components they wanted to implement in their school during
the study, including sustainable food education, staff training on cooking and growing food
and parent engagement strategies. They used a historical control design to measure changes
in pupil attitudes toward sustainable foods following the implementation of environmental
components, and they reported that more pupils had a positive attitude at stage two
(18–24 months after school enrolment in the programme) compared to stage one (point of
school enrolment in the programme). Goldberg et al. [43] added messages about the value
of environmentally sound nutrition practices (including reducing the use of single-use
packaging) to a standard classroom-based nutrition education intervention delivered over
22 lessons, but they found no difference between groups for single packaging use in their
cluster randomised controlled trial.

4. Discussion
To our knowledge this is the first narrative scoping review to gather available research
on interventions that aimed to strengthen the environmental sustainability of school food
systems. The available sourced evidence focuses on four main areas of intervention: de-
velopment of school lunch menus designed to be more sustainable, school food waste
reduction, use of school gardens to promote food system education and adding environ-
mental messaging to existing dietary interventions. The results of this review enable us
to learn which types of interventions may have potential to strengthen the environmental
sustainability of school food systems as well as offering direction for future research.
The majority of studies identified in this review explored the impact of optimising
menus to be more sustainable. Many of these were modelling studies, which aimed to
develop school lunch menus with a reduced environmental impact, and all reported im-
provements in environmental sustainability. A promising feature of many of the studies
using this approach is that the menus had been implemented into a real-world setting,
using routinely available menu or audit data [38,40,44,45]. This suggests the feasibility
of the approach and that action is already being taken to reduce the environmental im-
pact of school food systems in many areas. Outside of the school setting, others have
used mathematical modelling techniques to understand the environmental impact of ex-
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5916 13 of 17

isting menus and developed tools to promote environmental sustainability. Sherry and
Tivona [51] used a Life Cycle Assessment to determine the environmental impact of food
purchased in a small college in the USA. Using this analysis, they produced a decision-
making tool providing information on swaps that could be implemented by catering teams
to reduce the environmental impact of their menu. In a different study, Brink et al. [52]
used mathematical modelling techniques to produce population-level dietary guidelines in
the Netherlands, which were optimised to strengthen environmental sustainability, again
suggesting that this type of intervention is already being implemented on a wide scale;
however, no data on acceptability was reported. As revealed by Colombo et al.’s [33]
qualitative study, potential barriers could exist to implementing a more sustainable menu
in a school setting, including pushback from kitchen staff and pupils. In a study exploring
the willingness of parents to support a more sustainable school food menu in a school in
Italy [53], the authors reported that most parents were not willing to pay extra for more
sustainable school menus and were pessimistic about their children’s willingness to accept
more environmentally sustainable foods.
Six of the studies identified in this review tested an intervention aimed at reducing
food waste in schools. Two of the studies reporting a pre–post reduction in waste tested the
impact of an educational intervention [30,48]. Fraj-Andre et al. [54] tested a similar approach
in a higher education setting, whereby food waste education was provided in University
student’s marketing subject modules in the USA. They reported pre–post changes in the
student’s food waste behaviour and an increase in food waste concern. However, despite
the indication of success using this approach, there remains a lack of definitive evidence
for the effectiveness of food waste reduction interventions. Many studies identified in this
review used a pre–post design; therefore, it cannot be concluded whether the reductions
in food waste happened by chance or due to the engagement in the research. Moreover,
none of the food waste interventions identified in this review applied a predefined target
to define the impact of their intervention, potentially due to insufficient information on
what level of reduction could be considered meaningful. Outside of an educational setting,
Stöckli et al. [55] undertook a systematic review to understand the available evidence on
consumer-level food waste reduction interventions. They also noted a lack of evidence for
the effectiveness, acknowledging conceptual and methodological challenges to evaluating
such interventions and recommending that standardised definitions and measurement
methods should be used in future research. Moving forward, interventions defining what a
meaningful target for school food waste is and using a rigorous evaluation design could
help understand the extent to which school-based food waste interventions might have a
positive impact on the sustainability of school food systems and beyond.
This review identified three studies which explored the experiences of teachers and
volunteers engaged in school garden initiatives. All of the school garden interventions
appeared to have some potential to positively influence school food systems, particularly
the perceived engagement of children, which in turn could impact on their awareness of
sustainable food issues. However, none of the studies gathered data from the pupils them-
selves in terms of how they experienced the programme. Quantitative data on behavioural
and environmental outcomes of these interventions is also lacking in the literature, al-
though there is a broad literature on school garden initiatives without an environmental
sustainability focus. For example, the findings of a systematic review undertaken by Chan
et al. [56] suggest that school gardens may be effective in promoting school children’s
nutritional knowledge, attitudes and acceptability towards vegetables. Future studies
should consider including an environmental outcome measure within the evaluation of
school garden initiatives.
Two studies aimed to enhance existing school-based dietary interventions by adding
messaging to outline the environmental benefits that can be achieved by eating more fruit
and vegetables. Although the impact of this approach was not demonstrated in this scoping
review, incorporating environmental messaging into the school curriculum, in subjects such
as Geography and Science, to promote climate change literacy is an approach that has been
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5916 14 of 17

successfully adopted previously [57–59]. Therefore, school curriculum-based interventions

with a focus on food system literacy may be feasible.

Strengths and Limitations

A key strength of this review is the fact it explored interventions aiming to strengthen
the environmental sustainability of school food systems, which is a timely and important
area of interest. This review also included a wide range of study designs, so it was possible
to explore in-depth qualitative data as well as the available quantitative data. However,
we acknowledge that there are a number of limitations regarding this review. Firstly,
we decided to exclude interventions from this review which did not specify their aim
of improving the environmental sustainability of school food systems. It is understood
that some interventions, such as school gardens being designed to improve knowledge
around food production, may result in indirect environmental benefits. Nevertheless,
without environmental aims underpinning their design, causal pathways would not be
clear. Secondly, within the present scoping review, only one database was searched, which
was Scopus. This database was judged to be the most appropriate because it is a large
database, which we found to cover the largest number of recent and relevant citations
for the purpose of this review during our review design process. Further, we explored
the degree to which using an additional database resulted in further papers and did not
find that this was warranted in this scoping review (non-appreciable difference in the
number of overall papers identified). We are aware that our scoping review methodology
did not identify interventions that may have been tested outside of academia (e.g., school-
led interventions) or that have not yet been formally evaluated. As such, the literature
regarding the evaluation of these interventions may not be available. We would expect this
to change in the coming years given the increased emphasis on combating the negative
effects of climate change and promoting the sustainability of food systems.

5. Conclusions
There is still work that needs to be performed to strengthen the environmental sustain-
ability of school food systems across the world. This review highlights key areas that could
be built upon, which were shown to be successful on a small scale. These interventions
could have the potential to positively impact the wider food system, if scaled up. The
majority of papers published in this area were published in the last five years, emphasising
the increasing interest and growth of research around environmentally sustainable school
food. There are various implications for future research or practice that have emerged from
this scoping review. Overall, there needs to be agreement on how to measure the impact of
interventions aiming to promote the environmental sustainability of school food systems.
In terms of study design, there is a need for more controlled studies on effectiveness to tease
out the longer-term impacts against comparator schools and to disentangle the potential
impact of being involved in research. For research on school gardens, there is a need for
focus on the environmental impact of these and the potential success of integrating them
within the wider school curriculum.
Currently, many school-based interventions focus on dietary health. However, the
addition of initiatives aiming to improve planetary health in schools, alongside dietary
initiatives, may have the potential to shape future ‘norms’ of food behaviours, encouraging
children to consider what is best for the individual as well as the environment around
them.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.B., G.G., W.B. and M.S.; methodology, G.G., W.B., M.S.
and M.B.; writing—original draft preparation, G.G., W.B. and M.S.; writing—review and editing,
G.G., W.B. and MB. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work is supported by the FixOurFood programme (BB/V004581/1) funded by the UK
Research and Innovation (UKRI) Transforming Food Systems Programme https://www.ukri.org/
news/healthier-food-healthier-planet-transforming-food-systems, accessed on 17 May 2023.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5916 15 of 17

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Crippa, M.; Solazzo, E.; Guizzardi, D.; Monforti-Ferrario, F.; Tubiello, F.N.; Leip, A. Food systems are responsible for a third of
global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 198–209. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. United Nations. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2022.
3. Nguyen, H. Sustainable Food Systems: Concept and Framework; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2018.
4. Nathan, N.; Janssen, L.; Sutherland, R.; Hodder, R.K.; Evans, C.E.L.; Booth, D.; Yoong, S.L.; Reilly, K.; Finch, M.; Wolfenden, L. The
effectiveness of lunchbox interventions on improving the foods and beverages packed and consumed by children at centre-based
care or school: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2019, 16, 38. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Metcalfe, J.J.; Ellison, B.; Hamdi, N.; Richardson, R.; Prescott, M.P. A systematic review of school meal nudge interventions to
improve youth food behaviors. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020, 17, 77. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. O’Brien, K.M.; Barnes, C.; Yoong, S.; Campbell, E.; Wyse, R.; Delaney, T.; Brown, A.; Stacey, F.; Davies, L.; Lorien, S.; et al.
School-Based Nutrition Interventions in Children Aged 6 to 18 Years: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews. Nutrients 2021,
13, 4113. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Evans, C.E.; Christian, M.S.; Cleghorn, C.L.; Greenwood, D.C.; Cade, J.E. Systematic review and meta-analysis of school-based
interventions to improve daily fruit and vegetable intake in children aged 5 to 12 y. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2012, 96, 889–901. [CrossRef]
8. Rojas-Downing, M.M.; Nejadhashemi, A.P.; Harrigan, T.; Woznicki, S.A. Climate change and livestock: Impacts, adaptation, and
mitigation. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017, 16, 145–163. [CrossRef]
9. Van Dooren, C.; Marinussen, M.; Blonk, H.; Aiking, H.; Vellinga, P. Exploring dietary guidelines based on ecological and
nutritional values: A comparison of six dietary patterns. Food Policy 2014, 44, 36–46. [CrossRef]
10. Vanham, D.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Bidoglio, G. Potential water saving through changes in European diets. Environ. Int. 2013, 61, 45–56.
[CrossRef]
11. Corrado, S.; Luzzani, G.; Trevisan, M.; Lamastra, L. Contribution of different life cycle stages to the greenhouse gas emissions
associated with three balanced dietary patterns. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 660, 622–630. [CrossRef]
12. González-García, S.; González-García, R.; González Vázquez, L.; Moreira, M.T.; Leis, R. Tracking the environmental footprints of
institutional restaurant service in nursery schools. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138939. [CrossRef]
13. Wickramasinghe, K.; Rayner, M.; Goldacre, M.; Townsend, N.; Scarborough, P. Environmental and nutrition impact of achieving
new School Food Plan recommendations in the primary school meals sector in England. BMJ Open 2017, 7, e013840. [CrossRef]
14. De Laurentiis, V.; Hunt, D.V.L.; Rogers, C.D.F. Contribution of school meals to climate change and water use in England. Energy
Procedia 2017, 123, 204–211. [CrossRef]
15. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global Food Losses and Food Waste; Extent, Causes and Prevention; Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2011.
16. Pancino, B.; Cicatiello, C.; Falasconi, L.; Boschini, M. School canteens and the food waste challenge: Which public initiatives can
help? Waste Manag. Res. 2021, 39, 1090–1100. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Eriksson, M.; Persson Osowski, C.; Malefors, C.; Björkman, J.; Eriksson, E. Quantification of food waste in public catering
services—A case study from a Swedish municipality. Waste Manag. 2017, 61, 415–422. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Boschini, M.; Falasconi, L.; Cicatiello, C.; Franco, S. Why the waste? A large-scale study on the causes of food waste at school
canteens. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 246, 118994. [CrossRef]
19. Steen, H.; Malefors, C.; Röös, E.; Eriksson, M. Identification and modelling of risk factors for food waste generation in school and
pre-school catering units. Waste Manag. 2018, 77, 172–184. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Derqui, B.; Grimaldi, D.; Fernandez, V. Building and managing sustainable schools: The case of food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,
243, 118533. [CrossRef]
21. Van Passel, S. Food miles to assess sustainability: A revision. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 21, 1–17. [CrossRef]
22. Parmer, S.M.; Salisbury-Glennon, J.; Shannon, D.; Struempler, B. School Gardens: An Experiential Learning Approach for a
Nutrition Education Program to Increase Fruit and Vegetable Knowledge, Preference, and Consumption among Second-grade
Students. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2009, 41, 212–217. [CrossRef]
23. Morgan, P.J.; Warren, J.M.; Lubans, D.R.; Saunders, K.L.; Quick, G.I.; Collins, C.E. The impact of nutrition education with and
without a school garden on knowledge, vegetable intake and preferences and quality of school life among primary-school
students. Public Health Nutr. 2010, 13, 1931–1940. [CrossRef]
24. Prescott, M.P.; Cleary, R.; Bonanno, A.; Costanigro, M.; Jablonski, B.B.R.; Long, A.B. Farm to School Activities and Student
Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Adv. Nutr. 2020, 11, 357–374. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005, 8, 19–32.
[CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5916 16 of 17

26. Ribal, J.; Fenollosa, M.L.; García-Segovia, P.; Clemente, G.; Escobar, N.; Sanjuán, N. Designing healthy, climate friendly and
affordable school lunches. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 631–645. [CrossRef]
27. Perez-Neira, D.; Simón, X.; Copena, D. Agroecological public policies to mitigate climate change: Public food procurement for
school canteens in the municipality of Ames (Galicia, Spain). Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 45, 1528–1553. [CrossRef]
28. Martinez, S.; Delgado, M.d.M.; Marin, R.M.; Alvarez, S. Carbon footprint of school lunch menus adhering to the Spanish dietary
guidelines. Carbon Manag. 2020, 11, 427–439. [CrossRef]
29. Batlle-Bayer, L.; Bala, A.; Aldaco, R.; Vidal-Monés, B.; Colomé, R.; Fullana, I.P.P. An explorative assessment of environmental and
nutritional benefits of introducing low-carbon meals to Barcelona schools. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 756, 143879. [CrossRef]
30. Antón-Peset, A.; Fernandez-Zamudio, M.A.; Pina, T. Promoting food waste reduction at primary schools. A case study.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 600. [CrossRef]
31. Vidal-Mones, B.; Diaz-Ruiz, R.; Gil, J.M. From evaluation to action: Testing nudging strategies to prevent food waste in school
canteens. Waste Manag 2022, 140, 90–99. [CrossRef]
32. Malefors, C.; Sundin, N.; Tromp, M.; Eriksson, M. Testing interventions to reduce food waste in school catering. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2022, 177, 105997. [CrossRef]
33. Colombo, P.; Elinder, L.S.; Patterson, E.; Parlesak, A.; Lindroos, A.K.; Andermo, S. Barriers and facilitators to successful
implementation of sustainable school meals: A qualitative study of the OPTIMAT™-intervention. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act.
2021, 18, 89. [CrossRef]
34. Colombo, P.; Patterson, E.; Lindroos, A.K.; Parlesak, A.; Elinder, L. Sustainable and acceptable school meals through optimization
analysis: An intervention study. Nutr. J. 2020, 19, 61. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Elinder, L.S.; Colombo, P.E.; Patterson, E.; Parlesak, A.; Lindroos, A.K. Successful implementation of climate-friendly, nutritious,
and acceptable school meals in practice: The optimat™ intervention study. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8475. [CrossRef]
36. Poinsot, R.; Vieux, F.; Maillot, M.; Darmon, N. Number of meal components, nutritional guidelines, vegetarian meals, avoiding
ruminant meat: What is the best trade-off for improving school meal sustainability? Eur. J. Nutr. 2022, 61, 3003–3018. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
37. Rigal, N.; Courcoux, P.; Cardinal, M.; Huc, M.L.; Beraud, A. Plate waste increases with the number of foods proposed: An
exploratory experimental study in adolescents’ school canteens. Appetite 2022, 178, 106005. [CrossRef]
38. Orme, J.; Jones, M.; Kimberlee, R.; Salmon, D.; Weitkamp, E.; Dailami, N. Food for Life Partnership Evaluation: Full Report; University
of Cardiff: Cardiff, UK; University of the West of England: Bristol, UK, 2010.
39. Jones, M.; Dailami, N.; Weitkamp, E.; Salmon, D.; Kimberlee, R.; Morley, A.; Orme, J. Food sustainability education as a route to
healthier eating: Evaluation of a multi-component school programme in English primary schools. Health Educ. Res. 2012, 27,
448–458. [CrossRef]
40. Lombardini, C.; Lankoski, L. Forced Choice Restriction in Promoting Sustainable Food Consumption: Intended and Unintended
Effects of the Mandatory Vegetarian Day in Helsinki Schools. J. Consum. Policy 2013, 36, 159–178. [CrossRef]
41. Thorsen, A.V.; Lassen, A.D.; Andersen, E.W.; Christensen, L.M.; Biltoft-Jensen, A.; Andersen, R.; Damsgaard, C.T.; Michaelsen,
K.F.; Tetens, I. Plate waste and intake of school lunch based on the new Nordic diet and on packed lunches: A randomised
controlled trial in 8- to 11-year-old Danish children. J. Nutr. Sci. 2015, 4, e20. [CrossRef]
42. Cramer, S.E.; Ball, A.L.; Hendrickson, M.K. “Our school system is trying to be agrarian”: Educating for reskilling and food system
transformation in the rural school garden. Agric. Hum. Values 2019, 36, 507–519. [CrossRef]
43. Goldberg, J.P.; Folta, S.C.; Eliasziw, M.; Koch-Weser, S.; Economos, C.D.; Hubbard, K.L.; Tanskey, L.A.; Wright, C.M.; Must, A.
Great Taste, Less Waste: A cluster-randomized trial using a communications campaign to improve the quality of foods brought
from home to school by elementary school children. Prev. Med. 2015, 74, 103–110. [CrossRef]
44. Hamerschlag, K.; Kraus-Polk, J. Shrinking the Carbon and Water Footprint of School Food: A Recipe for Combating Climate Change;
Friends of the Earth: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017.
45. Blondin, S.A.; Cash, S.B.; Griffin, T.S.; Goldberg, J.P.; Economos, C.D. Meatless Monday National School Meal Program Evaluation:
Impact on Nutrition, Cost, and Sustainability. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr. 2022, 17, 1–13. [CrossRef]
46. Ferguson, B.G.; Morales, H.; Chung, K.; Nigh, R. Scaling out agroecology from the school garden: The importance of culture,
food, and place. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 43, 724–743. [CrossRef]
47. Boulet, M.; Grant, W.; Hoek, A.; Raven, R. Influencing across multiple levels: The positive effect of a school-based intervention on
food waste and household behaviours. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 308. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Vidal, G.M.; Veiros, M.B.; de Sousa, A.A. School menus in Santa Catarina: Evaluation with respect to the national school food
program regulations. Rev. Nutr. 2015, 28, 277–287. [CrossRef]
49. Lochner, J.; Rieckmann, M.; Robischon, M. (Un)expected Learning Outcomes of Virtual School Garden Exchanges in the Field of
Education for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5758. [CrossRef]
50. Elnakib, S.A.; Quick, V.; Mendez, M.; Downs, S.; Wackowski, O.A.; Robson, M.G. Food Waste in Schools: A Pre-/Post-test Study
Design Examining the Impact of a Food Service Training Intervention to Reduce Food Waste. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
2021, 18, 6389. [CrossRef]
51. Sherry, J.; Tivona, S. Reducing the environmental impact of food service in universities using life cycle assessment. Int. J. Sustain.
High. Educ. 2022, 23, 1469–1481. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5916 17 of 17

52. Brink, E.; van Rossum, C.; Postma-Smeets, A.; Stafleu, A.; Wolvers, D.; van Dooren, C.; Toxopeus, I.; Buurma-Rethans, E.; Geurts,
M.; Ocké, M. Development of healthy and sustainable food-based dietary guidelines for the Netherlands. Public Health Nutr.
2019, 22, 2419–2435. [CrossRef]
53. Pagliarino, E.; Santanera, E.; Falavigna, G. Opportunities for and Limits to Cooperation between School and Families in
Sustainable Public Food Procurement. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8808. [CrossRef]
54. Fraj-Andrés, E.; Herrando, C.; Lucia-Palacios, L.; Pérez-López, R. Informative initiatives as a useful tool to raise awareness of
food waste. An application to higher education. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2023, 24, 840–858. [CrossRef]
55. Stöckli, S.; Niklaus, E.; Dorn, M. Call for testing interventions to prevent consumer food waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 136,
445–462. [CrossRef]
56. Chan, C.L.; Tan, P.Y.; Gong, Y.Y. Evaluating the impacts of school garden-based programmes on diet and nutrition-related
knowledge, attitudes and practices among the school children: A systematic review. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 1251. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
57. Kumar, P.; Sahani, J.; Rawat, N.; Debele, S.; Tiwari, A.; Mendes Emygdio, A.P.; Abhijith, K.V.; Kukadia, V.; Holmes, K.; Pfautsch, S.
Using empirical science education in schools to improve climate change literacy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2023, 178, 113232.
[CrossRef]
58. Mongar, K. The impacts of environmental science on Bhutanese students’ environmental sustainability competences. Aust. J.
Environ. Educ. 2023, 1–15. [CrossRef]
59. Aruta, J.J.B.R. Science literacy promotes energy conservation behaviors in Filipino youth via climate change knowledge efficacy:
Evidence from PISA 2018. Aust. J. Environ. Educ. 2023, 39, 55–66. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.