1. Introduction

The global food system has never been under such stress, with the mandate of feeding a growing population and fighting to keep its colossal environmental footprint in check. Out of this paradox lies the failure of the system present in food wastage. Approximately one-third of all the food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted annually (Losses & Waste—Extent, 2011). This waste is also followed by extensive food insecurity and malnutrition problems, thus rendering it a moral, economic, and environmental imperative to cut down on it (FAO, 2011). Public sectors like schools, universities, hospitals, and government canteens are the big guns contributing to the problem, generating unimaginable levels of avoidable food waste through their bulk catering practices (Donini et al., 2013). While these institutions have a unique and powerful role to play in public health nutrition, they are not merely food dispensers. They are sites of nutritional education, healthy eating models, and safeguarding for at-risk groups (Story et al., 2009). School meals are an integral part of a child's daily life, and hospital food is part of patient wellbeing and recovery.

Historically, both initiatives to reduce food loss and initiatives to improve nutritional health have operated in separate silos. However, mounting evidence suggests that there is an inherent overlap between the two goals. Interventions aimed at reducing waste can, as a primary effect or as a secondary consequence, have a significant influence on the nutritional content of food offered and eaten (Cook et al., 2023). For instance, reforming procurement to exclude over-ordering of perishable items may involve providing fresher, nutrient-dense ingredients. Similarly, anti-waste education campaigns are also good for food appreciation and nutrition classes.

This review study aims to systematically scrutinize this overlap. It will meta-analyze published literature to answer the following questions: What are the most effective food waste reduction methods applied in public institutions? How do these strategies directly and indirectly affect nutritional health outcomes for the populations served by these institutions? And what are the synergies and trade-offs policymakers need to take into account? By elucidating these connections, this review argues for a holistic approach where reducing waste and enhancing nutrition are pursued as complementary, rather than oppositional, objectives under public food purchasing policy.

2. Methodology

2.1 Search Strategy and Data Sources

Systematic literature searching from peer-reviewed literature using electronic databases like PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted. A combination of keywords and MeSH terms for: ("food waste" OR "plate waste" OR "food loss") AND ("public institution" OR "school" OR "university" OR "hospital" OR "cafeteria") AND ("nutrition" OR "diet quality" OR "healthy eating" OR "public health") AND ("intervention" OR "strateg*" OR "policy"). The search was limited to articles from 2000 to 2023 in the English language.

2.2 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies had to meet the following inclusion criteria: (1) describe an intervention with primary aim to minimize food wastage in a public institutional setting; (2) measure and report qualitative or quantitative data on food wastage outcomes; (3) report primary or secondary data on nutritional outcomes (e.g., intake of specific groups of foods, nutrient quality, meal quality scores, or qualitative evaluation of food); and (4) be original research articles, review articles, or case studies. Excluded from analysis were studies that included only waste with no public institution component, or domestic/retail waste with no nutritional component.

2.3 The Size and Extent of Public Institution Food Waste

Public institutions are significant generators of wastage in food, the outcome of the complex interplay between operational logistics, regulatory processes, and consumer behavior. The challenge of mass catering—cooking thousands of meals a day to stringent schedules and cost constraints—has a tendency to lead to over-production as a buffer against uncertainty in turnout or take-up (Silvennoinen et al., 2015; Schanes et al., 2018). This is further compounded by rigorous food safety regulations that usually lead to the wastage of uneaten yet safe food and leftover prepared foods for a specified duration. Perhaps the most persistent stimulus is expected consumer rejection of the very foods that are central to a healthy diet. This is particularly the case in schools. Consistently, research shows that school plate waste is disproportionately high among the very foods on which a healthy diet relies: fruits, vegetables, and whole grains (Zonneveld et al., 2018). This is a cruel irony with public health initiatives promoting these foods that are faced with the reality of their rampant wastage. Placing a number to it, Heiges et al. (2020) approximated that United States school meal programs wastefully use up approximately 30% of all food served, a colossal load of nutrients intended to support child growth and learning.

The problem extends beyond the classroom. In healthcare environments, patient status uniquely defines the dynamics of wastage. Anorexia caused by illness, altered taste and food preferences, drug side effects, and consumption of specially prepared therapeutic diets unknown or unacceptable to patients leads to abnormally high rates of patient plate wastage. Dikmen (2023) indicated that hospital waste is consistently greater than 40% of food served, with direct consequences for patient nutrition and healing. At the same time, university and corporate dining cafeterias tend to follow an all-you-can-eat or buffet style, and this presents an added challenge. Such environments tend to suffer from both excess production by kitchen personnel expecting strong demand and excess provision by consumers who overestimate their appetite, resulting in great plate waste (Thiagarajah & Getty, 2013). In all of these environments, food waste is more than waste of resources; it is a fundamental failure in the public health mission of the institutions, the destruction of necessary nutrients intended to go to populations—students, patients, workers—often subsisting on institutional meals for most of their daily nutritional requirements (Thyberg & Tonjes, 2016).

3. Intervention Strategies for Food Waste Reduction

One systematic approach to combating food waste is to target specific stages of the food service cycle, from planning to leftovers. Interventions can be categorized into an orderly sequence, each step augmenting what the preceding one has learned (Figure 1).

3.1 Measurement, Auditing, and Benchmarking

The initial, and crucial, step to any successful waste minimization program is careful measurement. The management slogan "what gets measured gets managed" applies with great appropriateness in this case. Conducting detailed waste audits, which involve the systematic sorting, classifying, and weighing of food waste by category (vegetables, proteins, starches) and origin (kitchen prep waste, consumer plate waste), is essential (Conrad et al., 2018). This step is more than an anecdotal report to provide a quantitative benchmark, revealing specific waste "hotspots"—such as knowing that 50% of presented broccoli is routinely discarded. Nutritionally, this data is worth its weight in gold. It transforms garbage from an undefined problem into a definable one, pinpointing precisely which healthy foods are being avoided. This allows kitchen and nutrition staff to transcend the point of just removing unpopular foods, compromising diet quality, and instead resort to tailored interventions like recipe reformulation, better preparation techniques, or education to enhance the acceptance of those precise healthy foods (Brennan & Browne, 2021; Conrad & Blackstone, 2021).

3.2 Menu Planning, Procurement, and Sourcing

Armed with outcomes from waste audits, institutions can implement strategic changes at the beginning of the food cycle. Flexible Menu Planning involves using audit intelligence to realign offerings. For example, if audit results show high waste for steamed carrots but very little waste for roasted carrot soup, menus can be changed to include the preferred preparation more frequently. This also includes creatively integrating frequently wasted foods into other dishes, for example, adding leftover vegetables to soups, stir-fries, or casseroles, both reducing waste and enhancing the nutrient quality of other dishes (Cook et al., 2023). Procurement Shifts are a powerful lever. Sourcing locally and seasonally can reduce the supply chain, resulting in fresher-tasting, more flavorful products that are more likely to be purchased by customers (Payán et al., 2020). Moreover, acceptance of "ugly" crops—plums and carrots that are nutritionally complete but oddly shaped or pigmented—can reduce loss upstream at the farm stage and equally provides the same nutritional value at a reduced price, allowing budgets to be reallocated to other quality enhancements. Recipe Reformulation is the final of the leading strategies, which entails reformulating recipes, preparation methods, spices, and presentation to render wholesome but often discarded foods appealing and acceptable.

3.3 Portioning and Service Modalities

Food presentation and portioning contribute significantly to consumption and waste. Offer vs. Serve (OVS), a policy that was mandatory in the US National School Lunch Programs, is highly successful. OVS allows students to decline one or more parts of the meal that they will not consume, allowing choice and significantly reducing forced disposal of unwanted parts (Richardson, 2022). The debate surrounding Pre-portioned vs. Self-Serve styles is multifaceted. While pre-plated foods can generate wastage should the portion be too large, self-serve modes like family-style service or buffets allow guests to serve amounts of food that suit their level of hunger, usually keeping plate wastage low (Hanks et al., 2014). However, buffet liberty has to be tightly managed to prevent over-service. "Smarter" Lunchroom strategies use the lessons of behavioral economics to "nudge" the consumer in a good direction without restricting choice. Minor, low-cost changes—such as leaving fruit in appealing bowls at checkout lines, naming vegetable items with descriptive and appealing labels ("X-Ray Vision Carrots"), or positioning healthier choices more highly and accessibly—have been found to increase choice and consumption of these foods without creating excess waste (Wansink, 2018).

3.4 Redistribution, Recycling, and Valorization

For unavoidable food waste, the focus shifts to management that seeks to deliver maximum social and environmental benefit. Redistribution involves finding arrangements with local food banks or charities to give away surplus, safe-to-consume food. This addresses food insecurity in communities directly, creating a vital link between institutional reduction of waste and public health nutrition for high-risk populations (Bazerghi et al., 2016). When food is too spoiled to be consumed by human beings, Recycling and Valorization step in. Composting of organic waste returns valuable nutrients to the soil to promote agricultural sustainability. Anaerobic digestion converts food waste into biogas, a clean energy source. These activities complete the nutrient cycle, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from landfills, and promote overall environmental well-being, which is a root determinant of long-term public health. Figure 1 summarizes the food waste reduction intervention framework.

4. The Interface between Food Waste Avoidance and Nutritional Health

The relationship between food waste avoidance actions and nutritional health outcomes is no accident; it is interwoven in a sequence of direct and indirect connections. A conceptual model, as outlined in Table 1 and Figure 2, helps map these complex relationships and demonstrates how waste avoidance interventions have the potential to drive a virtuous cycle through enhanced public health nutrition. This framework appears beyond taking into account these goals as solo, unveiling instead how they can be synergistically integrated in public institutions' food policies.

4.1 Direct Effects on Intake and Quality of Meals

The most straightforward and evidence-based relationship between nutrition and waste decrease is the direct influence on intake. When an intervention reduces the wastage of a given healthy food effectively, by definition, its consumption increases. For instance, where the data from waste audits can be used by a school to decide that plain steamed broccoli is constantly being sent to waste, then take action by roasting it with spices or incorporating it into a popular pasta dish, the resulting decrease in broccoli waste can be specifically attributed to enhanced student consumption of fiber, vitamin C, vitamin K, and folate (Cook et al., 2023). These are not the secondary effects but the immediate nutritional impact of the waste-reduction policy. Similarly, "smarter lunchroom" nudges are specifically designed to alter consumer behavior. Strategies like presenting fruit in attractive bowls or naming vegetable offerings with creative and evocative labels (such as "Superpower Spinach") have been found experimentally to promote the selection and consumption of the desired healthy foods directly without an accompanying increase in waste, thereby improving the aggregate health quality of the meal (Wansink et al., 2012; Marcano-Olivier et al., 2019). In this direct channel, waste reduction is equivalent to motivating individuals to eat healthier food.

4.2 Indirect Impacts

Apart from direct consumption, waste reduction initiatives trigger a series of indirect effects that play a critical role in influencing nutritional well-being. Financial savings gained due to reduced food losses form a robust indirect accelerator to improve nutrition. Money that was spent on food that ended up in the garbage can be invested back into the food program. Resources that are released in this manner can be invested in purchasing ingredients of better quality, such as organic produce and vegetables, sustainably produced proteins, or whole-grain products, which may have a higher nutritional profile or be free of additives (McCarthy & Liu, 2017). Alternatively, savings may be used to invest in trained culinary staff who would transform the wholesome ingredients into a more acceptable and palatable form, thereby confronting the ultimate cause of consumer rejection. This economic investment creates a self-generating cycle in which waste reduction is spearheading additional improvement of meal quality and acceptability.

Food waste reduction initiatives present an engaging and authentic environment for nutrition education. When students participate in waste audits, school garden projects, or composting programs, they are engaging in experiential learning that builds critical food literacy. This is understanding where food is originating from, its social and environmental cost, its nutritional value, and the capability of preparing it. This experiential engagement fosters greater food appreciation and can lead to the development of lifelong, healthier eating habits far beyond the school cafeteria (Alattar et al., 2020). The education campaign against waste is thus a valid public health nutrition intervention.

While the link may seem distal, the environmental returns through reduction in waste create a foundation for long-term nutritional health. By diverting organic waste away from landfills, organizations are keeping methane emissions out of the atmosphere, a highly potent greenhouse gas. By composting, they are contributing to the development of healthy soils, which, in turn, is essential for sustainable food production. The healthier, more resilient environment is the key to a resilient food system that can provide nutritious food to future generations (Willett et al., 2019; Coleman et al., 2021; Tulloch et al., 2023). Therefore, environmental sustainability as a consequence of waste minimization is strongly related to the success of public health nutrition for all.

5. Analysis of Outcomes: Synergies and Trade-offs

Even if the synergic potential is tremendous, sensitive analysis demonstrates that the synergy between reduced waste and improved nutrition is not conflict-free. A careful understanding of these synergies and trade-offs, illustrated in Table 2, is essential to designing successful and well-balanced policies.

5.1 Evidence of Improved Nutritional Outcomes

There is now considerable empirical evidence to demonstrate that two objectives are successfully achieved. In educational settings, multi-component interventions have been very successful. For example, Rosário et al. (2016) documented a program combining chef-led recipe creation to make vegetables more palatable with "smarter lunchroom" presentation techniques. This dual approach was associated with a strong boost in vegetable intake accompanied by a dramatic cut in vegetable waste, indicating clear synergy. In the healthcare sector, the introduction of hotel-style room service models has revolutionized patient meal delivery. By allowing patients to select among a list of appetizing foods at the patient's preferred time of eating, these systems respect patient appetite and autonomy (Smith & Cunningham-Sabo, 2014). Evidence proves this model reduces plate waste considerably while simultaneously improving patient satisfaction and, more importantly, increasing caloric and protein intake, critical to recovery and malnutrition risk prevention (McCray et al., 2018). These cases offer compelling evidence that well-designed interventions can achieve environmental and health goals effectively.

5.2 Potential Risks and Mitigation Measures

The key risk is the threat of wrong incentives. A narrowly framed policy that aims only to reduce waste kilograms, without regard for nutritional outcomes, could have perverse incentives. For instance, it can result in offering smaller, nutritionally depleted servings or consistently offering only popular, lower-nutrient foods (e.g., pizza, french fries) that will certainly be consumed to avoid waste but at the expense of diet quality (Garcia et al., 2017). This trade-off is a particular ethical issue in facilities serving low-income individuals who largely depend on institutional food as a primary source of nutrition. The design mitigation strategy for this risk is the deliberate planning of policies. Waste reduction targets must be embedded in, and secondary to, firm nutritional standards. Portion size guidelines must ensure meals have a minimum number of calories and nutrients, and policies like "Offer vs. Serve" can be structured so that they mandate including a fruit or vegetable. Finally, the goal should be to reduce waste in the form of increased consumption of healthier foods instead of reduced availability of them. Effective mitigation is through continuous monitoring of waste streams and nutritional adequacy to ensure that one is not sacrificed for the good of the other.

5.3 Limitations of the Current Evidence Base

While the synthesized evidence testifies to strong dynamic synergies, the field is in its infancy and characterized by several major limitations that must temper the interpretation of results. One of the most important limitations is the preponderance of short-term pilot trials. Interventions are often conducted over weeks or months in an effort to show efficacy, yet long-term maintenance of both waste reduction and nutrition gains is slimly well-validated. It is unclear whether gains are maintained after research funding has stopped, or novelty wears off, or whether organizations can maintain frequently time-consuming audit and intervention processes independently.

Further, the evidence base is hampered by a more pronounced geographical and institutional skew. The vast majority of studies published are from high-income countries—most notably the European Union and the United States—where finance, research infrastructure, and policy focus on sustainability are strong. This limits the extension of findings to low- and middle-income countries, where public institutions may face very different levels of resources, infrastructure environments, and nutrition priorities. Even in high-income settings, research is highly focused on schools and universities, with much less attention paid to other important institutions like prisons, military barracks, and long-term care facilities that serve captive populations with special nutrition needs. Lastly, one important methodological problem still lingers in the precise measurement of nutritional impact. While measuring waste by weight or volume is normed, actually observing accompanying changes in per capita intake of nutrients (i.e., micronutrient values) per consuming individual is complex and often indirectly gauged on surrogates instead of directly measurable, hence a gap exists in good nutritional result data.

6. Discussion

This systematic review demonstrates that food waste reduction in public institutions is not merely an operational or environmental challenge, but one intimately connected to public health nutrition. The findings reveal a growing body of evidence that interventions designed to reduce institutional food waste frequently deliver nutritional benefits, either directly through improved consumption of healthy foods or indirectly via economic savings, food literacy, and environmental sustainability. Schools, hospitals, universities, and other institutional food environments represent critical arenas where food waste and nutrition intersect, given their dual mandate to provide meals and safeguard the health of populations who often rely heavily on these services.

At a fundamental level, this review highlights that effective waste reduction is inseparable from the quality of the food consumed. Strategies such as menu reformulation, portion control, “smarter” lunchroom interventions, and patient-centered service models reveal that waste is reduced most sustainably when foods become more acceptable, accessible, and nutritious. In schools, interventions that combine behavioral nudges with chef-led recipe innovations have reduced plate waste while increasing fruit and vegetable intake. Similarly, in hospitals, patient choice models have both decreased waste and enhanced intake of energy and protein, essential for recovery. These findings strengthen the argument that food waste reduction and nutrition promotion should not be pursued in isolation but designed as mutually reinforcing goals.

Nevertheless, the synergies uncovered are tempered by important trade-offs and risks. A narrow policy emphasis on minimizing waste without attention to dietary standards may incentivize serving only popular, energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods. In institutions serving vulnerable groups, this could exacerbate health inequities by diminishing access to nutrient-rich meals. Therefore, institutional policies must embed waste reduction goals within established nutritional frameworks to ensure that efficiency gains do not undermine health outcomes. Tools such as continuous monitoring of nutrient adequacy, portion size standards, and structured choice frameworks (e.g., Offer vs. Serve) provide safeguards against this risk.

The review also identifies gaps in the evidence base. Most interventions remain short-term and localized, often piloted in schools and universities within high-income countries. This limits insights into long-term sustainability and applicability across diverse cultural and institutional contexts. Public institutions in low- and middle-income countries—where food insecurity and malnutrition burdens are more severe—remain underrepresented in the literature despite having potentially greater need for integrated solutions. Furthermore, methodological challenges persist in precisely quantifying nutritional outcomes; while food waste reductions are typically measured in weight or volume, nutrient intake changes are harder to assess and are frequently inferred rather than directly measured. Addressing these methodological gaps is essential for producing robust, generalizable evidence.

Taken together, the results of this review point toward a conceptual reframing: food waste reduction should not be seen as an environmental add-on to nutrition programs, nor should nutrition be seen as a by-product of waste initiatives. Instead, public food policies should adopt an integrated approach where waste avoidance and dietary quality are treated as co-dependent objectives. This reframing aligns with broader goals of sustainable development and One Health by simultaneously advancing environmental protection, economic efficiency, and population health.

Moving forward, three priorities emerge for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners. First, interventions should be designed with built-in nutritional safeguards, ensuring that reduced waste reflects increased consumption of healthy foods rather than diminished provision. Second, more long-term and geographically diverse studies are needed to evaluate the sustainability and transferability of successful models. Third, public institutions must be recognized not only as sites of service delivery but also as platforms for nutrition education, community engagement, and systems innovation.

6.1 Future Research Directions

To address these and move the field forward, future research needs to take some crucial directions. First, multiyear longitudinal studies that track intervention outcomes and their stability and the determinants of long-term success are urgently needed. With more intensive, randomized controlled trial (RCT) designs, which are logistically challenging in real-world settings, causal evidence for associations between interventions and outcomes would be greatly enhanced. Second, active bridging of the institutional and geographical divides is required. Institutional research partnerships in low- and middle-income countries are critical to determine the generalizability and appropriateness of waste-reduction interventions in different settings. Concurrently, the research must be implemented in under-explored settings like prisons and care homes, where there is significant potential for public health impact. Lastly, the field needs to institute and adopt shared, validated measures to measure the two outcomes of decreased waste and enhanced nutrition. This can involve creating a composite index or reporting system that seamlessly integrates waste data (such as per capita grams wasted) with nutrition data (such as intake of significant food groups, nutrient density scores). Finally, follow-up studies should be on the economic analysis of these interventions, carefully deriving cost-benefit ratios and return on investment to provide solid financial case reasons for policymakers and institutional managers to adopt these integrated approaches.

7. Conclusion

This paper amply demonstrates that public health and sustainability agendas in public institutions are not merely complementary but synergistically strong. Public institutions have a dual mandate: prudent stewards of public resources and protectors of population health. The evidence presented here reiterates that proactively reducing food loss is an effective and timely intervention in serving the latter mandate. By removing outdated silos and adopting a systems orientation, food service administrators and policymakers can plan and implement interventions that create a virtuous cycle. The cycle is characterized by the provision of superior-quality, more appealing food being consumed more completely, leaving less waste and better health for children, patients, workers, and the community at large. The way ahead is apparent. Integration of mandatory food waste audits and reduction targets in public food contracts and green agendas, alongside current mandatory nutritional targets, is an achievable and efficient place to begin. This would ensure the issue is measured, managed, and continuously optimized. Lastly, reducing food wastage in our central public facilities is more than an environmental or operational achievement; it is a 21st-century imperative, innovative, and ethically required public health nutrition initiative.

References

Alattar, M. A., DeLaney, J., Morse, J. L., & Nielsen-Pincus, M. (2020). Food waste knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions among university students. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2020.093.004

Bazerghi, C., McKay, F. H., & Dunn, M. (2016). The role of food banks in addressing food insecurity: a systematic review. Journal of community health, 41(4), 732-740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-015-0147-5

Brennan, A., & Browne, S. (2021). Food waste and nutrition quality in the context of public health: A scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(10), 5379. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18105379

Coleman, P. C., Murphy, L., Nyman, M., & Oyebode, O. (2021). Operationalising the EAT–Lancet Commissions' targets to achieve healthy and sustainable diets. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(7), e398-e399. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00144-3

Conrad, Z., Niles, M. T., Neher, D. A., Roy, E. D., Tichenor, N. E., & Jahns, L. (2018). Relationship between food waste, diet quality, and environmental sustainability. PloS one, 13(4), e0195405. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195405

Conrad, Z., & Blackstone, N. T. (2021). Identifying the links between consumer food waste, nutrition, and environmental sustainability: a narrative review. Nutrition Reviews, 79(3), 301-314. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuaa035

Cook, N., Goodwin, D., Porter, J., & Collins, J. (2023). Food and food-related waste management strategies in hospital food services: a systematic review. Nutrition & Dietetics, 80(2), 116-142. https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12768

Dikmen, D. (2023). The Importance of Foodservice to Combat Food Insecurity and Malnutiriton in Older People. Kompass Nutrition & Dietetics, 3(2), 63-65. https://doi.org/10.1159/000534046

Donini, L. M., Scardella, P., Piombo, L., Neri, B., Asprino, R., Proietti, A. R., ... & Morrone, A. (2013). Malnutrition in elderly: social and economic determinants. The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 17(1), 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-012-0374-8

FAO, G. (2011). Global food losses and food waste–Extent, causes and prevention. SAVE FOOD: An initiative on food loss and waste reduction, 9, 2011.

Garcia, A. L., Reardon, R., Hammond, E., Parrett, A., & Gebbie-Diben, A. (2017). Evaluation of the “eat better feel better” cooking programme to tackle barriers to healthy eating. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(4), 380. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14040380

Heiges, J., Lee, D. L., Vollmer, L., Wobbekind, K., Thompson, H. R., Gosliner, W., ... & Ritchie, L. D. (2022). Evaluating food packaging waste in schools: a systematic literature review. International journal of environmental research and public health, 19(9), 5607. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095607

Hanks, A. S., Wansink, B., & Just, D. R. (2014). Reliability and accuracy of real-time visualization techniques for measuring school cafeteria tray waste: validating the quarter-waste method. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 114(3), 470-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2013.08.013

Losses, F. G. F., & Waste—Extent, F. (2011). Causes and Prevention. FAO: Rome, Italy, 1-37.

Marcano-Olivier, M., Pearson, R., Ruparell, A., Horne, P. J., Viktor, S., & Erjavec, M. (2019). A low-cost Behavioural Nudge and choice architecture intervention targeting school lunches increases children’s consumption of fruit: a cluster randomised trial. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 16(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-0773-x

McCarthy, B., & Liu, H. B. (2017). ‘Waste not, want not’ Exploring green consumers’ attitudes towards wasting edible food and actions to tackle food waste. British Food Journal, 119(12), 2519-2531. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-03-2017-0163

McCray, S., Maunder, K., Barsha, L., & Mackenzie-Shalders, K. (2018). Room service in a public hospital improves nutritional intake and increases patient satisfaction while decreasing food waste and cost. Journal of human nutrition and dietetics, 31(6), 734-741. https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.12580

Payán, D. D., Derose, K. P., Flórez, K. R., Branch, C. A., & Williams, M. V. (2020). The food environment in 3 neighborhoods in South Los Angeles, California: access, availability, quality, and marketing practices. Preventing Chronic Disease, 17, E61. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd17.200028

Richardson, S. A. (2022). USDA School Breakfast and Lunch Programs: National Prevalence of Sodium and Saturated Fat Exposure and the Impacts of School Kitchen Infrastructure on School Meal Selection and Consumption (Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University).

Rosário, R., Araújo, A., Padrão, P., Lopes, O., Moreira, A., Abreu, S., ... & Moreira, P. (2016). Impact of a school-based intervention to promote fruit intake: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Public Health, 136, 94-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2016.03.013

Schanes, K., Dobernig, K., & Gözet, B. (2018). Food waste matters-A systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. Journal of cleaner production, 182, 978-991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.030

Silvennoinen, K., Heikkilä, L., Katajajuuri, J. M., & Reinikainen, A. (2015). Food waste volume and origin: Case studies in the Finnish food service sector. Waste management, 46, 140-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.010

Smith, S. L., & Cunningham-Sabo, L. (2014). Food choice, plate waste and nutrient intake of elementary-and middle-school students participating in the US National School Lunch Program. Public health nutrition, 17(6), 1255-1263. doi:10.1017/S1368980013001894

Story, M., Nanney, M. S., & Schwartz, M. B. (2009). Schools and obesity prevention: creating school environments and policies to promote healthy eating and physical activity. The Milbank Quarterly, 87(1), 71-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00548.x

Thiagarajah, K., & Getty, V. M. (2013). Impact on plate waste of switching from a tray to a trayless delivery system in a university dining hall and employee response to the switch. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 113(1), 141-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2012.07.004

Thyberg, K. L., & Tonjes, D. J. (2016). Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 106, 110-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.11.016

Tulloch, A. I., Borthwick, F., Bogueva, D., Eltholth, M., Grech, A., Edgar, D., ... & McNeill, G. (2023). How the EAT–Lancet Commission on food in the Anthropocene influenced discourse and research on food systems: a systematic review covering the first 2 years post-publication. The Lancet Global Health, 11(7), e1125-e1136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00212-7

Wansink, B., Just, D. R., & Payne, C. R. (2012). Can branding improve school lunches?. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 166(10), 967-968. doi:10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.999

Wansink, B. (2018). Household food waste solutions for behavioral economists and marketers. Journal of food products marketing, 24(5), 500-521.

Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., ... & Murray, C. J. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The lancet, 393(10170), 447-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4

Zonneveld, K. L., Neidert, P. L., Dozier, C. L., Gureghian, D. L., & Bayles, M. W. (2019). Assessing factors that influence young children's food preferences and choices. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52(1), 240-257. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.521