Spillover effects are considered important in evaluating the impacts of food, energy and water (FEW) conservation behaviors for limiting global greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Failure to account for all possible spillovers, or indirect and unintended results of an intervention, not only obscures valuable information pertaining to the dynamic interactions across domains but also results in biased estimates. In this study, we first systematically reviewed articles that investigate the idea that the performance of one pro-environmental behavior influences the conduct of subsequent behaviors(s) from the FEW domains. From our review of 48 studies in the last decade, we note that a big part of the discussion on spillover concerns the nature and direction of causal relationships between individual FEW conservation behaviors. We identify a critical gap in the literature regarding the distinction between spillover effects caused by the interventions as distinct from those caused by the primary behaviors. Next, we conducted a quantitative meta-analysis of the reviewed empirical studies to find a modest but overall positive spillover effect. Finally, we reviewed the theoretical and methodological plurality in the FEW spillover literature using a systemic thinking lens to summarize what is already known and identify future challenges and research opportunities with significant policy implications.

The marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages (hereafter: food) high in fats, salt and/or sugar (HFSS) has been strongly implicated in the rising levels of childhood obesity worldwide. Multiple ethical concerns arise from the practice of exposing children to such marketing and efforts to monitor and restrict it through regulatory policies. There is considerable evidence that exposure to powerful food marketing messages affects children's food behaviours in ways that are detrimental to good dietary health. Children are particularly vulnerable to being exploited and deceived by food marketing messages based on their cognitive and developmental immaturity. HFSS food marketing also affects numerous child rights enshrined within the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (of which the UK is a signatory) including the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. The debate has become somewhat polarised between the public health community's evidence-based assertion that all marketing is inherently exploitative and the rebuttal from food and marketing industry stakeholders that provided the marketing is ‘accurate and truthful’ and there is no ethical need to regulate. This polarisation is reflected in the complexity of policymaking decisions regarding the rationale for mandatory government-led policies or industry self-regulation. There are also ethical considerations inherent in the monitoring of children's food marketing exposure, particularly in the digital sphere, by researchers for the purposes of informing policy design, scope and implementation. This review paper will explore the latest evidence on these issues and consider the implications for public health research, policy, and practice.

Judgments of naturalness of foods tend to be more influenced by the process history of a food, rather than its actual constituents. Two types of processing of a “natural” food are to add something or to remove something. We report in this study, based on a large random sample of individuals from six countries (France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, UK and USA) that additives are considered defining features of what makes a food not natural, whereas “subtractives” are almost never mentioned. In support of this, skim milk (with major subtraction of fat) is rated as more natural than whole milk with a small amount of natural vitamin D added. It is also noted that “additives” is a common word, with a synonym reported by a native speaker in 17 of 18 languages, whereas “subtractive” is lexicalized in only 1 of the 18 languages. We consider reasons for additivity dominance, relating it to omission bias, feature positive bias, and notions of purity.

The increasing global demand for livestock products and its large environmental impact ask for urgent policy and managerial strategies. With regard to meat consumption, feasible actions relate to its reduction and orienting consumers toward more sustainable meat choices. The aim of the study is to investigate the determinants affecting meat consumers in their intention to buy beef whose label clearly expresses environmentally friendly characteristics. To do so, we hypothesized to apply an institutional system of ecological labeling on beef products. An extended framework based on the Theory of Planned Behavior was applied to understand the factors affecting the consumer decision-making process toward eco-labeled beef. A survey was conducted with 1139 consumers in Italy. Data were analyzed by means of confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation models. Results highlight that beef consumers are likely to change their habits, in favor of more sustainable beef choices. The analysis highlights that, together with consumer attitudes, social norms and perceived behavioral control, institutional trust and food shopping habits play an important role in activating the consumer's cognitive decision-making process toward more sustainable beef. Results add to the literature on the determinants of green food-choices and introduce new insights on the role of institutional trust in the intention to buy beef labeled with a public standard. Findings highlight that particular attention should be devoted to build trust for public institutions in order to promote sustainable food consumption behavior. Moreover, results validate previous studies on the effectiveness of information-based policies in fostering more sustainable consumption choices.

Changing consumer behaviour has potential benefits for health, the economy and the environment. Change is possible, and behavioural change has been the purpose of much research; nevertheless we can still observe limited success, as in the case of food in public policies or individual diets. One reason is that models driving behavioural change interventions tend to neglect some important contextual factors. The three layers of components that channel behaviour (‘installations’ in the material, embodied and social realms) are described here and how this channelling can be hacked, modified and leveraged to foster behavioural change. Installations scaffold and control individual and collective behaviour at each step of the behavioural path with their three-layered and partly redundant structure. This redundancy makes the channelling resilient enough to train novices and to guide and repair behaviour. The three layers, physical affordances, embodied competences and social regulation are described in detail. To change eating behaviour, installations must be adapted at all steps of behaviour, from procurement to storage, preparation, meal and disposal. This adaptation can be done through the various layers in an opportunistic way, according to the agency of those who endeavour to change behaviour (e.g. budget, time, political power, etc.) Finally the steps necessary to design behavioural change interventions leveraging installations are listed.

Multiple new ant treatment products containing high volumes of sugar have recently been developed specifically for use in ant management programs. The presence of sugar in these products could potentially attract bees, and any such attractancy would likely be fatal given that these products typically contain general insecticides. To determine the risk of such products to bees I present four studies assessing bee attractancy to multiple matrices that are used to make these products. The trials were conducted across multiple years, seasons, and locations, containing various concentrations of sugar in multiple forms, using various experimental setups with many different bee hives, and multiple observers. Not a single bee was attracted to any matrix, nor were bees observed inspecting any matrix, and no bees fed on any matrix, irrespective of whether the matrices were placed close to hives and directly under bee flight paths, or out in areas where bees were feeding. This is in stark contrast to large numbers of bees that were feeding on flowers within the immediate vicinity of all of the matrices in the first two experiments, or flying over the arrays in experiments 3 and 4 travelling to and from other food sources. I present five suggestions for the discrepancy between the trials presented here and the general perception that bees are attracted to sugar. These matrices appear to be acceptable as a basis to make treatment products for broadscale use within ant management programs. However, it should be recognized that bees, and other non-target species, are indeed capable of feeding on these matrices. Therefore vigilance should still be maintained to identify special circumstances where bees may be killed when constituents are added to these matrices that do attract bees, or usage methods can adversely affect bees.